Deregulation Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I think we all agree we need to build more houses and it is part of the puzzle over the last 20 years and more that successive Governments have been committed to doing this and have not been succeeding. Certainly, my own observation in Bradford is that one of the problems is a shortage of skilled labour for building. I am quite happy that the housing association that has its headquarters a good 10 minutes’ walk from my house in Saltaire now has a very good apprentice scheme to train plumbers, builders, electricians and others in sourcing its own maintenance and building. That is a model I hope others are planning to take forward. We are all conscious that we need to build more houses and aware—and this answers one or two of the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Best—that we do not necessarily need to build the houses in the same areas where houses are being sold off as the population is shifting. We have different sorts of housing needs and requirements in different areas. Population has shifted towards the south-east and areas of heavy immigration require more housing than areas without much immigration, which now often have surplus housing stock. I have just been in Hull, for example, which does not suffer from a shortage of housing at present.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked a number of questions. I do not have all the figures to answer him but I will make sure he gets the answers to all his questions as soon as possible, and of course well before Report. I am told by officials that many of the figures which he asks for are publicly available, so there should be no problem in that respect, but I do not have them immediately to hand. I noted his comments about houses that have been sold under right to buy and which are now privately rented. In some parts of England, there are some problems of that sort.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Best, suggested that the discounts were enormous and immediate but the discount scheme, as he knows, is progressive and one gets the higher rates of discount only after renting a house for considerably longer than three, five or 10 years. The longer that someone has been a tenant the more discount they get, starting at 35% discount on a house and increasing by 1% each year to a maximum of 70% of the market value. It is not a short-term renters’ paradise, as I thought he was almost beginning to suggest.

The baseline for right to buy was set in April 2012, when the policy was reinvigorated, and it does not change year by year. I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to keeping this reinvigorated right-to-buy scheme under review, including the impact of the change in the qualifying period from five to three years. The Committee may be interested to read the impact assessments for this clause that were published in January 2014, which is available on the parliamentary website, and in March 2012, at the time of reinvigorating the policy, which provide important context. When this Government reinvigorated the right to buy, they included an important measure guaranteeing for the first time ever that receipts from additional local authority sales—that is, sales above the level forecast prior to the change—would be used to help fund new homes for affordable rent on a one-for-one basis, not a like-for-like basis.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

While it is on my mind, is the test—the baseline—the originally anticipated numbers of sales of units, or is it anticipated sales proceeds?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I think that it is the units rather than the baseline being the proceeds of sales, but I will check with the officials and come back on that.

We publish quarterly and annually on right-to-buy one-for-one starts on-site and acquisitions, so the figures are available. I will make sure that they are circulated and put in the Library. Since the reinvigoration, there have been more than 12,600 additional local authority right-to-buy sales and, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, councils have already reported almost 3,700 starts on-site and acquisitions of replacement homes for affordable rent. Councils have three years from the date of receiving the additional receipts in which to use them. This gives councils adequate time to leverage in additional funds and build up enough receipts to produce robust economies of scale.

The Government also publish annual statistics on preserved right-to-buy sales in England, which strike a balance between the needs to monitor the effectiveness of the policy and not to place unnecessary burdens on housing associations. As housing associations are independent organisations and stock transfer agreements are private commercial contracts, we do not mandate what those associations do with receipts that they receive from preserved right-to-buy sales. In practice, any surplus receipts retained, after costs and compensation for lost rental income, are likely to be used to support new build and other public benefits. Where receipts are shared with councils, it is our expectation that associations will work with them to develop replacement homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stoneham, for their contributions to this debate. I look forward to receiving the figures in due course from the Minister. I was not quite sure whether in his response he was saying that the Government are currently meeting their one-for-one guarantee. It would be helpful to know if that is the Government’s position.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

There is not yet a one-for-one guarantee.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

In which case, when is it expected that the Government will meet that guarantee?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I have not chosen between soon or shortly, but we very much want to move on that. It takes time. As I said, local authorities have three years to replace, and we are already two years into this new scheme. We are, of course, frustrated by the length of time it takes to build new homes. That is part of a long-standing story under successive Governments which we continue to push forward with.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank the Minister for that. I was also not sure whether he had accepted the thrust of my amendment, which was that the Government would produce a report. Could he respond to that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My answer was that the Government already produces a large number of statistics which, in effect, form the basis of the report for which the noble Lord is asking.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I take that as a yes. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. I think we are on the same page in recognising the scale of the housing crisis which faces this country and the need for more social housing in particular, and for a one-for-one replacement policy.

We have debated the issues in the three amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Best, extensively from time to time in recent years. We share with him a strong desire to do more to produce more and better social housing, particularly housing for rent, though we are not able to follow him specifically on every aspect of his three amendments.

Where Amendment 40 is concerned with setting discounts locally, it discusses setting them at a level which will encourage right-to-buy take-up. That raises an interesting question of where the policy should be focused between facilitating and encouraging. Presumably, it would depend on the need for investment into the social housing sector, and there has to be a balance in these matters. I do not resile from my party’s position on managing the country’s overall level of debt. Our priority is not a wholesale lift of the cap.

Notwithstanding that, we should recognise the important role that local councils can and should be enabled to play in tackling the housing crisis—as the Lyons report put it, to return to their historic responsibility to build affordable housing. We note that there is some scope for a rise in output even on the current basis, but that would be modest compared to historic output. In the 1960s, I think that about 200,000 units a year were produced.

We recognise that councils have a long record of sound economic management and borrowing prudently—a point that the noble Lord made—but early removal of the overall cap will be difficult for any Government. The Lyons report recognised that. The report suggested that there is an opportunity to provide additional capacity without exceeding total borrowing if there is more active management from the Treasury of the overall borrowing headroom. Lyons suggests, for example, that councils should be able to apply for more borrowing headroom by demonstrating: a viable business plan and asset management strategy in the context of new contracts for housing delivery and a single pot of funding for housing investment; costed plans for investment in new housing that relate to their housing strategy and make full use of partnership opportunities; that new homes will be additional to those which would be delivered by others; and compliance with prudential rules with expectations about rent levels and reinvestment in their existing stock. The Treasury would be able to make a decision on a case-by-case basis against an understanding of the overall level of borrowing planned, to ensure that total borrowing did not exceed the current provision.

The report also points to the alternative models by which councils can invest in homes—by using land, by entering into joint ventures, by some of the imaginative work which the LGA has done on the municipal bonds agencies. There are other opportunities there, but we cannot go the whole way with the noble Lord in reducing the cap as he wants to.

I hope that debates such as this will continue to help us focus on the absolute need to address the housing crisis across the private sector, the local authority sector and housing associations. I look forward to receiving the Minister’s data in due course; I take it that they will come in the form of the requested report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

For similar reasons, we concur with the amendments that the Minister will move shortly to correct something that, because of a court case, needs challenging. However, our amendment is equally urgent, so I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this clause and the government amendments are here because of the uncertainty and concern caused to landlords and tenants across the private rented sector by the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Superstrike Ltd v Marino Rodrigues. The noble Baroness’s amendment also touches on some of the implications of that case. The decision effectively interpreted the legislation differently from its original intention and contrary to the advice given by successive Governments. It left a large number of landlords at risk of court action and open to a financial penalty, because the tenancy deposit protection requirements must be complied with within a set period. That leaves landlords in an impossible position with no means of complying. The situation is made more complicated by the increase in the number of landlords resident outside the United Kingdom, which means that they are dependent on letting agents to deal with their tenants. Similarly, it has left tenants unclear about the status of their deposits.

The aim of Clause 31 is not to completely reverse the decision made by the Court of Appeal, as it is important that the protection offered to these tenants as a result of the ruling is retained. It gives landlords a grace period to protect those deposits and give the necessary information to the tenant. That applies to landlords who still hold deposits which were taken before the introduction of the tenancy deposit protection legislation for tenancies which rolled over into statutory periodic tenancies after the introduction of the legislation.

The clause will make it clear that where a deposit has been protected, the prescribed information is given to the tenant and the tenancy is subsequently renewed, there is no need for the landlord to keep providing the same information every time the tenancy is renewed. It will also be clear that this has always been the position and will continue to be from now on.

Where legal proceedings are under way at the time the provisions come into force, tenants will be protected from paying their landlords’ relevant legal costs where the court subsequently decides against the tenant in the light of these provisions. We see the provisions as striking the right balance between ensuring that tenants do not suffer financially as a result of the retrospective legislation and ensuring that landlords are not penalised where they have followed government advice. I hope that these changes are accepted as uncontroversial.

Finally, government Amendments 25 to 35 are technical drafting amendments.

The Government agree with the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment but are not sure that it is necessary. We understand that the law as it stands provides that, where the agent holds the deposit, it is sufficient for just the agent’s details to be included in the prescribed information. Article 2(1)(g)(iii) of the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007—I am sure that she knows it by heart—indeed states that,

“the name, address, telephone number, and any e-mail address or fax number of the landlord”,

should be provided. However, Section 212(9)(a) of the Housing Act 2004 explains that any reference in Chapter 4 of Part 6 of the Act—and hence in the 2007 order—to “landlord” in relation to any shorthold tenancy includes a reference to a person acting on his behalf in relation to the tenancy. Clearly, an agent managing the deposit on behalf of the landlord falls within that definition. Paragraph 40 of the regulatory impact assessment that supported the 2007 order covered this point, stating that:

“The person who receives the deposit will need to be the person who is registered with the authorised tenancy deposit scheme. Thus, in instances where the deposit is taken by a letting agent, the landlord’s details will not need to be included in this information”.

This is an issue with the deposit schemes that letting agent bodies have previously raised with the department, and I understand that they still consider the language of the Act and the supporting statutory instrument to be ambiguous. As I have set out above, we do not share that view. Of course, if they are able to provide evidence to the contrary we will consider whether a change to the order could be made to clarify the point, but we do not believe that any change to the primary legislation is required. I have asked officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government to contact the tenancy deposit schemes and letting agent bodies to discuss this further.

I hope with that assurance that the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment. I thank her for the discussions we had before Committee and, if necessary, I am very happy to have further discussions. I commend Amendments 25 to 35 to the Committee.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. Clearly this would not have been brought up and supported by the groups I mentioned if there were not real concerns. They have counsel opinion that differs from that of the Government. Of course, if the Government would like to assure them that should it go to the High Court they will then cover all their costs and those of all landlords, maybe we could accept that. Would he like to make the offer now? Offer came there none.

