Policing and Crime Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 21, in clause 2, page 3, line 14, at end insert—

‘(8) For the purposes of this Bill, when considering whether a collaboration agreement would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of one or more emergency services that shall include the effectiveness and efficiency with which the emergency service is able to meet its duties under the mental health care concordant.”

This amendment would explicitly enable a collaboration agreement to cover duties placed on emergency services by the mental health care concordant.

Amendment 3, page 6, line 3, leave out clause 6.

This amendment, along with amendment 4, would prevent Police and Crime Commissioners from taking over the functions of Fire and Rescue Authorities.

Amendment 5, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 8.

This amendment would prevent combined authority mayors from combing their fire and rescue service and police force under a single employer.

Amendment 4, page 144, line 2, leave out schedule 1.

This amendment, along with amendment 3, would prevent Police and Crime Commissioners from taking over the functions of Fire and Rescue Authorities.

Amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 145, line 16, at end insert—

“4AA Power to change title of police and crime commissioner

(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State makes an order under section 4A.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument change the title of a police and crime commissioner appointed as a fire and rescue authority.”

This would enable the Secretary of State to change the name of police and crime commissioners to reflect their new additional responsibility for the fire service. The Secretary of State would have the power to make such a direction in secondary legislation at some point in the future.

Amendment 20, page 145, line 16, at end insert—

‘(7) No order can be made under this section until the Secretary of State has conducted a review assessing the funding required by the fire and rescue service to secure the minimum level of cover needed to secure public safety and maintain fire resilience.

(8) The review carried out under section (7) must assess the impact of the level of cover on—

(a) fire related fatalities;

(b) non-fatal fire related casualties;

(c) the number of dwelling fires and other fires;

(d) the number of incidents responded to, and

(e) the strength and speed of response to incidents.”

This amendment would require the Home Secretary to conduct a review on the level of funding the FRS requires in order to secure public safety before she may make allows police and crime commissioner to be a fire and rescue authority.

Amendment 6, page 157, line 33, at end insert—

‘(4) An order under section 4A, whether modified or not by the Secretary of State, may only be made with either: consent of all of the relevant local authorities and relevant fire and rescue authority, or a majority vote by local people through referendum.”

This amendment would ensure that a PCC can only take over a Fire and Rescue Service with the approval of local people or their local representatives.

[Lyn Brown]

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We oppose the Government’s proposals to allow police and crime commissioners to take over fire and rescue services, and amendments 3, 4 and 5 would delete the provisions in the Bill that would enable them to do so. We have also tabled amendments to mitigate the risks if the Government’s proposals are enacted.

Amendment 6 would ensure that a PCC could take over a fire and rescue service only with local support expressed either by elected councillors, with the unanimous agreement of all the local authorities affected, or directly through a referendum. Amendment 20 would require the Home Secretary to review the level of funding the fire service needed to secure public safety. New clause 20 would give fire services in England a statutory responsibility to deal with flooding. The Minister said in Committee that he was minded to consider that particular provision. He has not jumped to his feet to say he wants to take it as a Government new clause, but I live in hope.

When the Minister responds, I hope he will set out what benefits he believes PCCs will bring to the fire and rescue service. What skills and expertise do they have that our fire and rescue authorities do not? How will they help the fire service to cope with the new challenges it faces when dealing with major incidents such as flooding and terrorist attacks? What indication is there that the governance of the fire service is broken or substandard and needs replacing? The Government have not even begun to answer these questions or to make a case for the reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call James Cleverly.

[James Cleverly]

I am obliged to you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I apologise if I leapt to my feet rather more quickly than colleagues had anticipated. I am keen to speak in this debate, having served on the Bill Committee and, for a number of years, as chair of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. I feel that I speak with a fair degree of authority on the implications of different governance models, because the LFEPA had to go through the process of making substantial changes to the London fire brigade and I saw at first hand the widespread misunderstanding of the governance arrangements, both of the London fire brigade, through the London fire authority and to the Mayor, and more widely and nationally.

