Vol. 729
No. 182
Wednesday
13 July 2011
PA R L I A M E N T A RY D E B A T E S
(HANSARD)
HOUSE OF LORDS
OFFICIAL REPORT
O R D E R O F BU S I N E S S
Questions
EU: Common Fisheries Policy
Energy: Fuel Poverty
Devolution: England
Immigration Advisory Service
Phone Hacking
Statement
Mull of Kintyre Review
Statement
European Union Bill
Commons Amendments and Reasons
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Report (4th Day)
Grand Committee
Education Bill
Committee (6th Day)
Written Statements
Written Answers
For column numbers see back page
£3·50
Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should
give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office.
The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly
notify their wish to receive them.
No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the
bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of
their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the
Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned
shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of
Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the
Daily Report.
This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/index/110713.html
PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES
DAILY PARTS
Single copies:
Commons, £5; Lords £3·50
Annual subscriptions:
Commons, £865; Lords £525
WEEKLY HANSARD
Single copies:
Commons, £12; Lords £6
Annual subscriptions:
Commons, £440; Lords £255
Index:
Annual subscriptions:
Commons, £125; Lords, £65.
LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only.
Details available on request.
BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the
session.
Single copies:
Commons, £105; Lords, £40.
Standing orders will be accepted.
THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published
separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order.
WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN, compiled by the House of Commons,
gives details of past and forthcoming business, the work of Committees and
general information on legislation, etc.
Single copies: £1·50.
Annual subscription: £53·50.
All prices are inclusive of postage.
© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2011,
this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence,
available online through The National Archives website at
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm
Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU;
email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk
713
EU: Common Fisheries Policy
[13 JULY 2011]
House of Lords
Wednesday, 13 July 2011.
3 pm
Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.
EU: Common Fisheries Policy
Question
3.06 pm
Asked by Baroness Parminter
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps
they are taking to achieve reform of the Common
Fisheries Policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Lord Henley): My Lords, I welcome this Question
from my noble friend; it is particularly timely given
that the Commission published its proposals for the
reform of the common fisheries policy earlier today.
My honourable friend the UK fisheries Minister continues
to encourage his European counterparts to support
radical reform, and will be pressing our case for reform
as negotiations develop, with further talks at the
Agriculture and Fisheries Council next Tuesday.
Baroness Parminter: The common fisheries policy
has one of the most dismal reputations of any European
Union policy and is responsible for the fact that yields
in our fisheries have diminished. Does the Minister
agree that its reform must include the total elimination
of discards, and maximum sustainable yields delivered
by long-term management plans agreed at regional
fisheries level?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I could be very brief in
responding to my noble friend by saying that I agree
with her entirely. Obviously we want to deal with the
problem of discards. We have done a great deal within
the United Kingdom about that matter. She is also
right to talk about the need for regionalisation of the
common fisheries policy and about rights-based
management. However, we will discuss all that and
continue to negotiate in Europe on these matters—and
I think that we need support from all sides of the
House, and throughout the entire country and Europe,
to get a proper reform of the CFP.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, does the Minister accept
that any reform of the common fisheries policy will
fail if it just amounts to piling regulation upon regulation?
That has been the trouble with the common fisheries
policy from the very beginning. Surely the important
thing is that we accept that fishermen themselves have
to accept responsibility for the health of the industry.
As the noble Baroness said, the best way to do that is
to build on the regional management organisations
that already exist.
EU: Common Fisheries Policy
714
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is becoming rather
easy, because I think I can agree with the noble Lord
as well in terms of the direction that we are travelling
in. I think that we ought to continue to travel in that
direction. We will continue to fight for a ban on
discards and deal with that very serious problem. We
will also continue to negotiate with other colleagues in
Europe on the other matters that my noble friend and
the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Eden of Winton: Can my noble friend say, on
the subject of discards in particular, whether the fisheries
of any other countries within the European Union
take a different line from that which our own fisheries
have taken?
Lord Henley: My Lords, discards are a particular
problem, not so much in Mediterranean waters but
more in North Sea and Atlantic waters. That is why I
stressed in my earlier responses the need for regionalisation
on these matters. As my noble friend and as others
have put it, discards are something that we all find
abhorrent. The whole idea that such things should still
be happening is wrong, and we will fight to end
discards. We are already doing a considerable amount
to reduce the amount of discards within the UK fleet.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Is the Minister aware
that the European Commission is now trying to take
back the management of the common fisheries policy,
which was to have been moved to the European
Parliament?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think the noble Lady has
got that slightly wrong. As I understand it, following
this report from the Commission, this will be a matter
for the Council of Ministers and for the European
Parliament. It will be a matter for co-decision, so it
will take some time. As a result, it is very important
that we build up the appropriate alliances in Europe
and within the European Parliament to make sure that
we can negotiate the best deal possible for a proper,
radical reform of the common fisheries policy.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, could the
Minister answer my noble friend’s question, which is
of crucial consequence and requires an answer?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that I had dealt
with that point in answering my noble friend on discards.
We think that the wasteful practice of discarding fish
should be brought to an end. We are doing a great deal
already within the United Kingdom to make sure that
it is being reduced by various practical measures relating
to net sizes and other matters. We will also continue, in
the negotiations for reform of the common fisheries
policy, to make sure that we do all we can to bring it
completely and utterly to an end.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, it is not quite
as simple as saying that discards shall be abandoned.
What happens to the undersize fish caught by fishermen
at sea? Will they count against national quotas or
regional quotas? Are we going to rely solely on changing
net sizes? That is very important, but you cannot avoid
discards if you fish in the sea.
715
EU: Common Fisheries Policy
Energy: Fuel Poverty
[LORDS]
Lord Henley: My Lords, we can never completely
and utterly get rid of discards. We want to get rid of
them as much as is possible. That is why we are seeking
a reform of the CFP, and that is what we are negotiating
to do. However, there are also practical measures
relating to net sizes, to which the noble Lord referred,
and practical measures relating to CCTV on the boats
themselves that can help deal with the problem. It is
going to take time and a lot of negotiation with other
member states and with Members of the European
Parliament, but we are committed to working towards
that.
Lord Knight of Weymouth: My Lords, we very
much welcome the Commission’s proposals today to
end discards. In doing so, we pay tribute to the campaign,
led by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall among others, to
gather a petition of over half a million signatories to
press for this change. Clearly it is in the long-term
interests of the industry for fish stocks to be rebuilt
and taken sustainably. With 75 per cent overfishing, a
cut in the fleet looks inevitable if this new policy is to
work. Can I ask the Minister how this will be managed,
particularly in the coastal towns hardest hit? Will the
decommissioning payments continue, and will there
be extra investment in regenerating those communities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble
Lord for paying tribute to the campaign run by Hugh
Fearnley-Whittingstall—to which I pay tribute—but I
would hope that the noble Lord would also pay tribute
to my honourable friend Mr Richard Benyon, who I
think has done equal amounts in terms of his negotiations
on these matters. I cannot give the noble Lord specific
answers to these questions at this stage, as he well
knows, because we are still negotiating on these matters.