The groups are doing this day to day—their lawyers have worries and counsel opinion continues to say there is a difficulty that the words “or their agent” do not apply to the instrument. That seems the problem. I also cannot see why this change cannot be made. It would be very easy and would make sure we did not have to go to the High Court to get a ruling. I urge that that meeting takes place before we come to Report, so that I can then consult these good organisations and, if necessary, table an amendment for Report if they are not reassured by the meeting. If it is possible to set that up before Report then I would be happy to withdraw this amendment at this stage. I think the nod means that the meeting will take place before Report. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

25: Clause 31, page 25, line 7, leave out “and”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment but there is not much else left to say, so I shall be brief. Like the noble Lord, Lord Best, we welcome the work on standards and the inclusion of these matters in building regulations. We are grateful to Leonard Cheshire for its very helpful briefing. We welcome the fact that the lifetime homes standards and the wheelchair accessible standards have been recognised in building regulations, but like Leonard Cheshire and noble Lords who have spoken, there is a concern that those standards are optional, and that, moreover, a hurdle has to be gone through for a local planning authority to be able to require those as a planning condition. My noble friend made a telling point about the capacity of local planning authorities to address those issues.

I conclude on one point: this is not only a quality-of-life issue, although it is very important at that level; it has economic ramifications. Unsuitable accommodation means the likelihood of more trips and falls, more visits to the A&E and hospital, and more cost. I hope that the Minister can assure us that there is a way through this process to address the real concerns that have been raised today.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As I came in, I was thinking that I have mixed views on housing standards. I first became aware of housing standards because of Parker Morris, when a number of houses in the Yorkshire dales were being condemned as back-to-earths which were not suitable or up to Parker Morris standards. Nowadays, those houses that remain would be regarded as extremely environmentally friendly and valuable; they were indeed beautiful homes. I once sat in on a violent argument between someone who lived in one of them and a particularly modernist Liberal councillor who believed that the Parker Morris standards were the absolute minimum and that any house that did not meet them should be immediately demolished.

On the other hand, having with my wife delivered to a large number of houses on the other side of the Aire from Saltaire just before the local elections this spring, with road names such as Cliff Rise and Steep Avenue—one house had 41 steps up to the front door—I recognise that accessibility is an issue with new housing. As I was listening to the debate, I reflected that if I wish to get out of bed in the middle of the night, in our house in Saltaire there are 15 steps down to the bathroom, whereas in my house in London there are five steps down to the bathroom, which, for someone approaching middle age, as I am, is much easier. The question of suitable and unsuitable accommodation is one which we all need to be concerned about.

First, this is not a dumbing down. As there is in much of the Bill and much government legislation at present, there is an inherent tension between local autonomy and central direction. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that no Government can ever say that they understand in full the consequences of what they propose. We do our best to conduct impact assessments, but we are never entirely sure where we will be—especially after the High Court has had a go at our provisions in a few years’ time.

The optional requirements are intended to allow local authorities to set higher requirements for development than the building regulations minimum. They are a new concept in building regulations, and we are enabling local authorities, as a condition of granting planning permission, to require a developer to meet a higher building regulation requirement than the national minimum.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Is it not the case, however, that if the local authority wants to do that, it must change its plan and go through the planning process for its local plan? So it is not just a question of a committee of councillors meeting to say, “We will let this go. We want higher standards”. It has to go through the process of changing its public local plan. Does the Minister accept that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That is my understanding, but I am a great deal less expert on this than the noble Lord, so I shall have to consult and write to him if I am mistaken.

The intention is of course to raise standards for new builds. We understand the reasons why there is this strong push for lifetime building standards; we also recognise that that imposes costs and that there are parts of the country—certainly the part of the country in which I live when I am in Yorkshire—where finding a sufficiently large level site on which to build, which is part of the requirements, is not easy. A great deal of housing is therefore not entirely suitable for the high standards which are suggested.

The Government intend to issue planning guidance on matters to be taken into account by local authorities in applying optional requirements, and we are consulting on the matters to be covered in that guidance.

This will mirror the approach taken with planning guidance, which supports the National Planning Policy Framework. I promise that I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the point he has raised just to make sure I am correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I think the consultation document makes it very clear that it has to be part of the planning process for planning authorities to be able to impose it as an optional requirement.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I reform that. If the local authority already has a standard, it can passport this on, keeping the standard without a need for a new policy. If it wants a new policy, it will have to have a plan policy. Does that begin to answer the question the noble Lord has raised?

[Baroness Andrews]

It answers the question in part, but it raises and reinforces the problem of the complexity of getting these higher standards in place. Changing a local plan, as we know—and some local authorities still have not prepared and finalised their plans—takes four to five years. In the meantime, there are going to be hundreds, if not thousands, of people reaching their eighties and living in deeply inappropriate accommodation. If the Minister will bear with the Committee, I hope that we can return to this in more detail on Report.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I understand that our consultation suggests that where lifetime home standards exist these can be passported and will be carried on but I will consult and make sure we come back. I recognise the importance of this issue—particularly as we, Members of the House of Lords, might be approaching our 80s at some time in the next 25 years or so and therefore perhaps have a greater interest than our children do in this respect. Clause 32 is available in case there is a major problem in the delivery of the new system—for example, if the powers we have given to authorities are not applied properly, or without sufficient rigour, or the system is misused in some way. If the Government decide to put conditions in regulations under Clause 32(4)—and we have no plans to do so at present—then these will be subject to full consultation with interested parties, as with all changes to building regulations. I stress that this is intended not to lower standards but to raise them. Our proposals currently out to consultation are, for the first time, proposing that standards for accessible housing and for wheelchair-adaptable and accessible housing will be given the force of building regulations. This is a major new step and I hope it will be welcomed by all noble Lords. Indeed, I heard what was being asked for. The consultation under way at the moment sets out the Government’s thinking on the issues that local authorities should consider if they wish to apply optional building regulations’ requirements for access.

The key points are that local authorities should plan for the current and future housing needs of a wide range of households, including older and disabled people, and should clearly state in their local plan the proportion of new development that needs to comply with the requirements for accessible and adaptable dwellings, or wheelchair-adaptable or accessible dwellings. Local authorities should base their decision on the outcome of their housing needs assessments, taking into account: the likely future need for housing for older and disabled people, including wheelchair-user dwellings; whether particular sizes and types of housing are needed to meet specific needs—for example retirement homes, sheltered homes or care homes; the accessibility and adaptability of existing housing stock; and the overall impact on viability. I hope noble Lords will agree that these are reasonable matters to be addressed by local authorities and answer some of the questions raised, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. Currently the Government expect to set out the detailed consideration, which I have described, in guidance rather than put it into regulations.

Multiple compliance regimes have created a maze for designers and developers to navigate. There are 50 different local space standards and many different conflicting ways in which to apply local energy standards, some of which may conflict with the building regulations. Concerns about these issues prompted the Government to launch a fundamental review of technical housing standards during 2012-13, which aimed to rationalise the proliferation down to a sensible core of what worked and what is really needed. There was widespread support for this; 92% of last year’s consultation responses supported the review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have heard two very powerful presentations from my noble friends. It is not my nature to be helpful to the Minister, but I want to put one matter to him. The bit of briefing I received suggested that the particular provision in the Planning and Energy Act 2008 would stay in being until the zero-carbon homes policy was in place and that that would effectively replace it. That itself raises a couple of questions. The first is whether the zero-carbon homes policy would cover all the protections that my noble friends have said would be lost once we delete this provision. Secondly, how can we be assured that there will be an alignment—if that is the right way to go—and that the zero-carbon homes policy will come in at the same time as the ability to require higher standards disappears? There is a fundamental issue about whether the zero-carbon homes policy equates to what could be achieved under this provision. If it does not, the sort of losses that my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lady Andrews have identified become very real and pertinent.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, often raises difficult issues for Governments, and I give all credit to him for the attention he pays to this. It is an entirely proper role for a Member of the House of Lords to look with deep suspicion at government proposals and to make sure that the Government can provide the rationale for them. Perhaps I can assure him that Oliver Letwin spoke on this on the Floor of the House and it was discussed in Committee, so it has not been entirely ignored by the House of Commons.

[Lord Rooker]

Then I apologise. My advice was that it had not been looked at in the Commons. Obviously I was wrong there.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Lord is entirely right to be suspicious and to make sure that this is properly scrutinised, particularly an umbrella Bill such as this. I in no sense criticise him for raising a number of important points.

This is in no sense intended to lower standards; it is intended to continue the process of raising energy efficiency standards and to achieve zero-carbon aims. I was already briefed to make the point that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, just helpfully made. This is not intended to commence until it replaces the other standards. The code on which representation has been made is a fairly complex piece of legislation. Those parts will not be abandoned; they will be incorporated into the building regulations. I stress that we are raising standards, not lowering them. I will make sure that I can say that with confidence again on Report, because I recognise the concerns of noble Lords.

By 2016, the Government plan to have tightened building regulations to deliver zero-carbon housing. I repeat that the Section 1(1)(c) amendment will not be commenced until then; meanwhile there will be no dip in standards. We intend to consolidate necessary standards to ensure that sustainable housing can be built. The current situation means that insufficient housing is being built because authorities are applying too many different standards, making sites unviable. This is a rationalisation, not a deregulation of the sort that lowers standards and enables people to move further away from the zero-carbon housing that we all very much want.

Clause 33 amends the Planning and Energy Act 2008 to ensure that local authorities in England will no longer be able to set energy efficiency standards via local planning policies for new homes in excess of the building regulations. It does so by disapplying Section 1(1)(c) for dwellings in England where government policy is that such a requirement should be found only in national building regulations. However, local authorities will still play an important strategic role in delivering carbon reductions and the Act will continue to enable them to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Given that we are not expecting the zero-carbon home policy to be included until late 2016, there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now and then. Would he accept an amendment which put in the commitment not to repeal the provision in the 2008 Act until the zero-carbon home policy was in place?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord for that interesting suggestion. May I consider it and consult? Perhaps we can also discuss that off the Floor, between Committee and Report.

