Deregulation Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to address three areas of concern regarding the noble Lord’s proposals: the impact on the current consultations; the impact on public confidence; and the impact on the National Lottery. We exchanged views on these issues in Committee but I want to reiterate some of the concerns.

The current DCMS consultation closes on 4 March. At the same time, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is separately investigating society lottery regulation and should report its findings fairly shortly. We have argued for a detailed study of the proposals and their consequences.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says, but it is not just the National Lottery that may have concerns. Smaller lotteries and other charities have raised concerns that they may be squeezed by large society lotteries, which could expand and push the smaller ones to one side. Certainly, we on this side of the House would want to discuss the implications of that in detail before we consider any changes. Changes to this sector must be proportionate and evidence-based. We must not risk negatively impacting on the perception of charities—and, in turn, on the levels of public trust and confidence.

It is difficult to come to any conclusion on whether to substantially increase the sizes of prizes, of the individual draw or of annual proceeds caps as there is insufficient information available on this market. Without understanding how many lotteries are hitting the prize limits, the individual draw or the annual caps, and which would therefore benefit from being able to sell more tickets with higher prizes, I do not think that we can say that there is sufficient evidence for a change in policy.

There is a strong case for making more information available—certainly for increasing the data available on each society lottery’s ticket breakdown. We would like to see the Gambling Commission maintain up-to-date and publicly available data tables that show the proportion each lottery divides between good causes, prizes and expenses. It is fundamental to public confidence that the people who buy tickets understand the choices that they make. What are they supporting? How much of the money that they contribute will go to a good cause? That really is important.

I have also raised before, in the Chamber and in Committee, concerns over lottery operators, and in particular the loophole exploited by the Health Lottery. It is supposedly made up of 51 separate companies, yet they have the same three directors, the same office and the same branding. In effect, it operates as an alternative to the National Lottery. I do not think we can disregard concerns about the National Lottery. We do not fully understand the consequences. If we deregulate this market and other people come in, we are looking at a serious potential threat to the National Lottery.

The National Lottery was established on a monopoly basis for a very good reason: to balance people’s desire that the money goes to a good cause with the effect of gambling. There is no doubt that people participate in a lottery because they want to win; it is not simply about giving money to a good cause. From the way the Health Lottery and other operators market themselves, we can see that if we deregulate without properly considering all the consequences, we could have new entrants to the market. The market might grow, but it could certainly be distorted. I have mentioned this before: we could have companies such as Tesco, which has the infrastructure to mount a lottery, becoming a lottery operator, and, no doubt, giving 20% of its money to good causes—but we still do not understand how that could impact on the National Lottery.

As we have heard in previous debates, the National Lottery is not just about great big amounts of money going to big exercises. A huge amount of money—80%—goes in small amounts to local causes, which would not otherwise have been able to raise the money themselves. It has made a huge impact on our society, and we should not risk it without fully understanding the consequences.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling these amendments. He is certainly tenacious in these matters.

The amendments seek to remove or relax regulations governing the amounts that society lotteries can raise and the level of prizes they can offer. The effect of the amendments together would be to allow society lotteries to offer jackpots of up to £5 million per draw and to hold as many draws as they wish. Our concern is that this could put society lotteries in direct competition with the National Lottery, and this might present a serious risk to the good causes funded by the National Lottery. The best way of raising funds is through encouraging people to play by offering them the life-changing prizes that are possible only through mass participation in a single national lottery. Indeed, the lottery was set up in 1994 to do just that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, rightly suggested, the National Lottery has been an enormous success, raising more than £32 billion for good causes in its 20 years of existence. It has funded everything from very large-scale national projects to thousands upon thousands of small-scale local groups, and this has had a truly transformative effect across the United Kingdom.

Society lotteries have also been very successful at raising funds for good causes and they have grown significantly in recent years. We welcome that success and are clear that they are part of a wider good-cause landscape. However, we cannot let their success be at the expense of the National Lottery.

Even if all the amendments are not taken together, it is unclear what effect making changes to individual limits will have. The limits taken as a package have so far allowed society lotteries to flourish while maintaining the success of the National Lottery. If we wish to change these limits, either singly or as a package, it must surely be done on the basis of evidence and with a clear understanding of how any changes will impact on society lotteries, both large and small, as well as on the National Lottery.