We have had the proposals from the Commission only
today, so I have not read them in detail, nor has my
honourable friend Mr Benyon. We will look at those
proposals, he will be negotiating on them next Wednesday,
and we will come forward with proposals that will be
good for the United Kingdom’s fisheries industry, for
fish in general and for the sustainability of our fish
stocks.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, given the
success of the fisheries policies of Iceland and the
Faroe Islands, and given the fact that 70 per cent of
the fish in European waters swam in British waters
before we joined the Community, why do we not take
back our own fish management to the benefit of our
industry? Why do we need a common fisheries policy
at all?
Lord Henley: Oh dear. As I think I have said to the
noble Lord before, we are where we are. We have a
common fisheries policy and we are committed to
renegotiating that along with the Commission, which
has accepted that that policy does not work, and we
are going to get that right. With the Commission and
a vast number of other member states being on side,
and with this country being totally and utterly committed
to doing so, we can get that right. We will start that
process next Tuesday and continue it as long as is
necessary.
716
Energy: Fuel Poverty
Question
3.15 pm
Asked by Earl Cathcart
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress
has been made in carrying out their “full-scale
review of fuel poverty and its implementation”,
with special regard to energy companies adopting a
rising block tariff system of charging.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord
Marland): My Lords, the Secretary of State announced
on 14 March 2011 that Professor John Hills would
undertake an independent review of fuel poverty. He
has been asked to consider fuel poverty from first
principles—what causes it, its effects and how best to
measure it—with interim findings expected in the autumn
and a final report in early 2012. The review is independent.
Its conclusions will be evidence-based and have not
been and will not be pre-judged or pre-agreed with the
Government.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I thank my noble friend
for that encouraging reply. It is good that Professor
Hills will carry out that work. The problem is that
energy companies recover their fixed costs from the
first few hundred units they charge each customer, and
the more energy used the lower the charge per unit.
This seems topsy-turvy to me and does nothing to
encourage us to use less energy. It is no wonder that
there are millions of households in fuel poverty. With
energy prices set to surge, surely the first few hundred
units consumed should be relatively cheap and then
the charging should get progressively more expensive
per unit.
Lord Marland: I am very grateful to my noble
friend. This is a subject that we have discussed on
many occasions. Indeed, our officials have offered to
meet him to discuss it, which I am delighted to say
they will in September. I can also inform my noble
friend that I have written to Professor Hills and suggested
that he might like to talk to noble Lords and hear their
views, bearing in mind that his is an independent
review so I am not allowed to insist upon that. I am
delighted that he has offered a date in August, which is
probably not that convenient to noble Lords, so he has
agreed to see your Lordships in September. I hope that
the input from my noble friend will then be extremely
invaluable.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, can the Minister
ask Professor Hills and his officials to refer back to a
series of amendments that I moved on previous energy
Bills as they went through this House, which set out in
detail the structure for a rising block tariff scheme?
Those amendments were supported by a number of
lobbies outside the House and they met precisely the
objectives set by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, in his
question.
717
Energy: Fuel Poverty
[13 JULY 2011]
Lord Marland: Well, the noble Lord knows that my
knowledge of ancient history is less than my knowledge
of science, so I am afraid that I am not familiar with
his expertise or his amendments to Bills that were
taken through the House. However, the problem with
the rising tariff is that the people who use the most
energy are those in the poorest homes, which require
the most heating. It is not as simple as waving a magic
wand. It is therefore imperative that we progress with
things such as the Green Deal and drive in the efficiency
measures that we are setting out through it before we
revisit this excellent point, which we are very sympathetic
and open to, later on when that Green Deal is in
action.
Lord Best: My Lords, has the Minister seen the
statistic that some 200,000 pensioners would be taken
out of fuel poverty if the kind of tariff system
recommended by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, was
implemented? On the theme of fuel poverty and energy
conservation, can the Minister report progress under
the Energy Bill on the measure to prevent private
landlords re-letting properties that fail every test of
energy performance after 2016?
Lord Marland: The noble Lord is obviously very
knowledgeable about the private rented sector, and he
knows as well as I do that we are very committed to
trying to use every possible commercial measure to
ensure that the private rented sector takes its homes
out of the F and G categories. We are going to review
that in 2016 and we are still open to considering it, but
it is very much an imperative, a fundamental step, in
getting these people out of fuel poverty—which
incidentally is now reaching an horrendous figure. I
am looking at my notes, which I do not often do; in
2004, 1.2 million people in the UK were in fuel poverty,
and 4.5 million are now in fuel poverty. This is a
serious task that the Government have to set about
solving. All of us in this room want to see it solved and
satisfied, and I am very grateful for the support that I
get from all sides of the House to come up with a
solution.
Devolution: England
718
Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, fuel poverty
has stepped up a gear with the latest announcement of
18 per cent price increases. The Government have to
understand that more and more people who have
never previously worried about their bills or thought
of themselves as being in fuel poverty will do so when
they get their winter bills next year. The disgrace of
the energy companies is that those who have the least
could end up paying the most, with higher prices for
pre-paid meters and those who do not pay directly
from their bank also having to pay more. I note that
the Minister said he cannot instruct Professor Hills,
but he could make suggestions. Can he suggest to Professor
Hills that he examine this in his review to ensure that
this perverse pricing is ended once and for all?
Lord Marland: I am afraid, as I said earlier, that I
cannot agree with the noble Baroness; I normally do,
but I cannot on this occasion. It is not for me to
instruct Professor Hills; Professor Hills is coming up
with an independent review. I am delighted if the
noble Baroness herself wants to make suggestions to
him. That is the point of the consultation that he is
offering in September, and I am sure that he will
greatly benefit from her views.
As for energy prices, these are very regrettable, and
this is the price that we are currently paying for no
investment in the infrastructure of the energy and
electricity in this country. We have to invest £110 billion—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Marland: Noble Lords can say no, but come
on, they know as well as I do. Some £110 billion has to
be invested in the infrastructure. We have failed the
consumer in creating energy security by being reliant
on fossil fuels.
Devolution: England
Question
3.23 pm
Asked by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am very pleased to
hear the Minister’s reply, but it will be some time
before the report on fuel poverty is published. In the
mean time, are the Government considering making
social tariffs for energy compulsory as a way of reducing
costs for those in fuel poverty? If they are not, what
else are they thinking about in the short term to try to
deal with this severe crisis? The Minister has just given
us the very bad figures.