[Lord Rooker]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not sure what I am supposed to do now on the clause stand part because there is no amendment.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [HL]

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Friday 24th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Government do, of course, remain committed to a broader scheme of Lords reform, as I trust do the Labour Opposition in their turn. There is a consensus on that, at least officially. The Government have no settled view on the Bill at present. All I can promise, and I do promise, is that I will take back the speeches that have been given around the House and the strong arguments that these are essentially housekeeping measures—although I am not sure that expulsion is entirely a matter of housekeeping. Powerful speeches have been made, and then we will have to see what can be done with the House of Commons between now and the election. Time is very short—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The noble Lord says that the Government have no settled view. That is disappointing but it could be taken as a positive response if it actually meant that the Government generally would be prepared to discuss, maybe through the usual channels, with the noble Baroness whether they are prepared to support the Bill. Can he say that the door is at least open to that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am trying to be as positive as I can be but the noble Lord knows as well as I do, having been in government, that getting consensus inside the Government, even in a single party, is not always entirely simple and straightforward. You have to get Ministers to concentrate on the matter in hand. When it is a matter of Lords housekeeping it is not entirely easy. I will do my best. I will take this back very firmly and we will have to look at the House of Commons dimension, and we might be able to make at least very considerable progress on the Bill. I take everything that has been said, although I repeat that the Government remain committed to a broader scheme of reform.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

I am listening with great care to what the noble Lord is saying and we all know the pressure that we are under towards the end of this Parliament. Will he bear in mind the fact that in the wash-up at the end of the Parliament it is very often easy to get agreement on measures that are as clear-cut as this one?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I also take that point and will take it back. We had rather hoped that with a fixed-term Parliament there would be much less wash-up than before, but I suspect that when it comes we will discover that a number of things have been slid in at the last minute that we nevertheless have not quite managed to agree in either House.

[Lord Cormack]

If it is less of a wash-up, there is only a very tiny dish.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I entirely understood. Unfortunately, some rather larger dishes may yet be introduced, which the Government may wish to try to push through.

We all hope that these powers would not be needed. We all recognise that we will need to look before the Bill is completed at the sort of things that will need to be in Standing Orders, because this Bill is quite a substantial extension to the power of the House, in spite of the wonderful phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, used—that it is intended to be merely an “amelioration”. However, I am very happy to talk further with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and certainly take this back to the Cabinet Office to see what is possible.

Before we depart, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that I look forward to her next proposals on accretion or amelioration. I am happy that I hear around the Corridors a number of noble Lords on all Benches discussing the possibility of retirement at the end of this Parliament. That is another useful way forward. We should encourage it. However, perhaps the noble Baroness will, at the beginning of the next Parliament, produce a Bill that will suggest a retirement age by consensus. I look forward to giving her my support, from wherever I am at that point, on that next stage in amelioration.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s tone is encouraging but slightly light-hearted. I regard this as a very important Bill. It may be short but if it is carried by acclamation in this House, as it should be, it will be very odd if the Government do not find government time for it in the other place.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we appreciate that this is a serious matter. We all understand the question of the House’s reputation and of the public reputation of Westminster as a whole. I have previously said in responding to questions that that is one of the strongest lessons of the Scottish referendum and of the disillusionment of opinion across England with Westminster as such. We all understand that. I will take that away. I happen to be a strong believer in a reduction in numbers by accepting that we should all retire at a certain age. That is part of where we are now moving and it is part of our general responsibilities. I strongly believe that to be a Member of this House is a privilege, not a right.

I hope I have said enough to reassure the House. Conversations will continue off the Floor, as they so often do. We will see what we can do.

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the support that I have received from all Benches of your Lordships’ House and for the seriousness with which Members have addressed the Bill. I was slightly worried on several grounds when the Minister wound up: at one stage I thought that he was inviting me to retire by the end of the Parliament. I do not think I am minded to do that with so much unfinished business before us, not least in this area.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I must congratulate the noble Baroness. She talked about completing a stage of House of Lords reform. What a wonderful phrase—the thought that we might ever complete a substantial phase of House of Lords reform. I suspect I will retire before we have done that.

[Baroness Hayman]

It is the never-ending story of British politics. However, I turn briefly to two points made by noble Lords. One was made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I quite understand his desire that we should not create rules so inflexible that injustices take place. That is less of a difficulty with a Bill that enables the House to make Standing Orders, which can themselves give the degree of flexibility referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. We then have the next lock of the House itself needing to make a resolution in individual cases. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will not feel that it is necessary to try to amend the Bill, but that he will be engaged in the process that several noble Lords have mentioned of drawing up the Standing Orders, the procedures and the processes that would be necessary after enactment, which we all recognise should be taken very seriously.

Several noble Lords referred to the need for other measures of reform. It is well known that I share a desire to reform this House substantially. That does not mean I support an elected House—I do not—but I believe that there is a lot that we can do. I considered bringing the remains of the Steel Bill: an individual Bill on a statutory appointments commission, a cap on the size of the House, and even—dare I say it with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, present—an end to hereditary Peer by-elections. I did not do any of those things because I believed that I should, in these circumstances, bring forward something that was deliverable and that could, in the terms of a Private Member’s Bill, become law and make a contribution.

The Minister said that it might be difficult to get people to focus on Lords housekeeping. I, too, take issue with that designation of the Bill. He might find it easier if he put it to colleagues that it was a Bill dealing with the reputation of Parliament, because that is what I believe it is and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and others made that perfectly clear.

I am slightly surprised that the Government have “no settled view”, to use the Minister’s phrase. They had a settled view when they drew up these proposals and put them in the Bill in 2012. Of course, I am willing to consider and discuss what might be in the Standing Orders but I assume that that work has already been done in government: if it is necessary then it would have been done as the back-up to these proposals when they were put forward in the 2012 Bill.

The advice that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, gave us was absolutely central. Although the Minister seemed to be willing the ends in a very generalised way, willing the means was not so specific. I shall certainly take up his offer of conversations—he did not say that the door was closed. I hope—and today’s debate has given me encouragement for this because I do not think that anyone expressed any doubt about the importance and necessity of the Bill—that we can deliver it up in good time for it to become law if the Government give it time in another place. That is the simple demand that, with the authority of those who have spoken today, I shall be taking into those discussions. I hope that, in a short period of time, the Government will reach the conclusion that it is in all our interests so to do.

Ebola

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential to mobilise NATO resources against the Ebola epidemic.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, NATO has not formally discussed deploying resources against Ebola but is keeping the situation under review. NATO continues to support bilateral contributions by allies and wider international efforts. The UK is focused on working with the UN, the EU and other international partners to mobilise resources against the epidemic in west Africa. The Prime Minister will use this week’s European Council, which begins today, to agree a significant uplift in the efforts of the EU and member states as part of the UN co-ordinated response.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

I thank my noble friend for that reply. I had the privilege two weeks ago of hearing the Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States, Mr Andrew Weber, who is also the chief adviser to the President on the Ebola issue, pointing out that the Ebola incidence was now increasing at a rate where it was doubling every quarter. In that case he said that the absolutely essential element was speed. The only organisation with the speed, the resources and the manpower to act as quickly as may be required is NATO. I therefore ask my noble friend whether the Prime Minister will consider speed as all-important and might therefore reach the conclusion that NATO should be more closely involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Speed is certainly important. That is why the United States has taken the lead in Liberia, the United Kingdom in Sierra Leone and France in Guinea. We have lead countries. We are now working with others—the Norwegians are being particularly helpful, for example, as well as the other Nordic states—and discussing within the EU, last weekend and today, how others will feed their efforts and contributions in terms of money and people into what the lead nations are doing.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, makes a very powerful point. Clearly what is needed is urgent work on the assets that NATO might bring to this crisis. My question for the Minister is: if not NATO, what other international body do Her Majesty’s Government believe could do the job?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have already said twice that the United Kingdom Government raised the question at the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union last weekend, and that the Prime Minister will be discussing it with our European partners today and tomorrow. There has been an informal arrangement between NATO and the European Union in recent years that NATO is the security organisation which deals with major security issues and that the European Union is the forum through which we work on humanitarian issues, particularly in Africa. For this, I think the European Union is the right framework—and I hope I do not upset too many noble Lords by saying that.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, is it not a mathematical certainty that insufficient resources are currently being devoted to bringing the outbreak under control?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Noble Lords may be aware that Nigeria and Senegal were last weekend declared free of the virus. It is very encouraging news that part of what helped the Nigerians to get the virus under control was an extremely effective Twitter campaign to inform people about the precautions they needed to take. We ourselves are putting in a great deal of money and personnel—mainly military personnel—and we have offers of additional personnel from countries as far apart as Cuba and the Philippines. We are certainly doing our utmost to get up to speed but, of course, it takes a great deal of effort and, unavoidably, time to cope with something so complex.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, while endorsing the need for speed in the international response and the direct treatment and ending of transmission of the disease, does the Minister agree that the humanitarian consequences of Ebola go far wider than simply the medical problem? The economy is being disrupted; children are being orphaned; crops are not being gathered in; and normal medical services and immunisation programmes are being disrupted. Will the Minister recognise that international development agencies from this country are on the ground, tackling that whole range of humanitarian needs, and will he pay tribute to their courage and commitment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, a close relative of mine works for Save the Children, which I note will take over the administration of the hospital that the UK Government are currently building in Sierra Leone. We have to understand just how difficult it is to cope in-country with what is going on. Sierra Leone has fewer than 200 doctors. Communications are not easy; there are several languages. We are upping what we do and encouraging others to raise their level of effort. The Germans have just promised to help with medical evacuation, for example, and we very much hope that they, like the Norwegians, will do a great deal more. We are working with others as fast as we can.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister recognises that this is not just a humanitarian crisis. These three countries in west Africa are all fragile states, and Sierra Leone, in particular, is emerging from conflict. It has now had several stable elections, but all of that will be under threat unless we get on top of the health crisis. We must recognise the support that will be needed financially for that country to re-establish the settlement between the population and the Government. Indeed, the last thing we would want is for Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea to go back into conflict, civil war, and so on. The Government need to recognise that it is a security as well as a health issue.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we do recognise that. The last strategic defence and security review in 2010 marked international epidemics as one of the biggest problems that this country faces from elsewhere. We all recognise that the investment that this Government make by providing a large development budget is part of a contribution to our own security as well as the security of those other countries. Perhaps I might say that the pitch that we are currently making to the Germans is that Germany, like Norway, is a country with a fiscal and a trade surplus, so it ought to be able to make a very generous contribution to the broader issue of European security, which is threatened by epidemics spreading from fragile states, particularly in Africa.

India: General Election 2014

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to wind up this debate, particularly as it was opened by my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who first took me to India some time ago and from whom I have learnt a great deal about the sub-continent. I thank him for initiating today’s debate and for his loyal and continuing interest in relations between Britain and India. I was glad that the Indian Government recognised this when they awarded my noble friend the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman some time ago. I thank other noble Lords who have participated in this debate.