I like clarity; it is a cornerstone of democracy that people can follow the golden thread from the decisions they make at the ballot box, through to the people who make the decisions about the provision of their public services and, ultimately, on to the delivery of those services. This is important, because when things go right in the delivery of those services, people should know who to reward at the ballot box. Perhaps more importantly, if things do not go well, voters should know who they can punish at the ballot box. That is a cornerstone of the democratic model, to which I am sure we all subscribe.

Previously, when we had police authorities, there was a break in that golden thread, because people did not know who ran their police force. They were probably aware of where the police headquarters were, although I am being generous when I say that. I suspect that in many parts of the country people might have had a vague idea that the police headquarters would be in the big town—the county town. People in my constituency are aware that the police headquarters were in Chelmsford, but I would be surprised if many were able to name their chief constable and absolutely amazed if any were able to name the local councillors who sat on the police authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

May I say to the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who has just taken his place in this Chamber, that, frankly, this has been a better debate than that? His unreasonable slur on the Opposition is about our stance on the police services rather than on the fire services. It would be really good if he read the Whips’ report more carefully before he intervenes next time.

May I say to the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), to whom I have been listening, that his points are interesting and have some validity, but London is rather different from areas outside London? Over decades, London has got used to having a single seat of government—even though there was an interregnum when the Greater London Council was disbanded. The reality is that when our constituents do not know where to go to complain about a service or to bring up an issue, they end up at the door of our town halls. It does not matter whether we are talking about Newham or Newcastle, that is where they go.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Just before we proceed, may I say with great respect to the hon. Lady that, although she has many points to make which the House should hear, interventions must be short.

[James Cleverly]

London’s exceptionalism is often held up as the reason why things that happen in London cannot possibly happen elsewhere. I have to say that, having served in office both in London and in Essex, I do not subscribe to that view. There are many things that national Government can learn from what a Conservative administration has done in London. I will go even further and say that London could learn plenty of things from other parts of the country, including from my wonderful county of Essex.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Programme motion: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: report and business case—

“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—

“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: business case and strategic plan

(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if the Secretary of State has also laid before the House of Commons the documents specified in subsections (2) and (3).

(2) The document specified in this subsection is a business case for the proposed use of the new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the limit in force which includes information on—

(a) the expected market demand,

(b) the proposed sectors,

(c) the proposed locations, and

(d) the prospective development returns.

(3) The document specified in this subsection is a strategic plan for the development of the activities of the CDC in consequence of the proposed increase in the limit in force.””

This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be preceded by the laying before the House of Commons of a detailed business case for the proposed additional investment and a strategic plan in relation to the additional investment.

New clause 3—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: poverty reduction purposes for spending outside LDCs—

“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—

“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: poverty reduction purposes for spending outside LDCs

(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) or the condition in subsection (3) is met.

(2) The condition in this subsection is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the limit in force is in a country which is classified as one of the least developed countries.

(3) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the limit in force will have a significant impact on the reduction in poverty (within the meaning given in section 1(1) of the International Development Act 2002) in the country or countries concerned.

(4) In determining the classification of a country for the purposes of subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall use the latest analytical classification of the world’s economies prepared by the World Bank.””

This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be for additional investment which is either in least developed countries or which makes a significant impact on poverty reduction in another country.

New clause 4—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: independent assessment of aid impact—

“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—

“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: independent assessment of aid impact

(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if the Secretary of State is satisfied that arrangements are in place for the independent assessment of the aid impact of new CDC investment which meet the conditions in this section.

(2) The first condition is that a framework agreement has been reached between CDC and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact for the Commission to carry out such an assessment on an annual basis.

(3) The second condition is that each annual assessment will be able to assess projects with a monetary value equivalent to at least 5 per cent of the total value of current investments in the year in question by the CDC.

(4) The third condition is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Independent Commission for Aid Impact has the additional resources required to carry out such annual assessments without impairing its capacity to undertake its other work.””

This new clause would require any proposal to increase the limit by secondary legislation to be contingent on an agreement being reached for an annual independent assessment of aid impact to be carried out by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact covering at least 5% of CDC’s investment portfolio at the time.