Lord Marland: I re-emphasise that we are going to
have an interim report in the summer and a final
report in the early part of next year. That is very
quick. It would be wrong for us to start putting up
tariffs or making incentives while we are waiting for
the eminent professor to come up with his conclusions,
having consulted across the piece. Forgive me if I do
not agree to the noble Baroness’s suggestion; it is
obviously a good one, but we need to wait for the
professor to deliver.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals
they have for devolution to England.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, the Government
have no current proposals for devolution to England.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, surely the
Minister will agree that now that Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland have control over all their own domestic
matters through devolved parliaments, this leaves a
democratic deficit in England. Will the Government
now consider bringing forward the only proposal that
will provide a stable and equitable solution to this
problem, namely a UK federal system and a devolved,
elected Parliament for England?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I am sure we
can have an interesting debate on this question, because
a devolved English Parliament within a federalised
719
Devolution: England
Immigration: Advisory Service
[LORDS]
[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH]
UK has been one of the proposals put forward in the
past to deal with the West Lothian question. I think
the noble Lord would admit that this is not without its
complexity. The Government have committed to the
establishment of a commission to investigate the West
Lothian question, and we would not want to pre-empt
any conclusions that that commission may come to.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, why is it
taking so long for the Government to establish this
commission? Surely the point being made by the noble
Lord is that it is ridiculous that we should have Labour
MPs from Scotland voting on English matters which
are devolved in Scotland, where English MPs have no
such say. This was a fundamental tenet of our manifesto
commitment, so when can we expect this commission
to be appointed? Before the Recess, I hope.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I think my noble friend
will know that the programme before the Recess is
rather congested. However, I reassure him that the
commission will be appointed this year. It is important
to get its terms right. This is a complex issue. All noble
Lords who have discussed or investigated it will know
about its complexity. It is important to get the right
question and therefore the right answer.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord
realises that the best way to get fairness into the whole
issue is for the Government to accept the amendment
that I have indicated I will move to the Scotland Bill to
implement what the House of Lords Select Committee
unanimously recommended to the House—that the
Barnett formula should be changed so that it is based
on need. Will the Government accept that?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We will certainly have an
opportunity to debate the noble Lord’s amendment as
the Scotland Bill will shortly come to this House. In
the mean time, one of the aspects of devolution which
the commission will investigate is the whole question
of funding. I reassure the noble Lord that the Barnett
formula will loom large in its considerations.
720
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I have just been exhorted
by my noble friend Lord Forsyth to ensure that the
Government tackle this process robustly. I think he is
correct in that regard. The commission will, of course,
evaluate the consequences of Lords reform when deciding
in what way the Chambers of the House might operate,
if its solution is a parliamentary one.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, in recognising
that British people no longer live in a unitary state,
rather than have a top-down solution suggested by the
Government or anyone else, would it not be better to
seek the views of the English citizens of this country,
and take a lesson from the experience in Scotland of
having a convention to discuss these matters deliberately
over a period so that all good ideas can be ventilated
and the most popular selected?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I hope that the commission
will inform any such debate which may occur. That is
the reason why the Government want the advice of the
commission, which can take evidence, consider all the
proposals and come to conclusions which are practical
and desirable for the governance of this country.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will
the Minister give an assurance to those of us who live
in England that the commission will look at the English
regions and not just at a parliament for England as
there are great differences in need between the north-west
of England, the north, the south-west, and London
and the south-east? I would like that assurance, particularly
as the north-west, along with the north, has suffered
disproportionately under the Barnett formula.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I am sure that
regional aspects will come into the commission’s
discussions but the noble Baroness will know that the
last time a vote on a regional assembly was held, the
people of north-east England voted against such an
assembly.
Immigration: Advisory Service
Question
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the English
want a devolved Parliament; and to pay for it?
3.30 pm
Asked by Baroness Hamwee
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: That is not for me to say;
I guess that is for the English people to say. Given that
roughly 85 per cent of the membership of the House
of Commons comes from English constituencies, one
of the solutions may be not to change the devolution
settlement in respect of England.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how immigrants
and asylum seekers will be provided with legal
advice and representation following the entering
into administration of the Immigration Advisory
Service.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, surely the
outcome of the commission that the noble Lord has
said the Government will set up within the year will
have an impact on consideration of Lords reform.
Given that, does the noble Lord agree that we had
better wait to see the outcome of the commission’s
work before bringing legislation before your Lordships’
House?
Baroness Northover: My Lords, it is clearly regrettable
that the Immigration Advisory Service’s trustees have
decided to place the organisation in administration.
However, the IAS is one provider in a wider market of
immigration and asylum advice. The Legal Services
Commission is identifying alternative provision for
the areas affected, as well as making the necessary
arrangements for case transfers.
721
Immigration: Advisory Service
[13 JULY 2011]
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the IAS had almost
25,000 new cases last year, of which 8,500 were asylum
cases. That leaves about 10,000 live cases. What assurances
can the Government give: first, to clients, especially
those whose cases are at a critical time-limited point
and who need information in their own languages
about what will happen next; and, secondly, on practical
matters, including the number of staff retained by the
administrators to deal with such things as the transfer
of files? My noble friend will know that a year after
the closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice many files
are still in storage, with the storage company looking
for payment before cases can proceed.
Baroness Northover: The IAS was audited and the
Legal Services Commission identified potential overclaims
representing millions of pounds. That is what has led
to this train of events. The LSC is working very hard
to transfer cases and is prioritising the most vulnerable
first, among them cases of unaccompanied children
claiming asylum and cases coming up to tribunal
immediately. A large number of people working in this
area are prepared to take on this work, which is very
encouraging for making a smooth transfer and making
sure that clients are well looked after in this situation.
Lord Dubs: Is there not a danger that with the
cutback in money for legal aid, it is not possible for
other organisations to fill the gap left by the Immigration
Advisory Service? Is not the real problem that asylum
seekers will be caught in limbo, possibly becoming
destitute because there is no one to represent them
properly?
Baroness Northover: This is a problem in the IAS,
which projected that it would have a return profit of
£500,000 even with the proposed legal aid reforms.
This is not an issue about legal aid reforms but a
problem in the IAS: a large debt that it cannot address
and which the Legal Services Commission has decided
should not be written off. Many other organisations
want to take on this work. Carolyn Downs, the chief
executive of the Legal Services Commission, said in
the other place yesterday:
“we have a huge number of people contacting us who are prepared
to take on that work”.—[Official Report, Commons, Legal Aid,
Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill Committee, 12/7/11;
col. 72.]
Baroness Sherlock: I declare an interest as former
chief executive of the Refugee Council. Can the Minister
assure the House that the quality of specialist immigration
law that will be available in the future will as good as in
the past? Is she aware of the differential success rates
of people getting very good legal advice? Does she
accept that removing immigration law from the scope
and cutting the budget of legal aid for asylum may
make it harder? I am sure that most noble Lords
would not dream of buying a house without decent
legal advice, and certainly no one should be forced to
defend their life without it.
Baroness Northover: The Legal Services Commission
has a certain threshold for demanding the kind of
quality that the noble Baroness is talking about. That
continues to be the case, and we are encouraged that a
large number of providers are willing to take on this
work, which helps drive up the quality.
Arrangement of Business
722
Lord Bach: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that
every case that is currently with the IAS will be transferred
to a competent provider of legal advice and representation?
I think she has already indicated that she will make
sure that that happens. Furthermore, because of the
Government’s proposals in the Bill, all immigration
cases, except those of individuals in detention, will be
outside the scope of legal aid, including cases of
domestic violence. This means that in every case,
however complicated, no legal advice or legal aid will
be available. Does the Minister, who has a proud
liberal reputation, not feel more than a little uncomfortable
at depriving people of access to justice in this way?
Baroness Northover: How very kind of the noble
Lord. On his first point, three IAS hub centres will be
kept open for the moment: in Manchester, Birmingham
and Bradford. They are facilitating the transfer of
these cases. I am sure that we will have very interesting
debates coming down the track on legal aid, but this
has nothing to do with the proposed changes.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will my noble friend say
how many IAS staff will be retained in the three
offices that she has just mentioned to deal with the
transfer of files, and whether she considers that they
will be able to do it adequately, bearing in mind that,
as she has already said, there are still files that have not
been transferred after the demise of the RMJ, even
though there has been more than a year to do this?
Does she agree that the number of matter starts given
to the IAS is so large that they could not be taken up
by other practitioners, especially in regions such as
East Anglia and Yorkshire, where the IAS has either
100 per cent or most of the legal aid and asylum cases?