Perhaps I should first say a few words on the terrible storms that hit India’s eastern coast several days ago. I extend on behalf of the UK Government our deepest condolences to all those who have lost family and loved ones after Cyclone Hudhud hit the eastern Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. The cyclone caused devastating damage to life and property, and our thoughts are with those who died. The Indian Government are working well to manage the situation, and the UK will continue to monitor the evolving situation there and stand ready to assist where it is appropriate to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked how the British Government see the outcome of India’s election. We all watched as India undertook this massive, open, democratic election, an enormous feat of organisation and a peaceful transfer of power—something which many Governments and states in the world are sadly not yet very capable of doing. More than 500 million people voted and the election saw the Indian people give the BJP an absolute majority in the lower House—an amazing shift. In doing so, the Indian people gave their new Government a strong mandate for reform and economic growth. As I understand it, it was to some extent a vote of confidence in Modi as a reformer more than in the BJP as a party. The noble Lord rightly commented that two recent state elections have further strengthened the position of the BJP. I notice that we debate constitutional reform in Britain. The United Kingdom has still an entirely unitary constitution based on parliamentary sovereignty, but it has always been very good at giving states which were formerly in the empire and Commonwealth highly devolved and federal constitutions, India being a good example.

The Indian Prime Minister, Mr Modi, has made a very good start in office. He has made positive moves, already mentioned, to engage the region such as inviting the leaders of India’s neighbours to his inauguration, and his statement to work through consensus in Parliament is equally admirable. His ambitious plans to develop India, through energy for all by 2020, heavy investment in infrastructure and, importantly, improved governance, will all be key in supporting India’s development. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned the MPs in the Lok Sabha who have interesting backgrounds. This is not a new problem; it has been there ever since India became independent. We believe that Mr Modi’s plans open up bright new prospects for the relationship between our two countries across the board, including in trade, foreign policy and people-to-people issues. We have made a positive start in engaging the new Indian Government, with the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary all having met Prime Minister Modi since the election and through Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj’s visit to London on 17 October. We have made a total of nine ministerial visits so far, mostly with substantial groups accompanying the Ministers who went. I understand that a tenth will shortly be led by Greg Clark which will concentrate precisely on the areas of research, co-operation and student exchange—I am happy that my wife, as an officer of the British Academy, will be part of that party—talking about the Newton Fund and how we can assist in co-operation between Indian and British universities. We want to build on what we have achieved and our already strong ties with India to bring real warmth to the relationship. We are not letting the grass grow under our feet.

Trade and investment is a priority of the new Indian Government and it is important in driving the growth and development that India wants. India wants to modernise its infrastructure, boost manufacturing and release the potential of young Indians through better education. Prime Minister Modi has also revealed plans to clean up the Ganges, which is of huge significance to the Indian people. By investing in that growth, stabilising prices and developing the infrastructure to improve services and connectivity, he will do much to kick-start the economy across the country after years in which the Indian economy has grown more slowly than its potential.

However, to achieve this, India needs investment. The UK is already the biggest investor among the G20 countries in India, and more Indian investment comes to the UK than to the rest of Europe combined, but there is more that we intend to do. For example, when visiting India in July, the Chancellor announced that the UK will make available £1 billion of export finance to support the development of Indian infrastructure that has a UK element. He also announced, as part of the UK-India Economic and Financial Dialogue, a partnership between India and the City of London to work collaboratively in areas such as the potential to float the rupee in London, and opportunities for further raising of capital. We are roughly on track to achieve the Prime Minister’s target of doubling bilateral trade with India between 2010 and 2015, and we will keep pushing to remove barriers for British companies to trade in India and vice versa, and to ensure that we make the best of the opportunities that are available.

We are also, of course, pressing the Indian Government to complete the agreement made in Bali which will enable us to take the World Trade Organization through to another level of opening up trade. We understand the Indian Government’s concern about food security but we are confident that a compromise can be agreed that will allow the world trade round to go ahead.

An important part of our delivery of and success in achieving our aims with India is the strength of the people-to-people links our two nations have, with our extremely successful Indian diaspora—1.5 million people—who contribute to every aspect of our society and have the potential to be a cornerstone in our bilateral relationship. Last week we saw the Indian Government’s flagship regional diaspora conference, the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas—I hope I pronounced it moderately correctly—take place in London for the first time. We were honoured to be the host city for this event and it demonstrated the power of the people-to-people links. Equally, things such as the Dadabhai Naoroji awards, which celebrate those individuals who have helped strengthen UK-India bonds and which were handed out for the first time last week at the FCO’s Indian diaspora reception, show how much the diaspora can and does contribute.

Those ties will be highlighted during the centenary of the start of World War I. We will be honouring the more than 1 million Indians who served to defend Europe’s freedom, so that their courage and sacrifice are not forgotten. I was very happy to go to the exhibition on the role of Sikhs in World War I at the School of Oriental and African Studies this summer. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Dholakia is involved in preparations in Brighton to commemorate all those Indians who were sent to Brighton as wounded soldiers to recover or, in some cases sadly, to die there of their wounds. I speak as a member of the advisory board on the commemoration of World War I, and we want to ensure that the Indian dimension is very much part of our memorial.

The noble Lord, Lord Paul, suggested that we were being a little ungenerous in asking for the Gandhi memorial to be funded by public subscription. I think it is the case that most of the statues he sees in London have been funded by public subscription. I spoke at a meeting of the Chinese community in London last month to commemorate the role of the Chinese Labour Corps in World War I and to launch the fund that will get a public subscription to pay for a memorial. This is the normal way in which these things happen in London. I look forward very much to seeing the Gandhi memorial, we hope in Parliament Square.

We have not mentioned energy co-operation, although the noble Lord, Lord Bach, mentioned climate change. One of the new Prime Minister’s priorities is indeed to improve India’s energy security. Britain is a world leader in renewable energy and we see that as very much part of the partnership in which mutual interest will enable us to go a great deal further.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke about the treatment of minorities, both Dalits and Muslims. We all recognise that that remains a severe problem in India and that, indeed, some of those problems overlap into the diaspora community in Britain. We—or, at least, non-governmental organisations—are engaged in this. It is very much a deep cultural issue, as of course is the position of women in Indian society, on which we all need to work, and on which the diaspora community in Britain needs to work, to improve that particular aspect of Indian society.

The noble Lord, Lord Paul, also talked about the problems of corruption, which are of course deep-seated in traditional Indian culture, as they were in traditional British culture until a century and a half ago. Again, we look forward to the new Government working on this. The noble Lord also talked about a slow decline in UK-Indian relations. Well, we are now doing our utmost to reverse that and to ensure that we can build a positive new relationship with the new Government.

Finally, there was mention of the relationship with Pakistan, and with other neighbours. We are of course actively concerned about the relationship between India and Pakistan; that, too, is a relationship which overlaps into the United Kingdom. We welcomed the invitation for the Pakistani Prime Minister to attend Mr Modi’s inauguration, and we shall do everything that we can to encourage that relationship to unfreeze, which is certainly what it needs to do.

This has been a very useful debate. I hope that I have made it clear that Her Majesty’s Government see the election of the Modi Government as an opportunity to strengthen relations with India and for India to grow, reform and change more rapidly than in recent years. We look forward to cultivating that relationship over the coming years.

Committee adjourned at 4.42 pm.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
“( ) In section 82 (general provisions as to interpretation and regulations)—
(a) in subsection (3)(b) for “subsection (3A) or (4)” substitute “subsection (3A), (3B) or (4)”;(b) after subsection (3A) insert—“(3B) Regulations under section 3(2) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.””

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I should start by saying that the point which has just been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, will be dealt with later on today, so we will return to that question.

The purpose of Clause 1 is to remove the requirements of Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 from self-employed persons except those on a prescribed list of activities. The effect of Clause 1 will be to exempt self-employed persons from the requirements of Section 3(2), except those conducting undertakings prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations.

As things stand, Section 3(2) imposes a duty on every self-employed person to protect themselves, and others, from risks to their health and safety, regardless of the type of activity they are undertaking. This means that duties are currently imposed on self-employed persons who undertake activities with little or no risk of harm to themselves and others. For example, a dressmaker, accountant or academic conducting commissioned research, as I used to do, working at home currently has duties under this section.

This proposal emanates from an independent review of health and safety legislation undertaken by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt in 2011. He recommended that self-employed persons be exempt from health and safety law where their work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others. One of the cases for doing so, he said, is so that Britain follows a similar approach to other EU countries—a comparison that may be welcome to some and possibly not welcome to others. The Government accepted this recommendation and a clause was included in the draft deregulation Bill.

In 2013, the Bill was subject to scrutiny by a pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Evidence presented by interested parties suggested that the clause, as originally drafted, could be confusing for self-employed persons to assess whether the law applied to them or not. The clause was therefore amended in the light of this evidence to make it clearer to the self-employed when the law will apply to them and when they will be exempt.

As a result of the change, only those self-employed persons conducting an undertaking prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations will continue to have duties under Section 3(2). Undertakings will be prescribed if one of the following four criteria is met: first, there are high numbers of self-employed in a particular industry and high rates of injuries and/or fatalities—for example, in agriculture; secondly, there is a significant risk to members of the public—for example, in fairgrounds; thirdly, there is the potential for mass fatalities—for example, in the use of explosives or other dangerous equipment; fourthly, there is a European obligation to retain the general duty on self-employed persons—for example, in construction.

I hope that by now all noble Lords will have had an opportunity to consider a draft of the prescribing regulations, which has been produced in light of these four criteria. I am sure we can all agree that those self-employed undertaking work in the building industry should remain within the scope of health and safety law. Under the draft regulations, noble Lords will see that this will indeed continue to be the case. Builders, for example, will not be exempt under this proposal. Similarly, gas fitters and boiler engineers for obvious reasons will not be exempt. The risks posed when working with gas are recognised to be high and so the duties owed by a self-employed person who undertakes these activities will be maintained.

The draft set of regulations for the prescribed undertakings has been designed to strike a careful balance between the need to free self-employed persons from the perception that health and safety law places unnecessary burdens on them while still providing important protections in the law to those who require them. The Government have also tabled an amendment accepting the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to change the parliamentary procedure for these regulations from negative to affirmative. This will allow Parliament fully to scrutinise the regulations.

To ease transition to the new system and minimise familiarisation costs, the prescribed list relies on existing legal definitions, where possible. The clarity of the definitions in the list of prescribed undertakings in the draft regulations was the subject of an eight-week public consultation during the summer. The responses are being analysed by the HSE and will be published shortly. The draft list is available on the HSE website, and to assist the House, I will place a copy in the Library today. I hope that this will help in our discussions.

Further to aid the transition, the Health and Safety Executive is producing guidance targeted at self-employed persons and others to assist them in understanding the proposed changes to the law. It will also signpost them to existing guidance which explains in practical terms what self-employed persons need to do to comply with the relevant law. There is, for example, extensive guidance made publicly available by the HSE about managing health and safety in construction. This provides additional information about the definition of construction work, which is one of the activities intended to be prescribed. Detailed guidance exists for a majority of the other prescribed activities and, where it does not, the Health and Safety Executive will ensure that additional guidance is produced to support this legislative change. I beg to move Amendment 1 and propose that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to our intention that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill. This is grouped with the government amendment and I can say that, should the clause survive, of course we accept that the affirmative procedure should be supported. However, I give notice that, notwithstanding the grouping, we reserve the right to vote separately on the clause stand part debate.