New clause 6—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: review of poverty reduction impact and contribution to Sustainable Development Goals—

“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—

“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: poverty reduction

(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he has also laid before the House of Commons a review in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) A review under this subsection must provide the Secretary of State’s assessment of the extent to which the increase in the limit on the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation is likely to contribute to—

(a) a reduction in poverty, and

(b) achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

(3) In this section—

“reduction in poverty” shall have the same meaning as in section 1(1) of the International Development Act 2002; and

“the Sustainable Development Goals” means the Goals adopted at the United Nations on 25 September 2015.””

This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be preceded by a review, also to be laid before the House of Commons, of the extent to which the increase in the limit will contribute to a reduction in poverty, the aim of development assistance, and to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

New clause 7—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on investment in certain sectors—

“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—

“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on investment in certain sectors

(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.

(2) That condition is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is not in any of the following sectors—

(a) education providers that charge the end user,

(b) healthcare providers that charge the end user,

(c) the real estate sector,

(d) mineral extraction,

(e) the palm oil sector,

(f) the fossil fuel sector.

(3) In this section—

“the current limit at the time” means—

(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,

(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.””

This new clause would prohibit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) from being in the sectors specified in subsection (2).

New clause 8—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on use of tax havens—

“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—

“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on use of tax havens

(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.

(2) That condition is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is not in either—

(a) an investment entity, or

(b) a company

which uses, or seems to the Secretary of State likely to use, tax havens.

(3) In determining whether the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Secretary of State shall consider—

(a) information provided by the OECD on countries or territories which are considered to be tax havens, and

(b) such information as is available to the Secretary of State, whether supplied by the CDC or others, about the current location of funds of the potentially relevant entities for the purposes of subsection (2).

(4) In this section—

“the current limit at the time” means—

(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,

(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.””

This new clause would prohibit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) from going to an investment vehicle or company which uses or seems likely to use tax havens.

New clause 9—Conditions for exercise of power to increase limit: countries, poverty reduction and SDGs—

“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—

“15A Conditions for exercise of power to increase limit: countries, poverty reduction and SDGs

(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the conditions in subsection (2), (4) and (5) are met.

(2) The condition in this subsection is that any new investment in a country enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is in a country which is classified as either—

(a) one of the least developed countries, or

(b) one of the other low income countries.

(3) In determining the classification of a country for the purposes of subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall use the latest analytical classification of the world’s economies prepared by the World Bank.

(4) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.

(5) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is likely to contribute to achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

(6) In this section—

“the current limit at the time” means—

(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,

(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force;

“reduction in poverty” shall have the same meaning as in section 1(1) of the International Development Act 2002; and

“the Sustainable Development Goals” means the Goals adopted at the United Nations on 25 September 2015.””

This new clause would limit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) to the least developed countries and other low income countries and require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that such new investment contributed to the reduction of poverty and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

New clause 10—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: proportion of annual official development assistance—

“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—

“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: proportion of annual official development assistance

(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the conditions in subsection (2) is met.

(2) The condition in this subsection is that the total value of any re-capitalisation of CDC enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time will not, in any one calendar year, constitute more than 5% of total official development assistance.

(3) In this section—

“official development assistance” has the same meaning as in the most recent annual report laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006;

“the current limit at the time” means —

(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,

(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.””

This new clause would limit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) to 5% of official development assistance in any one calendar year.

Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “£6,000 million” and insert

“the amount specified in subsection (1A)”.

This amendment paves the way for amendment 3.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 4, leave out “£6,000” and insert “£4,000”.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 4, at end, insert—

“(1A) After subsection (1), insert—

“(1A) The amount specified in this subsection is whichever is the lesser of the following amounts—

(a) £6,000 million,

(b) £1,500 million plus the amount determined in accordance with subsection (1B).

(1B) The Secretary of State shall determine the amount for the purposes of this subsection by estimating the amount which will constitute 4% of official development assistance in the relevant period determined in accordance with subsection (1C).

(1C) That period begins with the financial year in which the Secretary of State considers that the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation (determined in accordance with subsection (2)) will exceed £1,500 and ends at the end of the fourth subsequent financial year.

(1D) For the purposes of this section, “official development assistance” has the same meaning as in the most recent annual report laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.””