The Government agree with my noble friend that it is now time to consider these limits. That is why we are currently consulting through a call for evidence, asking for views on how we can ensure that society lotteries continue to flourish alongside the National Lottery. In addition, as has been mentioned, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is currently investigating society lotteries and will be considering whether their current limits are appropriate.

We are currently gathering the evidence that will highlight whether any reforms are needed, and I believe that it would be unwise to make any changes now without waiting for that evidence. The Government expect to have it after the call for evidence closes on 4 March. Once we have this evidence, any reforms to monetary amounts or percentages can be made through secondary legislation. Therefore, I am confident that the Government could move to make changes if, indeed, it was decided that this was the right and sensible course of action. For those reasons, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, want to support my noble friend in his amendments today. I particularly want to focus on one element of regulation in relation to gambling and the Gambling Commission. I would also like to focus my remarks on what my noble friend Lord Rosser said, in the sense of asking what the Government’s view is on the role of the Gambling Commission in terms of its acting contrary to Clause 83. Is there evidence, which the Minister might want to put before the Committee, that says that this clause is required? At the end of the day, the gambling market is a unique one, where the public expect fair rules. They want independence for the regulator, because they want to ensure the rules are applied by the people operating in that market.

In the recent debate on the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill, we heard several calls that this market needs even further regulation, because it has a huge social impact, not least in terms of problem gambling—addiction—and the harm that it causes to both individuals and families. When we debated the Bill, we were focused on the need for adequate research to fully understand the consequences of our actions. That was certainly the Government’s view, and it is certainly the view of the Opposition: think before you act, and understand the consequences. This comes back to my noble friend’s view about unintended consequences, of which there were two here.

The Gambling Commission expressed a view during pre-scrutiny of the Bill, which I want to repeat. It focused on this matter of unintended consequences. It is a regulator that does understand the economic consequences. It is not a regulator that wants to ban gambling; it wants to facilitate it. In fact, the more it acts to regulate, in a sense, the more the market can grow, because this is about public confidence and public trust. This is where I believe the draft guidance, in seeking to clarify, may actually create uncertainty, which again comes back to these unintended consequences.

The Gambling Commission itself spoke about the need to be wholly independent, impartial and objective, and the need to have public confidence. It says that it does not think that the wording will impair its objectivity at all—it believes that it is acting in a way that could meet the requirements of this clause. However, as it says, if it gets confused or conflated with the promotion of the commercial interests of specific economic sectors, and it appears to the public that it is part of the commission’s role to promote the industry as opposed to permitting the industry to promote itself and grow so far as is compatible with consumer protection, the likely outcome is a reduction in public confidence and a consequent reduction in the public acceptance of gambling as a mainstream leisure activity. This clause could have the complete opposite effect of what it was intended to do. It could harm an industry that is a legitimate part of our economic activity. There are unintended consequences.

The Gambling Commission raised another point, which is important with regard to what my noble friends have said on the guidance and the fact that you could be creating uncertainty. They say that the guidance to the growth duty will be important. That is absolutely right, and it helps to develop better policy for the industry to have a real input in determining the economic impact of any regulatory change. It is very important for the industry to be clear how that should be done and to have some assurance that its views are taken into account. However, the reform measure designed to reduce burdens on an industry and foster economic growth may have the unintended consequence of the regulator and parts of the industry expending time and money on unproductive and costly delaying tactics if the guidance does not encourage speedy and transparent decisions.

I can see what is coming as regards the new regulations we had under the Gambling Bill. I can see that people entering the market may say, “We want to challenge the commission on this because it denies our ability to enter this market and our ability to grow economically”. In a sense, instead of the commission regulating fairly and being able to build public confidence, this could undermine that, which is a bad unintended consequence that the Government need to address and answer today.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, it may come as no surprise that I, too, support my noble friend’s amendment and express reservations about disturbing the current arrangements for the Health and Safety Executive. The very essence of the HSE’s role has positive implications for growth. It is about encouraging leadership from the top of an organisation, having effective systems, good employee engagement—key attributes for an effective business. Of course, its role in promoting safe and healthy workplaces is typically linked with higher profitability, productivity and worker loyalty. That is what the data used to show, and I believe they still do. However, IOSH states that,

“good workplace health and safety already supports growth”.