We have a first-class health and safety system in the UK which is respected around the world. At its centre is the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, now in its 40th year. The system is built around the principle that those who create risks are best placed to manage them, and without being complacent, it is an approach which has hitherto saved countless people from being killed, injured or made ill by work. As we have heard, Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act currently places a duty on all employers and the self-employed to ensure, so far as is reasonably practical, the health and safety of others.

We should therefore be alarmed at what is now being proposed in Clause 1 of the Deregulation Bill, which seeks to exempt millions of the self-employed from health and safety legislation. This move springs from a recommendation made by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt, which was to exempt the self-employed who,

“pose no potential risk of harm to others”.

Such an exemption was proposed notwithstanding that it is generally accepted, including by Professor Löfstedt and the Health and Safety Executive, that the duty on the self-employed in these circumstances is limited, that little would be saved in terms of cost and time, and indeed in precautions undertaken, if such an exemption was introduced.

The professor also advanced the argument, as we have heard, that the exemption would help progress perceptions of a heavy-handed approach to health and safety for the self-employed, although scant evidence was provided to support the contention that this is a real problem. Indeed, the Engineering Employers’ Federation has refuted the view that self-employed people see health and safety as a burden and that they feel threatened by inspections and prosecutions. However, if there are these misapprehensions, surely the right thing to do is to challenge them, as the HSE is doing through its myth-busting panel rather than pare back the limited requirements which actually apply.

It was also proposed that this would bring us into line with Europe. However, international experience is varied, and more than half the countries of the EU include the self-employed in their health and safety legislation. Some that do not have stricter negligence laws which can be applied to those who put others at risk. Any suggestion that the UK’s health and safety system is creating an anti-competitive regime for the self-employed would not seem to be supported by what is happening. Self-employment actually grew by nearly 400,000 in the four years to 2012.

The HSE’s formulation to meet the Löfstedt recommendations was consulted on in 2012 and, despite receiving support from only a minority of consultees, was included in the draft Deregulation Bill which went before the Joint Committee. However, this attempt has proved problematic, with the Government eventually concluding from the pre-legislative scrutiny—rightly, in our view—that it would have been too confusing as to who was exempt and who was not. Given the minimal requirements on the self-employed who pose no risk of harm to others, it would have been logical at this point to hold on to the status quo; that is to say, although Professor Löfstedt arguably had a point, seeking to address it caused more problems than it solved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of this clause and the Bill. I need to declare an interest: I chair the Better Regulation Executive, and many of the elements of the Bill have come through the Red Tape Challenge process, which we are partially responsible for. I stress that I am the independent chair of the BRE.

I understand the concerns that have been raised about the perceived dilutions of health and safety standards that this would give the indication of being. In fact, though, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has mentioned the European Union, and we could be charged with being guilty of gold-plating health and safety because what Professor Löfstedt has recommended here is that we come into line with the rest of the EU. In most member states this is common practice; self-employed people in certain trades are exempt from health and safety legislation. This is bringing us into line with what is common practice in most member states within the EU.

The fear is that high-risk trades are going to find themselves newly exposed, but of course that will not be the case as those trades will not be allowed this exemption, and the Health and Safety Executive will produce guidance if there is some uncertainty among trades about whether or not they need to comply. The idea that somehow or other self-employed people in certain trades being exempt from this legislation means that they are suddenly going to behave irrationally is just not true. Most self-employed people will continue to behave as they behave now, whether or not they are subject to the law. What this does is remove from their lives some bureaucracy and box-ticking exercises that they are subject to now, so they will be alleviated from that burden. The assumption that there is going to be masses of exposure of self-employed people who are then going to suffer serious health and safety accidents is just not the case.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this has been a short debate. I recognise the worries that have been raised. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Curry, for his speech. I emphasise that this is very much about the Red Tape Challenge and removing both real and perceived burdens on businesses. I stress perceived burdens because it is a disincentive to set up a business if you are intending to work on your own if you think that you face a tangle of regulations that it will cost you money, and take you a great deal of time, to work through and understand. The question of perception is therefore not at all unimportant to this Bill. On the other hand, I recognise that much of this is not enforced, let alone inspected, when it comes to people who work on their own, quite often in their own homes, so there are shades of understanding on all sides of the issue.

When I think about the self-employed, I tend to think about people in my profession, academia. I can recall two accidents in academics’ homes that I am aware of, in which bookcases became overloaded with books and collapsed. I regret to have to admit to your Lordships that one of the bookcases in question I had put up several years before; we had then sold the house to another academic and the bookcase very nearly collapsed on him, so in that sense I am perhaps liable. My DIY skills are not as good as they should be.

We recognise that people working in what one has to say are the intellectual trades or in the service industries—accountants, lawyers working at home and so on—on a self-employed basis are not in the business of high risk. All regulation is a question of how much risk one is prepared to accept, how large the risk is and how burdensome regulations will be. That is a constant trade-off that all Governments and Administrations have to consider, and that all courts when asked to review them also have to consider. The question of the balance is very much part of what we are now dealing with.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, asked about people working in partnerships and whether they are exempt. I can tell him that if they are self-employed within the definition in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, they will be exempt unless the activity that they are undertaking is on the proscribed list. The definition of “self-employed” is not altered by this change. The noble Lord quoted paragraph 90 of the HSE review on this. I had indeed looked at paragraph 90, and what is said in paragraphs 91, 92 and 93 modifies what is said in paragraph 90, to the effect that we should not expect adverse health and safety impacts for the workers themselves and that behaviour is not likely to change due to the exemption. Again, we are dealing with degrees rather than sharp distinctions, one for another, and with perceptions as well as realities.

To introduce some numbers, as has been stated in the debate the number of people who are self-employed has grown considerably over the last 20 years, particularly over the last 10 years. On figures for accidents and fatalities, in the years 1992-93 there was an average of 81 fatalities among the self-employed per year; in 2012-13, there was an average of 51 fatalities. Many of these accidents involved electrical failures, or people who are electrocuted in the home or whatever it may be, as well as anything that may involve anyone else who had visited them.

I will ensure that I have answered all the other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and my noble friend Lord Deben asked whether we have anything specific about premises. This proposal is specific, as I mentioned in moving it, to Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Self-employed people will continue to have duties under Section 4 of the Act, which places a duty on those who provide non-domestic premises in a workplace, such as landlords. The duties that the self-employed person will have more generally will depend on whether the self-employed person carries out the activities on the proscribed list.

[Lord Deben]

My question was not just about whether they had duties, but whether the same responsibilities for the self-employed person who was exempt would be borne by the owner of the premises upon which they were working.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord about that specific question; I have noted it.

Part of what we are seeing in the rise of self-employment is that the number of people working in their own homes is rising as well; computerisation and all of the information technology developments make that much easier than it was 20 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has remarked that inspectors could indeed come around and make sure that they have got their computer screens at the right angle and that they are using the right sort of chair. All of these can indeed be regarded as mild risks to those who are engaged in the activity. Again, however, in the balance between risk and regulation, that seems an acceptable risk to the Government, and one would wish to maintain the degree of independence and autonomy that one could have.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

I was very much taken by my noble friend’s example of somebody who is self-employed being hit by a huge pile of books when a bookcase collapsed; I thought, “Yes, I have been there”. Can my noble friend tell me who is responsible from a health and safety point of view if an employed person is working from home, as so many people now do, and there is an accident with equipment for which the employed person is entirely responsible?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

If that person is not self-employed, but working in paid employment with equipment provided by the employer, we are in different circumstances from those covered by this clause. If necessary I will write to the noble Lord to clarify that further. However, where a non-self-employed person is working from home while still carrying on their employment is a different circumstance.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, touched on the list of exemptions and what areas are covered. The regulations will of course be discussed further—the HSE is currently discussing the draft list—so we may come to a slightly different conclusion at the end. I merely wish to point out that the actions of independent van drivers, for example, are covered by a whole range of other regulations. The question of whether we should duplicate regulations and restrictions is also one of those which the Red Tape Challenge wishes to address. I hope that I have managed to answer all the questions that were raised.

[Lord Deben]

I raised the question of information. Although a large number of individuals are exempt—I quite agree with that—they would still perhaps benefit from knowing about these things. How will that connection be made?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I suspect that most young, self-employed people get their information about these things off the computer or iPad. I hesitate to suggest that inspectors should visit them in their homes to check that they are doing things correctly. That suggests a level of state intervention in personal lives and activities that I hope the noble Lord would be strongly opposed to and perhaps the Labour Front Bench would not wish to propose. As I have stressed before, we are talking about the balance between acceptable risk and necessary regulation, and about the balance between the burden of regulation and the perception by people who wish to set up their own businesses or work on their own of the amount of regulation they face and the potential risks to themselves and others who may visit them.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

As we are in Committee, I will make a few comments. On the issue of perception not being irrelevant, surely the way to tackle perceptions or misperceptions is, for example, to do what the HSE does through its myth-busting arrangements and panels to make sure that there is proper information and education. To pander to misconceptions and weaken health and safety protections is completely the wrong way to go. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Curry, that we are not just talking about perceptions here. In this clause we are talking about actual diminutions in health and safety protections. This goes a long way beyond what Professor Löfstedt recommended. He said that we should change the rules for those self-employed who pose no risk of harm to others. In this clause we are way beyond that. The Minister said that whether the law is there or not people will still act sensibly. Some will and some will not. However, he has not effectively answered the point: why should woodworkers, furniture makers, metalworkers and maintenance fitters, for example, be outside health and safety provisions both as regards their own protections and their responsibility to others?

I fundamentally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who said that the risk of all that is that it will create greater complications than anything that it solves. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said—or I took him to say—that we should not proceed with this until we know what the detailed regulations are, and it appears that we will not know those for some time. What has not been answered effectively is why, having originally accepted Professor Löfstedt’s recommendations, the Government now wish to go way beyond that. That is what they are doing with this clause: they are weakening health and safety protections which have stood the test of time for 40 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

With great respect, I do not think that that is Professor Löfstedt’s position. He circulated his original advice; we know what that is and why it could not be implemented.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I hesitate to suggest that we should call Professor Löfstedt to the Bar to explain what he may or may not have said; he is in Sweden at present and we will have to wait until he comes back. The decision that the Government took to produce a list of activities rather than occupations that would be covered by health and safety regulations, leaving others outside, was in order to provide greater clarity. I stress that it is intended to cover activities conducted by self-employed persons rather than being occupation-based.