Baroness Northover: I disagree with what my noble
friend says about adequate provision perhaps not being
in place. I am very encouraged by what the chief
executive of the Legal Services Commission said. The
transfer of files is better organised than it was in the
previous case that he referred to, and we are confident
that this will be taken forward very effectively.
Arrangement of Business
Announcement
3.37 pm
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it may be
for the convenience of the House to know that, after
discussions in the usual channels, the Government
have made time available this Friday 15 July for a
debate on the Motion that this House takes note of
recent allegations about the conduct of the news media
and police, and the position of News Corporation
within United Kingdom media provision. The Motion
will be moved by my noble friend Lord Fowler after
proceedings on the Private Members’ Bills already
scheduled for Friday have been completed. I understand
that those matters are not expected to be lengthy. The
speakers list is now open in the government Whips’
Office.
723
Phone Hacking
[LORDS]
Phone Hacking
Statement
3.37 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord
Strathclyde): My Lords, it may now be convenient for
me to repeat a Statement that was made earlier today
by the Prime Minister. Well informed Peers will be
aware that some of the issues contained in the Statement
have changed. As a result, and with the agreement of
the Opposition, I have made some amendments that I
shall make plain during the course of the Statement,
which is as follows.
“In recent days, the whole country has been shocked
by the revelations about the phone hacking scandal.
What this country and this House have to confront is
an episode that is disgraceful: accusations of widespread
law-breaking by parts of our press; alleged corruption
by some police officers; and, as we have discussed, the
failure of our political system over many years to
tackle a problem that has been getting worse. We must
keep front and centre the real victims: relatives of
those who died at the hands of terrorism, war heroes
and murder victims—people who have already suffered
in a way that we can barely imagine who are being
made to suffer all over again.
We all want the same thing: press, police and politicians
who serve the public. Last night, the Deputy Prime
Minister and I met the Leader of the Opposition. I
also met the chairs of the Culture, Media and Sport,
Home Affairs and Justice Select Committees to discuss
the best way forward. Following these consultations, I
will set out today how we intend to proceed: first, on
the public inquiry; secondly, on the issues surrounding
News International’s proposed takeover of BSkyB;
and, thirdly, on ethics in the police service and on its
relationship with the press.
Before I do that, I will update the House on the
current criminal investigation into phone hacking. I
met Sir Paul Stephenson last night. He assured me
that the investigation is fully resourced, one of the
largest currently under way in the country, and being
carried out by a completely different team from the
one that carried out the original investigation. It is
being led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue
Akers, who I know impressed the Select Committee
yesterday. Her team is looking through 11,000 pages
containing 3,870 names, including around 4,000 mobile
and 5,000 landline phone numbers. The team has
contacted 170 people so far, and will contact every
single person named in those documents. The
commissioner’s office informed me this morning that
the team has so far made eight arrests and undertaken
numerous interviews.
Let me now turn to the action that the Government
are taking. Last week in the House I set out our
intention to establish an independent public inquiry
into phone hacking and other illegal practices in the
British press. We have looked carefully at what the
nature of this inquiry should be. We want it to be one
that is as robust as possible—one that can get to the
truth fastest and get to work the quickest, and one that
commands the full confidence of the public. Clearly,
there are two pieces of work to be done. First, we need
Phone Hacking
724
a full investigation into wrongdoing in the press and
the police, including the failure of the first police
investigation. Secondly, we need a review of regulation
of the press. We would like to get on with both these
elements as quickly as possible, while being mindful of
the ongoing criminal investigations. So, after listening
carefully, we have decided that the best way to proceed
is with one inquiry in two parts.
I can tell the House that the inquiry will be led by
one of the most senior judges in the country, Lord
Justice Leveson. He will report to both the Home
Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media
and Sport. The inquiry will be established under the
Inquiries Act 2005, which means it will have the power
to summon witnesses, including newspaper reporters,
management, proprietors, policemen and politicians
of all parties, to give evidence under oath and in
public.
Starting as soon as possible, Lord Justice Leveson,
assisted by a panel of senior independent figures with
relevant expertise in media, broadcasting, regulation
and government, will inquire into: the culture, practices
and ethics of the press; its relationship with the police;
the failure of the current system of regulation; the
contacts made, and discussions had, between national
newspapers and politicians; why previous warnings
about press misconduct were not heeded; and the issue
of cross-media ownership. He will make recommendations
for a new, more effective way of regulating the press—one
that supports its freedom, plurality and independence
from government, but which also demands the highest
ethical and professional standards. He will also make
recommendations about the future conduct of relations
between politicians and the press. This part of the
inquiry we hope will report within 12 months.
The second part of the inquiry will examine the
extent of unlawful or improper conduct at the News of
the World and other newspapers, and the way in which
management failures may have allowed this to happen.
This part of the inquiry will also look into the original
police investigation and the issue of corrupt payments
to police officers, and will consider the implications
for the relationships between newspapers and the police.
Lord Justice Leveson has agreed our draft terms of
reference. I am placing them today in the Library and
we will send them to the devolved Administrations.
No one should be in any doubt that we will get to the
bottom of the truth and learn the lessons for the
future.
Next is the issue of News International’s bid to take
over BSkyB. By the day we are hearing shocking
allegations: allegations that royal protection officers
were in the pay of the News of the World and handed
over the contact details of the Royal Family for profit;
and allegations that the former Prime Minister, Gordon
Brown, had his personal details blagged by another
News International title. As both the alleged nature of
the malpractice and the scope of the newspapers involved
widen, serious questions must be asked about News
Corporation’s proposed takeover of BSkyB”.
I would now like to depart from the original Statement
given in another place as very recent developments
mean that it is no longer accurate. Since the Prime
Minister’s Statement, News Corporation has announced
725
Phone Hacking
[13 JULY 2011]
that it no longer intends to bid for the shares in BSkyB
which it does not already own. This means that the
Culture Secretary’s decision to refer the matter to the
Competition Commission now falls.
I would now like to revert to the rest of the earlier
Statement.
“And let me also say this. The people involved,
whether they were directly responsible for the wrongdoing,
sanctioned it or covered it up, however high or low
they go, must not only be brought to justice; they must
also have no future role in the running of a media
company in our country.
Let me now turn to the issue of ethics in the police,
and in particular their relationship with the press. Of
course it is important that there is a good relationship
between the media and the police. The police often use
newspapers to hunt down wanted criminals and to
appeal for information. However, allegations have been
made that some corrupt police officers may have taken
payments from newspapers, and there are wider concerns
that the relationship between the police and the press
can be too close. When I spoke to Sir Paul Stephenson
yesterday, he made clear that he is as determined as I
am that all aspects of the police relationship with the
media should be beyond reproach.
On the allegation concerning improper payments
to police officers, I can assure the House that the
Metropolitan Police immediately referred the case to
the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Since
then, the IPCC’s most senior commissioner has been
supervising the Met’s work to identify the officers who
may have taken these payments. As soon as any officers
are identified, the commission has publicly made clear
that it will move to a fully independent investigation
drawing on all the available expertise necessary to
reassure the public. My right honourable friend the
Home Secretary has been assured by the commission
that it has both the powers and the resources it needs
to see this through. It will go wherever the evidence
leads it and will have full powers to investigate fully
any police wrongdoing that it might uncover. The
Home Secretary has also today commissioned a report
from the IPCC on the IPCC’s experience of investigating
corruption in the police service and on any lessons
that can be learnt for the police service. The initial
findings of this will be delivered to her by the end of
the summer.