It expresses concerns that the new explicit duty could “cause confusion” and undermine the focus and judgment of the HSE. Therefore, perhaps the Minister can be more specific about the benefits to growth of these provisions being applied to the Health and Safety Executive, and about what changes to the way the HSE goes about its business the Government expect if they should be applied.

The impact assessment accompanying these proposals specifically identifies as good practice the HSE’s existing role in working with a number of trade associations and local authorities to create sector or topic-specific guidance. The HSE has of course been subject to a number of reviews in recent years, most recently that of my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, of Professor Lofstedt, and the triennial review led by Martin Temple. Those have, in a variety of different ways, found the HSE and the regulatory regime, fit for purpose.

The blueprint for the HSE as it currently exists was set out in Lord Robens’ 1972 report, Safety and Health at Work. His vision of a goal-setting, risk-based and proportionate health and safety framework has endured. That is reflected in the HSE’s current business plan, which includes in its goals,

“drawing a distinction between real health and safety and bureaucracy and ‘overinterpretation’; making it even easier for people to understand and do what is required; devoting a greater proportion of effort where risks are highest and where we can have greatest impact; and continuing to hold to account those who expose their employees and others to unnecessary risk”.

The HSE can justifiably currently claim that it keeps the burden on business productivity to a minimum. Indeed, it effectively enhances it. It is proportionate in its decision-making and understands the business environment.

Understanding the business environment does not necessarily equate to reducing regulatory activity. Downturns in the business environment may engender a more focused approach. For example, if the North Sea sector is struggling for growth, the temptation to cut back on maintenance of the infrastructure may be strong; that has happened in the past. That would signal an environment where more, not less enforcement is needed. Conversely, the HSE is alert to circumstances where a pickup in a sector signals the need for more regulatory activity—housebuilding and refurbishment being one—where worker demand can, at least initially, outstrip available skills, so there is the prospect of more enforcement activity because of growth in the sector. I presume that the Government are content with that. We should be mindful of the risks of the growth duty undermining compliance and enforcement.

IOSH makes reference to the HSE’s enforcement management model, which uses “economic advantage deliberately sought” as a contributing factor to prosecution. How does that approach sit with the growth duty? Reference is also made to case law, in which the judgments specifically acknowledge that adverse economic effect on the business had to be accepted as a consequence of improving safety.

What discussions have the Government had with the HSE about that duty? What assessment have the Government made about the prospect of greater challenges to the HSE’s enforcement proceedings with the new duty? Is it considered that any change is required to the HSE’s enforcement management model? The health and safety system is working well in the UK. There are risks that the provisions will cause unnecessary confusion. Why fix what is not broken, where no advantage is to be expected?

We had a response to our circular from the Homes and Communities Agency; I thank it for its reply. It states:

“The HCA, when acting as social housing regulator, is classed as one of the ‘non-economic’ regulators to whom this proposed duty will apply”.

I guess that that is accepted. It says:

“Regulation of social housing has existed for approximately 40 years and is currently delivered under powers contained in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, which came into force in April 2010 ... The Act requires that we discharge what are termed the ‘economic regulation objective’ and the ‘consumer regulation objective’. The main way in which we deliver these objectives is by setting ‘economic standards’ and ‘consumer standards’, and regulating against these”.

It goes on to say:

“We are precluded by legislation from proactive monitoring of the consumer standards so in effect are an organisation primarily focused on our economic regulation remit”.

It sets out what its economic objectives are; that is,

“to ensure that registered providers of social housing are financially viable, properly managed, and perform their functions efficiently and economically … to support the provision of social housing sufficient to meet reasonable demands (including by encouraging and promoting private investment in social housing) … to ensure that value for money is obtained from public investment in social housing … to ensure that an unreasonable burden is not imposed (directly or indirectly) on public funds … to guard against the misuse of public funds”.