The self-employed person in any profession who conducts one or more of these activities will remain within the scope of the law. Where a self-employed person falls exempt under this proposal, it is considered that other enforcing authorities would be better placed to deal with transgressions. Many other laws and regulations apply to these activities. There are also other means of redress available in civil law to those who suffer harm as a result of a self-employed person’s activities, and in some circumstances in criminal law: for example, gross negligence.

I also remind noble Lords that we tabled Amendment 1 to ensure that the list, which is now available in draft and is, I hope, in the Library, will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure —so we will be able to return at that point to make sure that we have the boundary that we are now arguing about right. As drafted, it was subject to the negative procedure, but now there will be a further opportunity in Parliament to debate the exact list of high-risk activities before it comes into effect.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben: it rather looks as if the Government put a call-out to each department to offer up two or three regulations for abolition, without much thought about the priority and importance that they might have. I support the stand part debate on Clause 2. Indeed, I put my name to the intention to oppose it, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. It seems hard to find anyone who supports the inclusion of this clause in the Bill, with the obvious exception of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and Oliver Letwin.

As noble Lords have said, Clause 2 would remove the power of employment tribunals to issue wider recommendations to employers found to have unlawfully discriminated. I was party to passing that legislation in the Equality Act 2010. Indeed, on my side of the House, the Government of the time would have liked to have had some sanctions attached to this. However, there was a process of negotiation which the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties agreed to. I make the point to the Committee that this is why we had that recommendation; it had all-party support from all parts of the House at the time.

The EHRC has said:

“We consider that the power to make wider recommendations is an effective way of preventing unlawful discrimination from occurring and helping employers to comply with their duties to treat their employees fairly. The case for … abolition has not been made. Clause 2 of the Deregulation Bill should therefore be removed”.

The Minister needs to explain to the Committee what is wrong with these recommendations. What is his message to the people who went through all the stress and trouble of going to an employment tribunal to right an injustice, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and other noble Lords, won there and then find that the employer is not being encouraged to do anything about those of their work colleagues suffering the same wrong? Does the Minister think that they should all go to the tribunal? What does he think should happen?

Finally, regarding the business perceptions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Curry—it is the second or third time that he has mentioned them in these debates—I have to cite three cases. In Stone v Ramsay Health Care, the tribunal said that there was a “thorough and abject failure” by the employer,

“to have protected the claimant from pregnancy and maternity discrimination”.

It recommended training for senior managers and HR on pregnancy and maternity rights. In Crisp v Iceland Foods, the HR manager’s awareness of mental disability was “no less than woeful”, according to the tribunal. It recommended that those with HR responsibilities and area level managers be trained on disability discrimination rights. In Austin v Samuel Grant (North East) Ltd, the managing director had a long history of sending racist and sexist e-mails and the human resources manager had failed to deal properly with that issue. The tribunal recommended that the employer updated its policies on discrimination and that the directors and managers received diversity training. I cannot quite see what the overwhelming burden on industry is through those recommendations.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this has been a useful and serious debate. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, as he always does his homework extremely seriously—although the suggestion that you could find even a cigarette paper between the approaches which Oliver Letwin and I take to the Bill is one that I find quite remarkable. As a coalition Government, we are absolutely solid and arm in arm.

The noble Lord raised a number of serious questions. First, on the GEO inquiry, the 26 companies were of course under no obligation to reply; those that had the most interest replied. The GEO had taken the need to collect evidence seriously by contacting every employer at that time but there is also a question about the burden on industry and companies that one provides by pushing harder on those issues. Secondly, he raised the question of equal pay audits and how those are compared. As I think the noble Lord may know, an equal pay audit ordered by an employment tribunal is a precise and mandatory requirement, with sanctions for non-compliance, to advance equal pay in the small number of organisations where a breach of equal pay has been found. It is also directly a transparency measure, as it has to be published. By contrast, as has been stated in this debate, wider recommendations in other discrimination cases are effectively discretionary for employers and cannot be imposed.

On the question of how much evidence we have on all this, these wider recommendations have been handed down in fewer than 2% of all successful tribunal discrimination cases since 2010.

On the Red Tape Challenge, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that the presumption is that if the legislation does not serve a useful purpose then it should be removed. The fact that it is not terribly useful but confuses people as it stands is not a reason for leaving it on the statute book.

The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, in a very helpful and powerful speech, raised the Howard case, which we are all well aware is one of the most difficult cases in this area. I should point out that the wider recommendation was intended for use in those cases where the complainant has left the relevant employer. In this case, as it happens, Miss Howard was still a Metropolitan Police employee, which would mean that the tribunal would still be able to make recommendations that benefited both her and her colleagues in the continuing workforce. Of course, even if Miss Howard had left the Metropolitan Police when the case was brought, it would remain open to the tribunal to express the same criticisms as observations in a non-statutory context.

What the Government are proposing will not result in any reduction in either the rights of complainants or the effective powers of tribunals, nor does it reduce the rights of other employees in the businesses concerned as the wider recommendation cannot be enforced on their behalf. Nevertheless, under the Red Tape Challenge the Government are committed to removing legislation that does not serve any clearly defined purpose, particularly where it none the less creates a perception of burden and unfairness. It is not just a question of those who, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, powerfully put it, have broken the law; we are concerned about the perceptions of unduly onerous legislative demands.

The power to make these wider comments, a somewhat anomalous one in a claimant-based adversarial system, came into effect four years ago. It has proved problematic. It is rarely used—we are aware of around 40 cases, as has been said, where they have been made—and trade organisations have told the Government that the power has led to additional cost, and that it is confusing.

Most of the wider recommendations made by tribunals are generic. Of the 40 or so that we are aware of, over 90% concern training for management or the updating of company diversity policies. However, as I have said, tribunals do not have the power to enforce such recommendations. Post-tribunal action is largely taken voluntarily by employers that have lost a discrimination case. Unless it was a one-off incident, business sense would drive changes in workplace practices to avoid a similar case being brought against them in future.

Perhaps I can give a few numbers in the areas that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised. In 2012-13, the Government Equalities Office partnered the British Chamber of Commerce in events across the country, explaining the Act to small businesses. Around 300 businesses attended the events, and a follow-up booklet, Business is Good for Equality, was more widely distributed by regional chambers to their members, which altogether employ around 5 million people. Some 300 businesses attended the 10 short sessions to learn first hand about their obligations under equality law; that is more than seven times the number of employers that have received a wider recommendation in the four years since 2010. I hope that that provides some more detail of the sort that the noble Lord was asking for.

I know that concerns have been expressed that this repeal will reduce protections against discrimination in the workplace. That is not the Government’s intention and it will not be a result of this reform. Tribunals will continue to have the power to make recommendations and observations on their behalf. The question is: has this power done its job? I would say that for the employer, the wider workforce and the business in general, the answer is that it has not. There is instead a very small and unenforceable benefit balanced against the larger cost and the problem of uncertainty for business. I therefore urge that this clause remain part of the Bill.

[Lord Rooker]

Well, I thought that was a disgraceful speech, defending law-breaking employers. I have been where the Minister is. If I had sat through the debate I have just heard, I would have said, “Actually, I will take the recommendation back”. I would go to my Secretary of State and say, “I was going to screw this up anyway; the House was against me. We need some better arguments”.

I say to the Minister that the Government need better arguments, and the Red Tape Challenge is not one to use; you cannot rely on it for this. During the Red Tape Challenge, I came across an example where anecdotal comments by two environmental health officers caused the weight of the department and the committee led by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, to come down on the Food Standards Agency and say, “Keep unsafe kitchens in parks and village halls”. We said, “No, unsafe kitchens kill people”. They said, “But the Red Tape Challenge has actually identified this”. It was two anecdotal comments from environmental health officers on a website. That is the intellectual weight of the Red Tape Challenge. It is nonsense when you actually look at it.

I say to the Minister that he cannot rely on the Red Tape Challenge in this case because I do not recall it being used when we did the committee inquiry upstairs. I say to the Minister what the then Prime Minister said to me: “One last chance”. Would he like to take this away, come back on Report, and have a little think about it with a bit more fresh evidence—fresher than we have at the moment? Does he not think that would be a good idea?

[Lord Rooker]

Well, I know that that noble Lord would not want any evidence, but he is not the Minister. I am asking the Minister. Would it not be a good idea to get more up-to-date evidence and take it away to have a little think about it? That is all that I am asking him to do.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, of course, between Committee and Report, as the noble Lord is well aware, the Government take things away and have discussions in the Corridor. Officials look at the speeches that have been made and attention is drawn to their implications. Of course we will undertake to do that, and I am happy to talk further to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. That is the way in which we always operate in this House: we take very seriously all the arguments made in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker]

And the result of that is that I was asked to keep unsafe kitchens.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I simply answer that the argument is that these provisions are unnecessary. It will make a small amount of difference, but the fact that we have removed them will mean that the sheer weight of regulations and expectations that employers have will be reduced a little. That is, in itself, useful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, I support the retention of the original clause. I speak on behalf of the Network of Sikh Organisations, the largest Sikh organisation in the UK, and as an expert witness in the famous Mandla case in the early 1980s which, incredibly, had to go all the way to the House of Lords to secure the right of a Sikh schoolboy to wear a turban in school and make religious discrimination against Sikhs contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976.

Sikhs are already free to wear turbans on building sites. This measure is simply a tidying-up exercise to ensure that Sikhs are not harassed by insensitive health and safety zealots in offices and workshops where there is minimal risk of injury. I spent a day and a half in the witness box in the Mandla case and would like to take just three minutes to explain to the House the significance of the turban. It is not cultural headgear like the hijab but a religious requirement to remind us and others of the need to stand up and be counted for our beliefs, particularly our opposition to religious bigotry in all its forms, and for the freedom of people of different faiths and beliefs to worship in the manner of their choice. So strong is this belief in Sikhism, that our 9th Guru, Guru Teg Bahadur, gave his life defending the Hindu community’s right to practise their faith—a religion different from his own—against alarming Mughal attempts at forced conversion.

It was Voltaire who said, “I may not believe in what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Nearly a century earlier, Guru Teg Bahadur gave this noble sentiment practical utterance. The Guru was publicly beheaded in the centre of Delhi. The executioners challenged Sikhs, who then had no recognisable symbols, to come forward and claim their master’s body. They hesitated to do so. There are parallels here with the Bible description of Peter denying his closeness to Jesus Christ at the crucifixion.