I can also tell the House that, in addition to the
work of the judicial inquiry on the wider relationship
between the police and the press, Sir Paul Stephenson
is looking to invite a senior public figure to advise him
on the ethics that should underpin that relationship
for his own force, the Metropolitan Police. In particular,
this figure will advise him on how to ensure maximum
transparency and public confidence in how the
arrangements are working.
If we are calling for greater transparency from the
police, I think it is only right that we provide it in
government too. After all, as I have said, one of the
reasons we got into this situation is because over the
decades politicians and the press have spent time
courting support, not confronting the problems. So I
will be consulting the Cabinet Secretary on an amendment
to the Ministerial Code to require Ministers to record
Phone Hacking
726
all meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors,
senior editors and executives, regardless of the nature
of the meeting. Permanent Secretaries and special
advisers will also be required to record such meetings,
and this information should be published quarterly. It
is a first for our country and, alongside the other steps
we are taking, will help to make the UK Government
one of the most transparent in the world. The Opposition
might also want to adopt this practice to ensure a
cross-party approach.
After this Statement, I will be meeting the family of
Milly Dowler. None of us can imagine what they have
gone through, but I do know that they, like everyone
else in this country, want their politicians—all of
us—to bring this ugly chapter to a close, and ensure
that nothing like it can ever happen again. It is in that
spirit that I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.50 pm
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, first, I
thank the Leader of the House for repeating the
Statement made in the other place by the Prime Minister.
The revelations of the past week have shocked the
whole country. The public now rightly expect those of
us in Parliament, especially those in the other place
who directly represent them, to provide not just an
echo for that shock but the leadership necessary to
start putting things right. We on these Benches very
much welcome the fact that the usual channels have
now reached agreement that, as we have been urging,
this House will on Friday consider these issues in
depth in a full-scale debate in your Lordships’ House.
The fact that the other place is debating a Motion this
afternoon pressing Rupert Murdoch and News
Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB has
clearly been a clinching factor in ensuring that News
Corporation has done precisely that this afternoon.
We welcome the fact that News Corporation has
withdrawn its bid. It is the right thing to do and what
the country wanted to see.
The intention was that your Lordships’ House should
debate these issues on a Motion in exactly the same
terms in what would have been a powerful double
message from both Houses of Parliament. My party
proposed the Motion in the other place and secured
support from the other parties so that the House of
Commons is speaking with a single voice this afternoon.
I pay tribute to the leader of my party, the right
honourable Member for Doncaster North, for his
leadership in this matter and his remarkable personal
achievement in securing the extraordinary changes
that the country has seen over the past week.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was to have put the
same Motion to your Lordships’ House but, rightly,
he has now changed the words of his resolution. I pay
tribute as well to the way in which the noble Lord has
pursued these issues so doggedly. In the light of the
announcement by News Corporation, the usual channels
have been looking at the wording of the Motion on
the Order Paper and, as I say, it is right that those
terms should now be adjusted. We on these Benches
want to see all parties and both Houses of Parliament
move forward swiftly, comprehensively and, wherever
possible, on an agreed basis.
727
Phone Hacking
[LORDS]
[BARONESS ROYALL OF BLAISDON]
Let me ask about the timing, nature and scope of
the inquiry as set out in the Government’s Statement.
The scale and seriousness of what we have all heard
about practices in our newspaper industry, about the
way in which that industry was regulated and about
the failure of the police to investigate developments
should make it clear to us all that now is not the time
to delay. The truth is that for far too long, as the
Statement recognises, politicians have been lagging
behind the public’s rising sense of anger and indignation
about the methods and culture of sections of the
press. The task in front of us all, as politicians, is to
play our part in starting to put that right.
We welcome the inquiry detailed in the Statement.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that it will be
staffed and up and running before the Recess, and, in
addition to the fact that the interfering with or the
damaging of evidence in any way while a criminal
investigation is under way is already an offence, will
the Leader also confirm that from the moment the
judge is appointed today it will be an offence for
anyone to destroy documents related to the issues of
the inquiry?
Turning to how the inquiry will operate, we welcome
a number of aspects of the announcement today that
build clearly on the way forward for which we in this
party have been calling. It is right that this is a single
inquiry. We have been clear that it must be judge-led if
it is to get to the bottom of what has happened and
when. So we on these Benches strongly welcome the
announcement of Lord Justice Leveson as the chair of
the inquiry. He is extremely well suited to what will
unquestionably be a difficult but very important task.
Putting together the different elements of this single
inquiry will be itself a difficult task. Will the Leader
explain how the Government envisage the judge and
the inquiry panel operating together?
In opting for a far broader inquiry, it is right that
the Government have now decided to follow the argument
that we have been making on the inquiry’s scope and
the clear views of the Hacked Off campaign and the
family of Milly Dowler, whose phone was so despicably
hacked into by the News of the World—defunct now,
but the impact of that is still reverberating so revoltingly.
It is clear that there are a number of important
areas which the inquiry must cover. They include the
first police investigation alongside what happened at
the News of the World and other newspapers. Does the
Leader of the House agree that yesterday’s session of
the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place
made clear that the questions about the relationship
between the media and the police run wider than
simply the first investigation? We must take the steps
necessary to restore the public’s faith in the ability of
the police to hold all those who have broken the law to
account. Similarly, it can only be right that the inquiry
has been broadened to the relationship between politicians
and the press.
On the specifics, will the noble Lord the Leader of
the House assure the House that these aspects too of
the inquiry will be very much judge-led? It is important
that the terms of reference of the inquiry are not taken
to narrow the remit of the judge excessively. We on
Phone Hacking
728
these Benches are glad that the Government have
agreed to make changes to the terms of reference to
avoid doing so. Alongside important questions of
behaviour in Britain’s newsrooms, the police and the
relationship between politicians and the press, two
additional issues need consideration. On the issue of
media regulation, does the Leader of the House agree
that our instinct should continue to be for self-regulation?
Does he further agree that it needs to be proved that
self-regulation can be made to work? On a point of
detail, does he think it is for the judge to make final
decisions about recommendations on media regulation?
I welcome the decision to make cross-media ownership
part of the inquiry. Does the Leader agree that abuses
of power are more likely to happen when there are
excessive concentrations of power? Will he confirm
that the recommendations can be legislated for in the
Government’s forthcoming communications Bill?
Finally, on BSkyB, we thank the Leader of the
House and through him the Prime Minister for what
the Prime Minister said today. News Corporation
does indeed need to concentrate more on cleaning up
the mess and less on trying to secure a merger. In
dropping its bid for BSkyB, we are glad that Rupert
Murdoch and News Corporation are finally showing
signs that they are, indeed, getting it. Following News
Corporation’s decision, we are grateful for the statement
of clarification given by the Leader of the House that
the decision by the Secretary of State for Culture,
Olympics, Media and Sport to refer the matter to the
Competition Commission now falls.