It says:

“In many respects the sub-clauses of the economic objective are mutually reinforcing. For example, Registered Providers have an excellent track record in meeting their obligations to lenders, consistent with the Regulator’s objective to ensure providers are financially viable. This is also a key factor in their ability to borrow at competitive margins and therefore invest in the supply of new homes. However, on some issues and on some providers we also need to strike a balance between encouraging investment (typically in new development) and safeguarding the viability of providers and historic taxpayer funding”—

so there is a potential conflict. It continues:

“This is reflected in our standards, the way we obtain assurance that standards are being met, and in the action we take if providers do not comply with the standards”.

The HCA has the following questions, which I pose to the Minister, about the new duty coming into effect. It asks:

“How the duty will interact with existing duties. If the duty is ‘free standing’ then we will need to consider how it is balanced against the full range of our regulatory objectives and how we balance this in our decision making”.

It also asks:

“How widely regulators will need to consider economic growth. As set out above we already have a duty to support the supply of social housing, which is a growth related objective. We would need to understand if the duty is to be interpreted in a way that goes beyond our existing objective, and if so the impact on our regulatory remit and the potential impact on resources”.

It further asks:

“Whether the duty will be about minimising burdens or alternatively about being fully mindful of economic growth implications when making decisions? In our particular sector, and again referring to our obligation to support the provision of social housing, there is a strong argument that having in place strong regulation makes the sector attractive to on-going investment and therefore growth”,

and how that will sit with the overall growth duty obligation. It also raises the point:

“Whether the duty will apply to regulatory policy design or to all day-to-day decisions and all levels of decision making in between. It is the regulator's view that application of such a duty on the micro level of individual case decisions is not straightforward and that a similar outcome can be gained from a more strategic approach”,

and asks how,

“decision making might be challenged in relation to compliance with the duty”.

These are highly relevant questions and we hope that the Minister is able to deal with them fully, either today or in writing afterwards.

Afghanistan

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there are now 2 million girls in education in Afghanistan, and 4 million boys. That is remarkable progress from where we were 10 years ago. We are very much committed to improving the status of women and girls throughout Afghanistan, and that is part of what our priorities represent.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, in announcing next month’s London conference on Afghanistan, the Prime Minister said:

“We will bring together all our partners to assist this National Unity Government as they embark on vital reforms to revitalise Afghanistan’s economy”.

What steps have been taken to ensure that the voices of civic society, in particular those of women, are heard at this event?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there will be an associated event for representatives of civil society at the London conference, and another associated event for private sector investors. We are very much aware of how much effort we need to make to strengthen relatively weak civil society organisations in Afghanistan.

South Sudan

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the number of staff in the UK Sudan unit has fluctuated over the past few months; my understanding is that it is now rather larger than it was two or three months ago. I do not think that we can wait until the fighting stops to begin negotiations; local fighting is likely to continue for some considerable time and we have to start to move to construct at least the basis of some form of government now.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the comments of the noble Lord, but he just mentioned the number of refugees outside South Sudan. In fact, 180,000 refugees have arrived in Ethiopia and the number is expected to grow to 350,000 by the end of the year. What further steps will the Government take to ensure that Ethiopia and other neighbouring countries do not themselves collapse under the weight of this terrible tragedy?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, that is a problem not only for this conflict but for the Syrian conflict and the neighbours of Syria as well. The United Kingdom is the second-largest donor to South Sudan and those donations include assistance to refugees in surrounding countries. IGAD, the international action group, operates as a means through which all the neighbouring countries get together. I emphasise how serious the conflict is. It is estimated that perhaps 7 million out of the 10 million people in South Sudan may be short of food or under famine conditions by this time next year.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard in this debate, everyone agrees it is right to remove unnecessary regulatory and legislative burdens from individuals, civil society, businesses and public sector organisations. However, this hotchpotch of measures is not proportionate in some areas and will not promote growth or jobs. There are two specific areas of the Bill that I want to focus on in my contribution today, both of which, if carried, will put at risk workers’ and consumers’ safety. These relate to the clauses on health and safety and the last-minute proposals thrown in at the end of the Committee stage in the other place on taxis and private hire vehicles.