The 10th Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, decided to give Sikhs visible symbols of their commitment to Sikh beliefs—a sort of uniform like that of the Salvation Army. The turban is now the most recognisable of these symbols. Sikh teachings of tolerance and respect for the beliefs of others are a powerful antidote to the extremism and persecution of minorities all too evident in our world today. Our world would be a happier and more peaceful place if more people were ready to stand up and be counted in the fight against intolerance. This clause is a sensible tidying up of the law to extend existing exemptions for building sites to sensibly include other workplaces. I give it my full support.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for that immensely helpful speech. As we have discussed these matters, I thought about my first year at university when my next door neighbour in the hall of residence I was in was a young man called Rahul Singh, who since then has become a rather distinguished writer in India. Every morning he used to comb out his hair in the corridor just outside my room. It was a wonderful sight to see each morning.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the Government are extremely well aware of the role played by Sikhs in World War I and World War II. It is very much part of what we are doing to commemorate World War I. As she may know, I sit on the advisory board. This summer, I was taken by the FCO World War I Unit to an excellent exhibition on the Sikhs in World War I at the School of Oriental and African Studies. The United Punjab Welfare Association is active in ensuring that the Government do not forget this in any way and this is something that I trust we will begin to follow through. I think I recall the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, saying to me that he thinks that he is almost the only Sikh living in this country who does not claim to have had a relative who served in the Indian Army during the First World War.

We are very happy to accept that we should respond in writing to the points that the noble Baroness has made and with a meeting, if necessary, to make sure that we have all the information which is needed. The issue is relatively straightforward, as the noble Lord, Lord Singh, said. Currently, turban-wearing Sikhs are exempted in Britain and Northern Ireland from legal requirements to wear a safety helmet while on a construction site, which also protects employers from liability. These clauses will extend the scope of the exemption to all workplaces and thereby increase the ability for turban-wearing Sikhs to pursue their chosen profession, whatever that may be.

In Great Britain, members of the Sikh community have faced disciplinary hearings and dismissal for refusing to wear head protection. Others are unable to follow their chosen professions. These provisions are therefore considered to be a necessary and sensible method of providing a consistent approach across health and safety legislation. They will also help to place turban-wearing Sikhs on a fair and equal footing when seeking employment. Perhaps I should also say that the number of turban-wearing Sikhs who find themselves in this position in this country is relatively small. This is therefore a small but useful and constructive change in the legislation.

The original exemption was limited to construction sites because, at the time of enacting, only workers in the construction industry were mandated to wear safety helmets. Legislative requirements regarding the wearing of safety helmets have since developed and now extend to a number of other industries where a risk assessment identifies the need for specialist head protection. There are certain jobs and industries where the wearing of a turban may come into conflict with these legislative requirements regarding the wearing of safety helmets et cetera. Employers in non-construction sectors must therefore balance their obligation to protect the health and safety of their employees against their duty not to discriminate against a turban-wearing Sikh employee on the grounds of religion or race.

Clauses 6 and 7 will be subject to certain exclusions for hazardous operational tasks where a risk assessment requires the wearing of a safety helmet. The types of tasks that are hazardous are those where it would not be sensible to allow the person to carry them out without appropriate protection, including entering a burning building or where the protective clothing needs to enclose the whole body, such as in bomb disposal or dealing with hazardous materials such as chemical leaks, biohazards or radiation. This matter is not just about individual choice—failure to wear appropriate head protection in such circumstances puts not only the individual at risk but colleagues who may have to effect a rescue in the event of an unprotected team member suffering head injuries. These exclusions will not prevent Sikhs from taking up employment with institutions such as the Armed Forces or the police and fire services.

In addition to extending the exemption for requirements to wear safety helmets, this clause also extends the limited liability provisions of other persons, such as employers, for any injury, loss or damage sustained by a Sikh individual who chooses not to wear a safety helmet in reliance upon the exemption.

I hope that this answers all the queries that have been raised. I also hope that Clauses 6 and 7 will stand part of the Bill, and trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will withdraw her amendment.

Hansard Society: Audit of Political Engagement

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Audit of Political Engagement published by the Hansard Society in April 2014.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, while some of the findings are more positive compared with those published in the previous survey in 2013, there remains a number of results that should concern us all—for example, regarding the accountability of MPs and perceptions of Parliament. The Government, politicians, the media and many others in society all have a role to play in engaging people in democracy and overcoming a number of significant challenges to us all that are highlighted in the audit.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

I declare my interest as a trustee of the Hansard Society, which is proudly celebrating its 70th anniversary, having been founded in the latter stages of the Second World War by one of the most remarkable of independent MPs, Stephen King-Hall. I pay tribute to my noble friend in the Cabinet Office for renewing its financial support for the widely respected Audit of Political Engagement. Does my noble friend agree that above all the audit underlines perhaps the greatest challenge that we face as a democratic body—namely, the widespread disinclination to cast votes in general elections, particularly marked among the young, which we must all labour to correct?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I entirely agree that this is an extremely valuable report and I hope that a large number of noble Lords have already read it. I particularly enjoyed reading the preface by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who I think is the president of the Hansard Society. It is not just a question of the low propensity to vote; it is the problem of very low perceptions of Parliament and the extent to which there is clear disillusionment with Westminster among the young, in the sense that they want to be engaged in political activity but not in party political activity, and not particularly in activities concerned with Westminster.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

As a fellow officer of the Hansard Society, I, too, welcome this audit. Is it not clear from the record registration levels in the Scottish referendum, and indeed the turnout there, that when each vote is seen to be counted and has an impact on the result, there is much more engagement by the public, including young people? Does my noble friend recognise that many of our fellow citizens feel cheated by the first past the post system, which of course does not produce that result? Does he not recognise that until we address that issue, the likelihood is that there will be many more people voting in referendums than in elections?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we all need to take account of the extent to which, in the course of the Scottish referendum campaign, people across Scotland, including young people, got re-engaged in politics in a way in which they are not engaged in politics in England. It is quite clear from the barracking that there was across the House just now that not everyone in this Chamber agrees with the wise words of my noble friend Lord Tyler on the voting system, but we need very much to focus on the problem of alienation. If we were to find ourselves on a less than 60% turnout in the next general election and the party that then took office got less than 35% of the vote, which is to say fewer than one-quarter of the total votes possible, there would be clear questions about the legitimacy of that Government. I saw in the Guardian, so it must be true, that Labour’s strategists had indeed been talking about the 35% point at which they might possibly have a majority Government on a less than 60% turnout. There are some real problems that we all have to face.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Hansard Society, which is a broad church including people as widely separated in view as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and myself. I put it to the Minister that one thing that really turns the public off is the inordinate length of current election campaigns, which was, I fear, an almost inevitable consequence of fixing parliamentary terms at five years, no matter what. Does he at least agree that there may be some merit in my Private Member’s Bill, which is due to get its Second Reading shortly, entitled the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (Repeal) Bill?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Lord, as so often, demonstrates his wonderfully conservative approach to all matters of constitutional reform. I do not agree with him. I think part of the lesson of the Scottish referendum was that a remarkably long campaign produced enthusiasm and a real focus, my Scottish friends tell me, on some of the underlying issues, which is perhaps something we need to do in a national campaign.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that although the turnout for the AV vote was lower than that for the Scottish referendum, the will of the people was clearly expressed and should be accepted by everybody in this country?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I am not entirely sure that I accept that. However, I accept that it was a lower turnout.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)]

My Lords, I was prompted to respond to the Minister’s remarks on the length of the Scottish referendum campaign. I plead with him to take a serious look at the health and well-being of those who have had to go through those 18 month, and I urge him to think again. Does the Minister agree that the quality of debate among 16 and 17 year-olds during the referendum debate was astonishing? I admit I was wrong; I was one of the people who thought that it was wrong for the franchise to reduce the voting age to 16. I was comprehensively proved wrong. I heard some of the best debates I have ever heard in a lifetime in politics from 16 and 17 year- olds. I urge the Government and the Hansard Society to look at the lessons that have to be learnt from that, but please, not in a long referendum campaign.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Baroness is looking remarkably fit and well. I congratulate her on that after all her effort. The involvement of young people and the very serious approach which young people in Scotland took to the issues in the campaign provide lessons that we all need to think through. It is not possible to introduce voting at 16 in British elections between now and the May election campaign, so it is not an issue we have to consider at the moment, but it is perhaps one that we all need to discuss over the longer term.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Does my noble friend agree that the alternative vote is a poor substitute for STV as an alternative to first past the post? It is not really proportional representation and STV would engage more people.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we now have a variety of electoral systems across the United Kingdom, of which the oddest is perhaps the London system of the supplementary vote. The question of what sort of electoral systems most engage the public at which level is one to which we need to return.

Hong Kong

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an expert and sober debate. On these occasions, I remember that on my first visit to China and Hong Kong, the most useful briefing I had was from the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. I think that he was then a little less grey than he is now and I suspect that I was, too.

The Government firmly believe that the United Kingdom and China share interests in a prosperous, capitalist Hong Kong with a thriving civil society, a clear rule of law and the movement towards political autonomy that was outlined in the joint declaration of 1984. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for his role as the then Minister of State in securing the joint declaration. As we approach the 30th anniversary, the UK remains as committed to the joint declaration as ever. “One country, two systems” works well. The high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms enshrined in the joint declaration continue to be upheld. Hong Kong has an independent judiciary and direct and active participation in political debate by a number of different political parties. We have just seen how lively civil society in Hong Kong is. It is a vibrant and engaged civil society in every way. It has the freedom, recently shown, to participate in regular, and usually peaceful, protests in accordance with the law. The United Kingdom recognises Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong, but has shared interests in the widest sense in the future of Hong Kong.

The noble Lord, Lord Luce, talked of Britain’s moral duty to Hongkongers to encourage the principles of the joint declaration and said that the future of nearly 8 million people in Hong Kong matters above everything else. Perhaps I should mention that a quarter of a million British citizens live in Hong Kong, as well as a substantially larger number of overseas British nationals, so we have all sorts of different stakes in the future of Hong Kong. I assure my noble friend that Britain’s commitment to Hong Kong remains as strong as ever. As a signatory of the Sino-British joint declaration and as a country with the many ties with Hong Kong that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, and others in trade, economy, culture and education, it is vital to us as well as to China that Hong Kong continues to prosper. Part of our shared interest is that we are all aware that if Hong Kong did not continue to be stable, to be clearly governed by the rule of law and to prosper, other financial and service centres around east Asia would be very happy to take over some of what makes Hong Kong so prosperous.

Hong Kong is an important part of the UK’s relationship with China and we discuss it regularly and continuously at all levels. This has included discussions between the Prime Minister and Chinese Vice-Premier Ma Kai in September and Premier Li Keqiang in June, including the issue of constitutional development. Our six-monthly reports on Hong Kong to the British Parliament show our commitment to continuing to follow developments in Hong Kong and the implementation of the joint declaration closely. The most important thing is that the high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the joint declaration and embodied in the concept of “one country, two systems” are respected.