As well as discussing this Statement today, we look
forward on these Benches to debating these matters
fully later this week. But in all our considerations, we
all need to keep foremost in our minds the victims of
this scandal, such as the family of Milly Dowler and
the other members of the public who were the innocent
victims of phone hacking. It is they who deserve a full
and comprehensive inquiry. They need us to get on
with this inquiry, to make it fully comprehensive, and
to get to the truth. The leader of my party has given
his personal commitment, and the commitment of my
party, to make sure we will do everything to ensure
that that happens. On these Benches, in this House, we
echo that commitment. We look forward to seeing this
scandal cleaned up, to seeing the press, the police and
politicians root out wrongdoing where it has happened,
and to raise their game. We look forward as well to the
victims of these crimes—not the perpetrators of them—
securing outcomes which are both satisfactory and just.
3.58 pm
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should like to thank
the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for
what she said and to join her where she left off in
talking about the victims—the Dowler family and the
many others—and these truly staggering figures of the
number of phone numbers, both mobile and landline,
that have now been discovered. Each of the owners of
those numbers will be notified by the police. Our
thoughts should be with them—not only public figures
or so-called celebrities, but very often ordinary people
going about their business who have been highlighted
by the press and very often dealt with extremely badly.
729
Phone Hacking
[13 JULY 2011]
I am also pleased that this House will have an opportunity
to debate these matters. I readily join the noble Baroness
in paying tribute to all those who made that possible,
in particular my noble friend Lord Fowler—truly a
veteran on this subject. I expect it will be the first of
many opportunities we will have to debate these issues
over the course of the next few years. There is certainly
knowledge and expertise on all Benches in the House
that we ought to be able to draw upon.
I also agree that, across the parties, we need to
move swiftly. The tone of the noble Baroness reflected
the need for cross-party unity to try to deal with so
many of these different situations. She was right that,
in addition to the huge failure on the part of newspapers,
there have been failures on the part of politicians and
the police, and that we all need to play our part in
correcting them.
The inquiry will be set up at once and be firmly up
and running by the Recess. I can confirm that it would
be a criminal offence to destroy evidence. It would be a
criminal offence in any case, because of the police
investigation which is ongoing, to destroy evidence
that could materially affect that investigation.
The judge will be in overall control; it is his inquiry;
he will be supported by what the noble Baroness called
an operating panel of experts drawn from the areas
that I mentioned in the Statement. How they work
together and develop their working practices will depend
very much on how the judge decides to operate. We are
very much looking forward to them getting going and
to the report.
The noble Baroness asked whether the instinct was
for continued self-regulation. It will be up to the judge
and his inquiry to decide that and to come forward
with recommendations, having looked at all the effects
of self-regulation and its possible failure. There is
increasingly a view—I do not wish to second-guess the
inquiry in any sense—that, whether or not self-regulation
has failed, we need to defend the relationship between
a free press and strong regulation. Some independent
form of regulation should almost certainly be the
outcome.
I agree also with what the noble Baroness said
about the position of News International now. It is
important for it to get its own house in order. This is a
fast-moving situation; no doubt, it will have moved
further by the time we get to our debate on Friday.
That is something we should all look forward to.
4.03 pm
Lord Fowler: My Lords, as my noble friend says, the
position seems to change almost hour by hour. There
will be, I think, a welcome around the House for the
decision by News Corp to withdraw its bid. However,
does he agree that this is not remotely the end of the
story and that the inquiries that have just been announced
remain essential, not least because of the position of
companies such as News Corp? Will he confirm that
the inquiry will be able to consider the law relating to
American companies taking full control of British
media companies when, by the law of the United
States, we are prevented doing the same and taking
full control of American media companies? That seems
a very unsatisfactory position which has not always
Phone Hacking
730
remotely been the case. Most importantly, does my
noble friend agree that the inquiry gives us an exceptional
opportunity to settle how the public can be better
protected from the unacceptable press intrusions and
illegal acts seen over the past years and that, above all,
these things should be settled on a bipartisan basis?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I entirely agree with
my noble friend’s last point. It is important that through
Parliament and across the parties we should agree on
the best way forward, but particularly that we should
do so when we have seen what the recommendations
of the inquiry are. I also agree with my noble friend’s
point about the inquiry. I am sure that it will want to
look at all aspects of media ownership, including
foreign ownership, and come up with recommendations
on that.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder whether the
Leader of the House can help me. We do not yet know
the exact terms of reference of this inquiry. Can he
confirm that it will not be confined just to News
International? A situation in which there is a very
detailed examination of what News International has
done without any examination of what any of the
other newspapers may have done would, I think, be
rather unsatisfactory.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can readily agree
with that. It will look at the widest range of media
matters.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I very much
welcome the appointment of Lord Justice Leveson to
chair the inquiry. There could not, in my view, have
been a better choice. I am also very glad that there is to
be one inquiry instead of two and that it is to be a
judicial inquiry under Lord Justice Leveson. I am a
little concerned about the nature of the inquiry and
the order of events. The Statement gives the impression
that the two parts of the inquiry are to be considered,
in a sense, the wrong way around. Surely the urgent
matter for inquiry is the conduct of the News of the
World—a purely factual inquiry. Would it not be better
for the inquiry to complete that aspect of the task
before turning to the much more general question of
press regulation in the future?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the inquiry, as the
noble and learned Lord pointed out, will be a single
judge-led inquiry, with the support of a panel, but it
will be divided into two parts. The first part will look
at media ethics and practice. The panel will be drawn
from experts in the media, in the police, in government,
and so on. We hope that the inquiry will report within
12 months. The second part of the inquiry, as the
noble and learned Lord pointed out, will look at the
unlawful activity and improper behaviour that has
come to our attention, but it will be a post-criminal
investigation inquiry held once all the court processes
have been completed. The noble and learned Lord will
be more aware than I am of the need to avoid interference
by the judge-led inquiry with the criminal process and
very possible court processes.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords—
731
Phone Hacking
[LORDS]
Lord Alderdice: My Lords—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that we need to
hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I thank my noble friend
for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister
in another place. He will know that we on these
Benches are grateful that the Prime Minister has taken
the advice of my right honourable friend the Deputy
Prime Minister and appointed a senior and respected
judicial figure to lead this inquiry. Lord Justice Leveson
is, indeed, a most welcome figure to take on what is a
very murky world indeed. Does my noble friend accept
that, in respect of the element of corruption, not just
of an individual, or a few individuals, as was suggested,
but a whole culture of corruption that has developed,
any organisation that has presided over such a culture
of corruption is not a fit and proper licensee to be
conducting the business of press and broadcasting in
this country and that it is no longer a question of
plurality in the press but of morality in the press?
Does he further accept that the committee in another
place yesterday demonstrated that there are senior
figures in the Metropolitan Police who do not seem
yet to have realised the seriousness of the damage that
has been done to public confidence in the Metropolitan
Police by their failure to address these shocking activities
over a period of time and that much will have to be
done, and has not yet even started to be done, to repair
that public confidence?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the issue of the police
and their role in this and previous investigations is
rightly a matter for the inquiry. On the question of a
fit and proper person, that was never going to be
triggered by the proposed merger because Ofcom has
an ongoing statutory duty to ensure that holders of
broadcasting licences are and remain fit and proper
persons. It is a matter for Ofcom, which is taking its
responsibility in this area most seriously and is already
in touch with the relevant authorities.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in declaring an
interest as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission,
may I place on record the fact that it very much
welcomes the announcement of the inquiry into the
regulation of the press and, indeed, the appointment
of Lord Justice Leveson to lead that inquiry? Will the
Leader of the House note that last week the Press
Complaints Commission, led by its independent members,
including another Member of this House, issued a
statement making clear its intention to drive reform,
particularly in the areas of independence and sanctions?