Regulations that protect the health and safety of workers are not red tape: ask the many people injured in the construction industry or the families of those killed. Nor are the regulations that help women decide on the safest way home or to work red tape. The health and safety proposals will have a negligible impact on self-employed people but will create confusion, as we have heard in the debate, where there has been clarity for the past 40 years. At best, the Government believe this clause may save self-employed people 37p each per year. As the Minister said, the Health and Safety Executive has only today published a consultation on the list of self-employed people who will continue to be covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. It is 60 pages long, so I have not been through it thoroughly, but it is beyond me how any self-employed joiner is expected to know whether they are involved in,

“construction work (within the meaning given in regulation 2(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulation 2007)”.

The same is true of most others. It is a recipe for confusion and the only people who will benefit will be consultants and possibly undertakers.

The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health is also worried that this exemption could cause growth in bogus self-employment and poor health and safety standards—a problem highlighted so well by my noble friend Lady Donaghy’s report in 2009. The institution believes the current requirements for the self-employed are not onerous and make good business sense. Exemption would give the wrong message and may encourage the unscrupulous to gamble with people’s safety and health.

Turning to the other area, taxis and minicabs are not just for the well-off. At certain parts of the day they are the only form of public transport available. For elderly and disabled people taxis and minicabs are often their only option throughout the day. Safety organisations, police and crime commissioners, licensing officers, councils and industry bodies warn that the Government’s proposed reforms will have severe safety implications. People without a minicab licence will be allowed to drive one when it is “off duty”, threatening to put vulnerable passengers, such as women, at increased risk of rogue minicab drivers. Mandatory annual licence checks, which help councils ensure drivers are fit and proper, will end. Minicab operators will be allowed to subcontract bookings to firms in other areas, meaning that someone getting into a minicab cannot be sure it is from the firm they booked with. Ask a person with disabilities whether that is right.

The Government cannot rely completely on the Law Commission for this regulation. Its final report, published in May, recommended significant new enforcement powers and safeguards for local authorities in conjunction with these measures. As my noble friend Lord Stevenson said, local licensing officers do not have the powers to ensure these changes can be enforced safety.

Ministers in the other place said these measures work in London but Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police work together for on-street enforcement in the capital, which has significant problems with unlicensed operators. Between 200 and 250 cases of sexual assault concerning unlicensed minicabs are reported across London every year. It is conservatively estimated that five times that number go unreported. The recent protests we have seen outside the House over Uber and the questions it raises on the impact of new technologies on the trade underline why the Government’s piecemeal reforms will not work. We need to consider regulation and enforcement of the licensed taxi and private hire trades comprehensively. These piecemeal measures are wrong. Deregulation will have wider consequences, including for people with disabilities’ access to taxis and minicabs, and the production of black cabs, which is still an important part of the UK automotive sector.

The Government need to stop and listen. Listen to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which campaigns for better personal safety and expressed concerns that enabling anyone to drive a licensed minicab will provide,

“greater opportunity for those intent on preying on women”.

Listen to the Local Government Association, which says that,

“it is imperative that the Government withdraws these plans”,

to ensure passenger safety. Listen to the group of 15 cross-party police and crime commissioners from across the United Kingdom who have written to the Government to oppose these measures. If Ministers continue to refuse to listen, I am confident from listening to the contributions in today’s debate that noble Lords across this House will stand up for the travelling public and refuse to endorse the Government’s rushed and risky proposals.

Crime: Sexual Violence

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate. I, too, welcome the Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative and the Foreign Secretary’s plans to use the UK’s leadership of the G8 to raise awareness and seek concrete commitments to help combat the widespread prevalence of sexual violence in conflict.

However, not only must we be tough on the crime we have to be tough on its causes. We must tackle the underlying problems of lack of empowerment, education and inclusion. I heard Justine Greening on “Woman’s Hour” this morning and could not have agreed more with her sentiments. Challenging attitudes and beliefs around gender-based violence is critical alongside the implementation of effective legislation. But I would have liked to have heard more about how we translate those positive sentiments into action. I therefore ask the Minister how much funding the UK Government are willing to commit to PSVI. How much are we asking the other G8 countries to commit? How can we ensure that this issue is prioritised among the G8 Foreign Ministers at the G8 meeting, and that the momentum continues after April to translate the commitments into co-ordinated and effective action?