The Government’s assessment is that the Chinese Government’s White Paper of June 2014 has not undermined judicial independence, nor has it breached the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. The White Paper reiterates China’s commitment in the joint declaration that the Hong Kong special administrative region exercises a high degree of autonomy in accordance with the law and is vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power. The independence of the Hong Kong judiciary, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, stressed, has been and continues to be key to Hong Kong’s success in the world economy. We share his view that the rule of law continues to prevail and that policing of the recent demonstrations has been largely proportionate.

On 31 August, the National People’s Congress standing committee in Beijing announced its decision on the methods of Hong Kong’s electoral reform. We welcome its reconfirmation of universal suffrage as China’s objective for the election of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive. We also recognise that the detailed terms set out by the National People’s Congress would disappoint those arguing for a more open nomination process. We therefore encourage dialogue and consensus-building during the next stage of the consultation, in line with the Basic Law which provides Hong Kong’s constitutional basis.

Today, we are witnessing a significant phase in Hong Kong’s development, with calls for democratic reform through widespread protests. As we have said in statements since the protests began at the end of September, we call for rights and freedoms to be respected and urge all sides to engage constructively in dialogue to work towards a consensus that allows a meaningful advance for democracy in Hong Kong. We welcome the fact that the Hong Kong Government have responded to the protestors’ demands with offers of talks with the Hong Kong Federation of Students and the other organisations involved. We hope that a mandate for these talks will be agreed as soon as possible. We will continue to monitor these events. Perhaps I should add that Her Majesty’s Government are conscious, from the experience of the Arab spring and other events, that, in reform and consultation, slow progress is often better than an attempt to move to the politics of the streets and to overthrow, which can often take us backwards rather than forwards.

On the wider issue of Hong Kong’s constitutional reform, the Government’s position remains unchanged. The detail of the constitutional package is for the Governments of Hong Kong and China, along with the people of Hong Kong, to decide, in line with the Basic Law and the subsequent decisions of the standing committee of the National People’s Congress. We recognise that there is no perfect model. We have, after all, heard earlier today some disagreement about what the perfect model for democracy for the United Kingdom might be. The important thing is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and feel that they have a real stake in the outcome. Reaching consensus requires all parties to continue to engage in a constructive dialogue. It is also Britain’s long-standing position, I reiterate, as a co-signatory of the Sino-British joint declaration, that Hong Kong’s prosperity and security are underpinned by its fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to demonstrate.

My noble friend Lord Sassoon asked whether the details of the constitutional reforms in Hong Kong are matters defined in the joint declaration. There are no specific obligations on the Government on these matters and no locus for direct intervention by the Government. As I stressed, the details are for Hong Kong and China. Both the UK and China made commitments to Hong Kong through the legally binding 1984 joint declaration. That agreement, which led to the handover of Hong Kong, protected Hong Kong’s previous capitalist system and lifestyle for 50 years, with all the rights and freedoms that I have mentioned. The Basic Law and subsequent National People’s Congress decisions set the terms for constitutional development in Hong Kong. Our legal obligations under the joint declaration were to run Hong Kong until 1997 with the object of maintaining and preserving its economic prosperity and social stability and to restore Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty with effect from 1 July 1997. Following that handover, we maintain an interest in ensuring that China honours its legal obligations under the joint declaration.

My noble friend also speaks, quite rightly, of Hong Kong as an excellent place for business in east Asia, as an important part of Britain’s international extension of our own economic interests through financial and legal services, as a large export market and as a centre for a number of British companies. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and his work as Minister of State responsible for Hong Kong in the late 1980s. He rightly says, as others have, that it is for the people of Hong Kong and the Governments of China and Hong Kong to decide how to carry things forward.

My noble friend calls these “troubling times”. The Government believe that it is important that Hong Kong citizens’ basic rights and freedoms, including those of assembly and demonstration, are respected in line with the joint declaration, and that it is also important that demonstrations are carried out in accordance with the law.

The future of Hong Kong, as this debate has shown, is of great importance to the UK as a signatory to the joint declaration. However, it is also important to us because of our close history, our wealth of personal links and the strong two-way trade and investment. All these make Hong Kong one of the UK’s most important international partners and an essential part of our overall relationship with China. It is therefore vital to us that Hong Kong continues to enjoy prosperity and stability through the success that is underpinned by autonomy, rights, freedoms and the rule of law, all of which are guaranteed by the joint declaration. That is the message that we will continue to convey both to Hong Kong and in our regular and continuing dialogue with our partners in China.

Arrangement of Business

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, in the interests of hearing as many Members as possible, it might be worth reminding the House of the guidance in the Companion, which says:

“Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief questions from all quarters of the House are allowed, statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate”.

Scottish Referendum

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the main implications of the Scottish referendum for the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased that people in Scotland have decided to stay in the United Kingdom. A process and timetable have been announced to deliver the commitments on further devolution to Scotland made by the three pro-UK parties; further powers are being devolved to Wales; work continues to ensure that the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland function effectively; and a committee has been established to consider governance arrangements for England.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

Can the Minister confirm, preferably by just saying “yes”, that further Scottish devolution will not be linked to the question of English votes for English laws? Can he confirm that a constitutional convention will be considered by the Cabinet committee he mentioned, looking into possible solutions to the West Lothian question?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, a constitutional convention is one of the many ideas that clearly will be discussed. We need to take these things as fast as possible but not in a hurried way. It is a very difficult balance. I can assure my noble friend that the transfer of powers to Scotland will not be held to ransom by any particular reservations.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

The result in Scotland is both welcome and decisive, but it also sends a clear signal to these Houses of Parliament, to this Government and to future Governments that there is a disconnect between the centre of government and the people of this country, not just in Scotland. Therefore, it would be a mistake to see the next steps as being either only the devolution of further powers or simply welcoming the result and moving on. Will the Government also look at other ways in which government at the centre of the UK can re-engage with the regions and nations to show that everyone in the country feels that they have a voice at the centre of government in this land?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the enthusiasm, the high rate of turnout and, earlier, the high rate of registration in Scotland was a lesson for the rest of us. It is very much part of the Government’s response to consider the devolution of power not only in further devolution in Scotland, Wales and perhaps in Northern Ireland, but also within England.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, does not my noble friend accept that the biggest danger to the union would be to encourage rampant English nationalism?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I entirely agree. I trust that my noble friend has not the slightest temptation to give way to that.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that, before the recess, again and again I raised the question of setting up a UK constitutional convention and the Minister equivocated again and again? Surely now is the time for action. If the three party leaders can get together to sign a vow, surely they can get together to set up a UK constitutional convention to work in parallel with what is being done for Scotland.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have said that this is one of the items that is currently being considered. As the noble Lord well knows, I could agree with him that we have a constitutional convention, but that would leave a great deal to be discussed as to what sort of convention, how it should be constituted and so on, which are also issues that we need to consider.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that it is not just the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who feel that this country is woefully overcentralised in Whitehall and Westminster, but also people in Yorkshire and in Cornwall? Are the Government prepared to consider the early introduction of a devolution enabling Act so that Parliament can at least discuss how these procedures can follow, rather than trying to have an all-purpose, all-singing, all-dancing convention that could go on for many years considering all the issues relating to the UK constitution?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am old enough to remember the Kilbrandon commission, which took minutes and years in its own time and achieved very little. Indeed, one will even find in the eighth volume a memorandum which I, as a young academic, wrote. I suspect that no one has read it for the last 35 years. We are clearly concerned to move as fast as we can. City deals within the United Kingdom have begun to decentralise economic power to some of the major cities throughout England and elsewhere. City deals are the beginning of what might become a major devolution of power from Whitehall to our regions.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, am delighted that the kingdom remains united. I am well aware of the implications that the Minister has mentioned—in particular, addressing the English question. However, I think that they go much wider than that, asking and redefining what it means to be British in the 21st century. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that the timetable will not be held to ransom—I think those were his words. However, as it is absolutely crucial that there is no ground on which anyone can suggest bad faith in relation to the vows given by the three party leaders during the referendum campaign, will he say in simple language that the timetable, as outlined—that was part of the vow—will be kept?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, later today there will be a Statement, which will constitute the first part of the timetable, and I hope that many noble Lords will be here to listen to my noble and learned friend the other Lord Wallace repeat it. Therefore, the timetable is already under way; we are observing it and intend to continue to observe it. However, we are conscious that any form of substantial devolution which will include the regions within England will necessarily take longer. Perhaps I may repeat what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said. Part of what we all have to understand is that one of the many things that drove the Scottish yes vote was a sense of disillusion with London as the centre and with Westminster itself. All of us in all parties need to take account of that, think it through and adjust to it on a non-partisan basis.

[Lord Elis-Thomas (PC)]

My Lords, I do not speak for him in this House but the First Minister of Wales, the right honourable Carwyn Jones, has consistently called for a proper constitutional convention. Will the Government now heed his call?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I repeat that we have heard these calls, that we are currently considering them and that we will wish to proceed as far as possible on an all-party basis.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that disillusionment with London and Westminster in particular is a problem that has been thrown up by the referendum and in more recent polls, so why are the Government bent upon having a government Cabinet committee of all-white, all-male privy counsellors as a way of taking devolution forward?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I beg noble Lords’ pardon. Clearly, there is going to be one woman on the committee, which is fantastic; nevertheless, it is a London-based committee. Why can we not now have an agreement in principle from the Government on a constitutional convention to take these things forward rather than the piecemeal way in which the Government are doing things at present?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I think it is a little harsh to refer to the immediate reactions in the weeks since the Scottish referendum as piecemeal. We are moving fast to produce a number of draft clauses next January, before the election. We recognise that there is a limit to how much we can achieve before the forthcoming election but if the noble Baroness would like to suggest that the Cabinet committee should meet regularly in York, Lancaster or Chester just to make sure that it has less of a London perspective, I expect that the committee will think about that as well.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Wednesday 30th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That-

(a) Clauses 1 to 12 of, and Schedules 1 to 3 to, the Deregulation Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House;

(b) the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords, we are faced with a slightly unusual situation in that Clauses 1 to 12 and Schedules 1 to 3 are to be debated in Committee of the Whole House and the rest of the Bill, Clauses 13 to 91 and associated schedules, are to be taken in the Moses Room. In theory, the beginning of the second group could be taken at the same time as the House is in Committee on the first part of the Bill. May I have an assurance that this will not happen?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I would love to be able to be in two places at the same time, but unfortunately that is not possible. I can inform the House that the first day, the Committee of the Whole House, has been agreed to take place on 21 October and the first day in Grand Committee has been agreed to take place on 28 October the following week.

Motion agreed.