Will he recognise that the PCC remains committed to
the establishment of a much more effective system,
one that, as the Statement suggests, supports appropriate
freedoms but demands the highest ethical standards?
Finally, does he accept that while the inquiry is ongoing,
the important work of the PCC, through its dedicated
staff, must continue so that it can carry on serving the
members of the public, who are still turning to it for
help in their thousands, day and night?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I readily agree with
the last part of what my noble friend said: the PCC
should continue to do its work. I readily accept my
Phone Hacking
732
noble friend’s welcome of the announcement that we
have made today. On the other matter, I am sure that
my noble friend will be invited to give evidence to
the inquiry on how regulation has worked. Her role
as chairman of the PCC is extremely important in
considering what has and has not worked in recent
years.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords—
Lord Dear: My Lords—
Lord Davies of Stamford: My Lords—
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, we have 10 more
minutes. Can the noble Lords decide which of them is
to go first?
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, the Prime Minister
referred in his Statement to consulting with the Cabinet
Secretary on an amendment to the Ministerial Code
for the recording of all meetings “regardless of the
nature of the meeting”. Does this include formal and
informal meetings and official and unofficial meetings,
if they exist? How is he describing them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my right honourable
friend the Prime Minister has invited the Cabinet
Secretary to examine this matter. My understanding is
that it is to make the process as transparent as possible.
It would therefore include all meetings—formal, informal,
social and any other kind of meetings that the noble
Lord can think of.
Lord Dear: My Lords, I know that the whole House
will agree that the Statement today throws substantial
doubt on the ability of the police service to implement
real leadership at various ranks within that service. I
am sure the Leader of the House and other Members
will agree that the whole issue of leadership in the
police service is absolutely paramount. We have one
report already in the public domain by Mr Neyroud
and we await another from Mr Winsor at the turn of
the year. Can the Leader of the House give an assurance
that once those reports are in the public domain, Her
Majesty’s Government will consider the issue of leadership
in the police separate to the Leveson inquiry, and
make that consideration a matter of some urgency?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is too early to come
to any definitive view but, of course, as the reports are
made they will be taken seriously. If there is any action
to be taken at that time and it is appropriate to do so,
then we shall do so.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, given that anyone
who knows or has encountered Lord Justice Leveson
knows that he will dig deep and report robustly, can
we take it that the helpful enthusiasm of Select Committees
in another place will now recede a little into the
background, so the time taken up in dealing with
those Select Committees can be used in the inquiries
by Lord Justice Leveson and by the very reputable
deputy assistant commissioner, Sue Akers?
733
Phone Hacking
[13 JULY 2011]
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I readily agree with
what my noble friend has said.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I applaud
the consensus that has been arrived at both in this
House and in the other place. Does the Leader of the
House agree that the importance of the appointment
of Lord Justice Leveson is that not only will he be
looking at the subject matter of the current criminal
investigations but he will also have an opportunity to
look at other newspapers which may also be behaving
improperly? The importance of his appointment is
that if anyone—in News Corp or any other newspaper—
seeks to destroy, alter or otherwise deal with the
information, they will be committing a criminal offence.
Secondly, does the noble Lord also agree that the
fact that it would appear that the noble Baroness,
Lady Buscombe, who heads the commission, was misled
either by omission or commission is a very serious
matter and it very much enhances the seriousness with
which this House and the other place have now to
treat the issues complained about?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I join the noble and
learned Baroness in applauding consensus on this
matter and many others. If we have come up with the
right decision and an inquiry that everyone can support
that must be the right way to go. One of the good
things that has come out this afternoon is how everybody
has welcomed the appointment of Lord Justice Leveson.
The terms of reference are widely drawn—they will
look at the culture, practice and ethics of all the press;
their relationship with the police; the failure of the
current system of regulation; the contacts made between
national newspapers and politicians, and so on. That
must include newspaper groups other than News
International.
As far as the second point the noble and learned
Baroness made about the PCC, everyone can see that
the current system has failed and broken down. The
inquiry will rightly wish to look at why that happened—
what the causes were, perhaps over a very long time—and
what measures are needed to put it right.
Lord Davies of Stamford: My Lords—
Baroness Wheatcroft: My Lords, I should first
declare—or perhaps confess is more appropriate—that
for nine years I was business editor of the Times, a
News International newspaper. I can assure noble
Lords that at no stage during my time there was phone
hacking taking place under my watch; had it been, I
would have known and would have felt responsible for
it. However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact
that some very important journalism goes on, not just
in other papers but in Murdoch papers too—I point
noble Lords towards the campaign in the Times recently
about adoption and opening up the family courts. We
should not totally condemn a bunch of newspapers
because of what might have gone on in some of them
and neither should we think that what went on at the
News of the World is unique to the News of the World.
I am delighted to hear that this inquiry is going to
range widely but we need to get to the bottom of this
and I am delighted that we will. Does the Leader of
the House believe that the Press Complaints Commission
Phone Hacking
734
had the power to deal with the questions that needed
to be asked? My belief is that it did not. It has done as
much as it could with the very limited powers it has.
We should be looking at giving the commission the
power it needs to do the job, and I hope that the
inquiry will look at that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I very much agree
with my noble friend that we need to get to the bottom
of all that has happened. That is the purpose of the
inquiry, part of which will look at the current system
of self-regulation under the PCC. In the same way that
not every journalist was hacking, not all aspects of the
PCC have been badly done. Many people have received
help and support from the PCC. However, the issues
that we are dealing with are of the highest seriousness.
It is therefore right that we should set up this judicial
inquiry.
Lord Soley: My Lords, there have been many inquiries
into the press over the past 20-odd years. It is important
to remember that none of them solved the problems.
They were around at the time and are still around now,
even though the press was warned then that it was,
rather famously, drinking in the last-chance saloon.
One of the most important things, whether we have
statutory or non-statutory regulation, is that the body
that is set up should have very strong investigatory
powers. Without them it will end up being largely a
conciliation service, not a regulatory body.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, these are all good
points. It shows how wide-ranging the inquiry will
need to be in looking at the facts, and the failures and
successes of past regimes. These are all matters that
the inquiry will wish to investigate fully.
Baroness Hollins: My Lords, what steps are being
taken to ensure that when the suspected victims of
phone hacking are contacted, their details will be kept
confidential to avoid any revictimisation—such as they
have faced in the past—through an invasion of their
privacy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is an extremely
good question and a good point. The intention of the
police is simply to advise those whose numbers have
clearly been hacked into. If I may, I should like to pass
on what the noble Baroness has said. It is an important
point that more anxiety and upset are not caused by
the revelation that their numbers were hacked into.
Lord Davies of Stamford: My Lords, could the
Leader of the House go a little further than he went in
his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, a few
moments ago? Is it within the terms of reference of
this judicial inquiry to advise on and recommend the
proper limits of the media’s intrusion into the private
lives of individuals by whatever means where there is
no public interest? Obviously, the position is different
where there is a public interest.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my understanding is
that these will be matters for the inquiry to look at. It
is entirely right that it should do so.