Finally, I ask the Minister whether the PSVI and G8 messaging and funding include increasing support to survivors and broader protection systems, as well as efforts to tackle the root causes of sexual violence in conflict, including addressing gender and age discrimination and creating livelihood opportunities.

Freedom of Religion and Conscience

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate. Freedom of religion and belief is a human right which applies to everyone. Inadequate religious freedom is a threat to freedom of association, to freedom of speech and to social, economic and cultural rights. Respect and tolerance are the key ingredients in building a safer and more peaceful world.

The relationship between oppression of religious belief and armed conflict is clear. In the Government’s Building Stability Overseas Strategy it was recognised that,

“religious freedom is often crucial to ensuring conflict prevention and post-conflict peacebuilding”.

The report continued:

“Violence against a religious group can be a forewarning of wider conflict”.

As we have heard in today’s debate, hundreds of millions of people of all religions and none find themselves facing daily threats of violence simply for exercising this basic human right to practise their faith. Even those who look to defend the rights of others regularly face similar intimidation, threats and violence.

Too often when we discuss issues of religion and human rights, it is to consider the ways in which sets of rights conflict—or seem to be in conflict—with each other. I was particularly pleased to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford note that religious freedom is not ultimately in opposition to other rights such as freedom of expression, non-discrimination, women’s rights and gay rights. As a humanist, I would certainly not suggest that freedom of religion and belief be elevated over other human rights, nor that they can go unchallenged where the safety or rights of others are threatened. Yet neither can religious belief simply be seen as a right at the margins, to be considered only when no other rights come into play. In that context, the point made by the right reverend Prelate about the right to manifest religion taking precedence over other rights, such as the corporate image of a company, was an important one. Above all, a balance of rights and a recognition of context are indicative of religious freedom as a real, not just a nominal, human right.

As with other fundamental freedoms, religious freedom is something that benefits everyone because it creates conditions for peace, democratisation, development and human rights. To that end, I ask the Minister whether the Government have considered following the example of such countries as Canada and the US in prioritising the issue of protecting religious freedoms. Our country’s links of tradition and trade to many of the most troubled areas make it well placed to use that influence to best effect. And act we must, for the human rights abuses of which we have heard this evening must not be allowed to continue unchallenged.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, if too brief. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for bringing the Bill back to your Lordships’ House.

In having this debate, we signify that attitudes have changed, but we are also helping to move those attitudes on. I have devoted much of my life as a trade unionist to fighting discrimination in all its forms, but I know only too well that, despite all the efforts outside Parliament, what happens in this House and the other place is often pivotal and a signifier of a decisive change in the public mood.

Mental health is one of the huge policy challenges of the 21st century. As we have heard, Parliament needs to do many practical things with regard to policy and organisational issues, but in lifting the veil of stigma, signalling that public attitudes must change and turning the corner on attitudes to public health, there will be no more important moment in Parliament than when this Bill is agreed to.

As my noble friend Lord Patel highlighted, we know that the proportion of people who have mental health episodes in their life is high. That is why it is both important and useful to have people in the other place and in this House who are willing to talk about their experiences and how they came through their problems. I know that we will fully succeed in changing attitudes only when people feel able to speak openly of their own personal experiences.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, have indicated, in the past, Members of the other House have not talked of their own personal experiences. That was so until the recent debate when Charles Walker, Member for Broxbourne, and my honourable friend Kevan Jones, Member for North Durham, spoke bravely and openly about the issues that have affected them. No one can dispute that they are, and have been, very effective MPs because they can often better understand the issues affecting many of their constituents. Their experience also shows that mental health can be an issue for anyone, anywhere, from all walks of life, at any time. It does not necessarily have to be permanent either. As with any chronic condition, it is how someone adapts and learns to live with the condition that makes them able to participate in society.

As we have heard, the presence of Section 141 in the 1983 Act is a barrier to those who may have had mental health problems in the past or who may still be grappling with them. Those individuals should be welcomed into Parliament with open arms because their experience is valuable. Parliament must reflect all of society. If it does not, it is a lot less effective and will therefore not make good legislation.