This amendment would replace the proposed limit on government assistance under section 15 with a new amount, expressed as either £6 billion or the existing investment of £1.5 billion plus a sum not more than 4% of forecast official development assistance over a five year period, whichever is the lesser amount.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to set a limit on government assistance above £6 billion up to £12 billion by means of secondary legislation.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 7, leave out “£12,000 million” and insert

“the amount specified in subsection (4A).

(4A) The amount specified in this subsection is whichever is the lesser of the following amounts—

(a) £12,000 million,

(b) the current limit at the time plus the amount determined in accordance with subsection (4B).

(4B) The Secretary of State shall determine the amount for the purposes of this subsection by estimating the amount which will constitute 4% of official development assistance in the relevant period determined in accordance with subsection (4C).

(4C) That period begins with the financial year in which the Secretary of State considers that the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation (determined in accordance with subsection (2)) will exceed the current limit at the time and ends at the end of the fourth subsequent financial year.

(4D) For the purposes of this section—

“the current limit at the time” means—

(a) prior to the making of any regulations under subsection (4), £6,000 million,

(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under subsection (4) then in force;

“official development assistance” has the same meaning as in the most recent annual report laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.”

The amendment would set a new limit on the power to make regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15, expressed as either £12 billion or the current limit at the time plus 4% of official development assistance over a five year period, whichever is the lesser amount.

Amendment 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State may not exercise the power under subsection (4) to increase the limit by more than the amount that the Secretary of State estimates is required to meet the plans for investment by CDC in the ensuing three years.”

This amendment has the effect of restricting each increase in the limit by secondary legislation to an amount necessary to support additional investment by CDC over a three year period.

[Kate Osamor]

Labour Members are unswerving in our belief that the UK must continue to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid. It is imperative, however, that the Government deliver this aid in a way that is accountable, ensures value for money, and delivers on the UK’s development objectives.

Although we support the aims of the Bill—it has reached Report without amendment—we remain concerned about the lack of safeguards. In new clause 2, we ask that no increase in the limit be granted without a report or business case. New clauses 3 and 9 are at the heart of the work of the Department for International Development, which leads the UK’s work to end extreme poverty. We on the Front Bench ask the Government to make sure that the Minister is satisfied that any new investment enabled by a proposed increase in the limit will have a significant impact in reducing poverty.

The Department must be at the forefront of tackling global poverty reduction. It is vital that the bolstering of CDC’s resources does not mean a reduction in funds for emergency and humanitarian aid in places such as northern Nigeria, Yemen and Syria, and in other parts of the world that face grave humanitarian crises. Will the Minister commit to ring-fencing such funds so that those in the direst need of help are able to receive it? Long-term investment and the establishment of a sustainable economy in order to kick-start jobs and growth are, of course, crucial to any credible development programme, but a development programme should, at its core, be a coalition of long-term investment and short-term relief. The consequences of losing sight of the latter element would be grave indeed. Just as the UK has a duty to help to lay the foundations for secure, sustainable economies in the poorest areas, where investment is a risk that few are willing to take, the UK also has a duty to assist those who bear the full force of conflict, climate change and food insecurity.

As was laid out on Second Reading, transparency should be the driving force behind any shift in the focus of the aid budget. I now speak to new clauses 4 and 8. It is vital that taxpayers’ money is spent not only effectively, but as transparently as possible. To that end, it is incumbent on the Government to put in place mechanisms that ensure maximum visibility regarding where aid money is being spent, and that minimise public scepticism. We all know that transparency is something that DFID does very well indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osamor]

I now need to make some progress.

Labour Members remain positive about the Bill’s ability to achieve its aim of improving the quality of life of people in some of the least developed countries in the world, but we believe that this can be achieved to its fullest extent only if appropriate safeguards are put in place. We retain our right to withdraw our support for the Bill if it becomes clear that the Government have not made sufficient progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Flick Drummond.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is the beginning of a new term after a long Christmas holiday, but may I remind Members that, if they want to speak, it is really easy—they just have to stand up?

[Mrs Drummond]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was expecting the Minister to respond to the first speaker, and I did not realise that I would be called next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Richard Fuller.