As the noble Lord, Lord Low, indicated, the changes in this Bill are long overdue. Mind and other mental health organisations have long campaigned for these laws to be repealed. They are clearly discriminatory and there is widespread agreement among MPs, political parties and all noble Lords in this House that they have no place in a modern and fair society. However, what is worse is that they are symptomatic of the prejudicial view that having had a mental illness makes you incapable of being a citizen with all the rights and responsibilities that that implies. They stigmatise this illness unlike any other. They put out the message that anyone with a mental health problem is not fit to be an MP. It is a message picked up, in my opinion, by all employers and is something that we know is experienced by the overwhelming majority of people who have suffered mental illness.

By adopting these measures, we can send a clear message to all employers that we need to address mental health problems in the workplace and put an end to the discriminatory attitudes that prevent capable people working. But we cannot expect people to be out and proud when laws that stigmatise mental illness still exist.

Every time a citizen is summoned for jury service, as I was a couple of years ago, they are reminded in the most explicit terms that someone who has suffered a mental illness is a second-class citizen. By passing the Bill, we will send a clear message that discrimination is wrong and that people have a right to be judged as individuals, not stigmatised or discriminated against.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, I hope to be brief, not least because I hope to pop along to say farewell to Peggy Byatt, who has been one of the longest serving members of staff of this House.

Last May, when this Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, Mark Harper, the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, stated that the aim of the Bill was to,

“tackle electoral fraud, increase the number of people registered to vote and improve the integrity of the electoral register”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/12; col. 1172.]

No one would disagree with that. As my noble friend Lord Wills has stated, it was for these precise reasons that the previous Labour Government, with cross-party support, put through the Political Parties and Elections Act. Those reasons also paved the way for individual registration.

However, in committing to this, we also provided for a phased timetable and independent testing of any new system, backed up with strong and effective monitoring by the Electoral Commission. Why did we do it in that way? We wanted to make sure that the systems to stop fraud, which we are all committed to stopping, did not also exacerbate an already growing problem of underregistration. As we have heard today, there are millions of unregistered—mainly young and low-income—voters missing from the electoral roll. The Electoral Commission’s briefing, which has also been quoted today, states that the December 2010 register was between 85% and 87% complete, with at least 6 million eligible people missing from it. It is the biggest scandal for our democracy that so many people are denied the opportunity to vote. The other issue that is combined with underregistration is the prospect that the growing number of people who do not vote in elections will not see the point of registering to vote. That concern is also shared by the Electoral Commission.

Without a concerted and prolonged campaign, it is possible that the register may go from the near 90% completeness that we hope we currently have to something like 65%. As my noble friend Lady Gould said, 65% will result in as many as 10 million voters losing the opportunity to vote. What sort of democracy is that? I shall repeat the question of my noble friend Lady Gould. Will the Minister give us the details of the implementation plan now? Will they set out the timetable in more detail and will they give us better figures on a budget to ensure that we have an effective campaign? This is not scaremongering when you consider the experience of Northern Ireland, on which we have had some very interesting perspectives. When the system was changed there in 2002 it resulted in a huge drop in the size of the register. It was such a drop that we had to address it in subsequent legislation, so we know that there is a problem that we need to address.

Although I believe very strongly that the timetable proposed in the Bill is too rushed, I welcome the concession that there will be a carryover for those who are currently on but fail to register individually. However, this will not happen in my household or in the many, many other households where everyone is registered to vote by post. As many noble Lords have pointed out, for many elderly people and people with disabilities, voting by post is their only real opportunity to vote. I do not accept the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that the fundamental problem with our electoral system is the extension of postal voting. With the right measures—we have talked about how those measures can be improved—postal voting undoubtedly increases turnover. What we want is more people participating in our democracy. The fundamental problems are more to do with false entries on the register. All parties and all individuals can take responsibility to highlight where they think there are problems and address them. When I had that responsibility in the Labour Party we were very rigorous in pursuing any example where we found multiple registrations.

Why, therefore, will postal voters and proxy voters be excluded from this carryover which, as we have heard, is going to affect a lot of elderly people and people with disabilities? For the record, in my own household, neither my husband nor I will be eligible to vote when it comes to the general election; me because of my membership of this House and he because he is a Spanish national. We have talked about the errors that can occur and about checking each signature. Unfortunately, on one occasion—I am not going to say which election because I have proudly voted in every one—when we were completing our postal votes on the dinner table, I mistakenly signed his declaration and he mistakenly signed mine. Despite efforts to contact the appropriate authorities, I fear that my vote was not counted on that occasion.

As many of my noble friends have pointed out, the Bill rushes through a process that actually needs a lot of careful consideration and planning. Why the rush for the next general election? My sentiments about the Bill are accurately reflected in the following quote:

“I also agree with the Minister that it would be difficult to introduce a new system shortly before a general election. There should be other ways of testing the system along the way to ensure that the accuracy, integrity and comprehensiveness of the register and the system are always utterly watertight. I hope that that reassures the Minister on that point”.—[Official Report, Commons,13/7/09; col. 109.]

That was Eleanor Laing MP, Shadow Conservative Minister, speaking in 2009.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, in his excellent contribution, mentioned those dreaded words “ID cards”. This is why I have always supported the principle of national ID cards—a national ID system. I have always been committed to it because it carries with it clear rights and responsibilities. I am sorry that many of my noble friends—I mean to say many of the noble Lords opposite—are not committed to that principle despite the fact that they want to ensure that the electoral register has as many constraints on it as possible. Yet they are not in favour of the one thing that would deliver a system of integrity in our democracy.

[Lord Empey]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for giving way. I referred to our system of electoral identity cards which are very specific and can be used only for voting purposes. They are slightly different from the national identity cards which were proposed here some time ago. Nevertheless, I am sure the noble Lord accepts that I agree with the point, which I suspect he is trying to make, that it gives an opportunity to know that the person standing in front of the polling station clerk is the person who is entitled to vote.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. I agree with him completely but I have to confess that I was using the opportunity of his reference to ID cards to have a little go. When we are talking about secure systems, we have to understand that that issue cuts across all civic society.

We need to ensure that any scheme of individual registration passes the test of accuracy and completeness. Here I agree 100% with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. He and I have a lot in common in terms of our previous experiences of elections. He may have won a lot more elections, but the fact is that we spent our livelihoods and lifetimes trying to tell politicians to follow the rules and regulations. I agree with him 100% when he asks whether by focusing on accuracy we are missing the fundamental importance of completeness. That is what this debate is about, and it is what the Bill needs to focus on. I am sure that that is what the discussions in Committee will be about.

Despite some welcome concessions from the Government that we heard articulated today, I am afraid that they do not represent sufficient safeguards to ensure that the Bill will not result in millions of people being unregistered and therefore unable to vote. What we have is a speeded-up timetable for the introduction of individual registration purely—I put this at its best—to save money. Combine that with another important issue, the downgrading of the role of the Electoral Commission, and we are left with the potential for long-term deterioration in the accuracy of the electoral register.

Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill [HL]

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, this has been an excellent, albeit brief, debate. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for bringing the Bill to your Lordships' House.

The changes in it are long overdue. Mind and other mental health organisations have long campaigned for these laws to be repealed. They are clearly discriminatory and there is widespread agreement among MPs and political parties alike that they have no place in a modern and fair society. But what is worse about their existence is that they are symptomatic of the prejudicial view that having had a mental illness makes you incapable of being a citizen with all the rights and responsibilities that that implies. They stigmatise this illness unlike any other. It puts out the message that anyone with a mental health problem is not fit to be an MP. It is a message that is picked up by all employers and is something we know is experienced by the overwhelming majority of people who have suffered mental illness.

By adopting these measures, we can send a clear message to all employers that we need to address mental health problems in the workplace and put an end to the discriminatory attitudes that prevent capable people working.

We know that the proportion of people who have mental health episodes in their life is high, as my noble friend Lord Patel highlighted. That is why it is both important and useful to have people in the other place and this House who are willing to talk about their experiences and how they came through their problems. I know that we will fully succeed in changing attitudes only when people feel able to speak openly of their own personal experiences. But we cannot expect people to be out and proud when laws that stigmatise mental illness still exist. Every time a citizen is summonsed for jury service, as I was recently, they are reminded in the most explicit terms that someone who has suffered a mental illness is a second-class citizen. How can we change attitudes when this goes on? I hope that, after today, the Minister will ensure that the Government find time to make these changes, which are long overdue.