735
Mull of Kintyre Review
[LORDS]
Mull of Kintyre Review
Statement
4.23 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry
of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): My Lords, I wish to
repeat a Statement that the Secretary of State made in
the other place.
“Mr Speaker, I wish to announce the publication
today of the Mull of Kintyre review, the report of the
independent review of the evidence relating to the
findings of the board of inquiry into the fatal accident
of a Royal Air Force Chinook helicopter at the Mull
of Kintyre on 2 June 1994.
It is right that I should begin this Statement by
paying tribute to the 29 people who died in this
accident, one of the worst in the history of the Royal
Air Force. As is well known, the passengers were
members of the Northern Ireland security and intelligence
community who were travelling to a meeting in Inverness,
and their deaths were a huge blow to the security of
this country. They were also a human tragedy for each
of the 29 families who were devastated by the loss of
their loved ones.
I pledged while in opposition that I would set up a
review because I had worries that an injustice might
have been done. The official conclusion that the accident
was caused by the negligence to a gross degree of the
two pilots on duty that day, Flight Lieutenants Jonathan
Tapper and Richard Cook, had been criticised almost
since the day it was reached. Doubt had been cast on
the findings in different ways by the fatal accident
review held in 1995, by the Defence Committee and
the Public Accounts Committee of this House in 1998
and 2000, and by the Select Committee appointed in
another place in 2002.
A number of Members of this House have continued
to voice their doubts over the findings of gross negligence,
and I would wish to acknowledge the unflagging interest
in the case shown by my honourable and right honourable
friends the Members for North East Fife, Kensington,
North East Hampshire, and North West Norfolk, and
also by Sir John Major. I know that the Ministry of
Defence considered those reports carefully, taking
independent and specialist advice, but given the weight
and breadth of the comments I thought it only right to
ask an independent figure to check whether justice
had been done.
I announced the establishment of the review—the
first independent review of the evidence relating to
the accident set up by the Government themselves—to
the House on 16 September last year. It was my
intention that its report, whatever its findings might
be, should draw a line under this matter. It has been
carried out by the distinguished former Scottish judge,
Lord Philip, with the advice and support of a panel of
three fellow Privy Counsellors, Lord Forsyth, Baroness
Liddell, and my right honourable friend the Member
for Gordon. I am extremely grateful to all four for
their thorough and painstaking approach to the task
and for the clarity with which they have presented
their recommendations, which are unanimous.
Mull of Kintyre Review
736
Lord Philip and his colleagues have concluded that
the finding that the pilots were negligent to a gross
degree should be set aside and that the Ministry of
Defence should consider offering an apology to the
families of Flight Lieutenant Tapper and Flight Lieutenant
Cook. I can tell the House today that I have accepted
these recommendations. At a specially convened meeting
of the Defence Council on Monday, it was decided
that, to quote our decision,
‘the Reviewing Officers’ conclusions that Flight Lieutenants Tapper
and Cook were negligent to a gross degree are no longer sustainable
and must therefore be set aside. We therefore order that those
findings shall be set aside’.
I am writing to the widows of the two pilots, to the
father of Jonathan Tapper and the brother of Richard
Cook to express the Ministry of Defence’s apology for
the distress that was caused to them by the findings of
negligence. I wish also to express that apology publicly
in this House today.
Lord Philip’s analysis is very clear. To put it as
briefly as I can, he identifies the central point as being
that, according to the regulations in force at the time, a
finding of negligence should have been made against
air crew who had been killed in an accident only if
there was “absolutely no doubt whatsoever” about the
matter. Although the two air chief marshals who
acted as the reviewing officers for the board of inquiry
and made the findings themselves had no doubts on
the matter, Lord Philip is clear that that is not enough.
The question that needed to be asked was whether
there was any scope for doubt in anyone’s mind. In
this case, other, competent, persons did have doubts.
That is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the
findings should not stand.
I would like to make four further points. First, this
report does not purport to tell us exactly why Chinook
ZD576 crashed. It is central to Lord Philip’s report
that the exact cause will never be established, and I am
convinced that pursuing the matter further would serve
only to increase the distress of the family and friends
of those who died in the accident. But those who
allege a long-running conspiracy to cover up technical
shortcomings in this aircraft will find no support here.
The Chinook has had an excellent safety record since
the disaster at the Mull. It has been a mainstay of our
operations in successive theatres of war and it has the
full confidence of those who fly it. On this occasion,
however, the report reveals that the pilot expressed
concerns that he felt unprepared to fly the aircraft.
Secondly, I want to emphasise that Air Chief Marshals
Sir John Day and Sir William Wratten, now retired,
who made the decision were and are highly respected
and experienced airmen who acted at all times with
full conviction as to the right and proper course and in
good faith. They did not reach their decision lightly
and they did ask for legal advice. Regrettably that legal
advice, although subsequently endorsed by independent
Queen’s Counsel, has now proved to be incorrect. I
attach no personal blame to these distinguished officers
and their advisers.
Thirdly, the procedures for investigation of air and
other military accidents were changed some years ago,
with the result that it is no longer the practice for
boards of inquiry—now service inquiries—to ascribe
blame to those involved, whether or not they survived
737
Mull of Kintyre Review
[13 JULY 2011]
Mull of Kintyre Review
738
the accident. This was because sometimes the business
of ascribing blame can get in the way of finding out
what actually happened and, most importantly, preventing
any recurrence.
Fourthly, the report makes one further
recommendation: that the Ministry of Defence should
reconsider its policy and procedures for the transport
of personnel whose responsibilities are vital to national
security. I accept that recommendation too. It has
implications for land and sea as well as air transport. I
have directed my officials to ensure that the policy and
procedures in place across all three services ensure that
we do not unnecessarily risk so many individuals who
are vital to national security on one vehicle. It is worth
noting that Flight Lieutenant Tapper had asked for
the passengers on the Chinook that crashed to be split
between more than one helicopter.
This has been an unhappy affair that has caused
much reflection within the Royal Air Force and anguish
for the families of those who died, and particularly for
those who were wrongly officially found to have been
negligent to a gross degree. I hope that this report and
the action that I have taken in response to it will bring
an end to this chapter by removing this stain on the
reputation of the two pilots”.
of inquiry and guidance was produced, and I note
from the Statement that the Secretary of State intends
to take another look at this issue to reassure himself
that procedures are adequate and appropriate. Lord
Philip has also commented on the board of inquiry
procedures at the time of the accident but indicated
that his concerns have been met by subsequent changes
to those procedures.
4.33 pm
Lord Rosser: My Lords, I thank the Minister for
repeating the Statement made in the other place by the
Secretary of State for Defence. As a result, an opportunity
has been provided to enable noble Lords from all sides
of the House to express their views in the light of the
Statement on a tragedy that has been the subject of
considerable comment and concern.
We pay tribute to the 29 people who died in the
accident, and to the dignity and bravery of their families.
We add our thanks to Lord Philip for his review of
and report on the tragic accident in June 1994, when a
Chinook mark 2 helicopter crashed on the Mull of
Kintyre, and also to the panel of three Privy Counsellors
who assisted Lord Philip in his work, two of whom are
Members of your Lordships’ House.
The review was mainly of the written record of the
board of inquiry and of other related evidence that, it
was felt, might throw light on the findings of the
board. The original board of inquiry made no finding
of culpability, but the two reviewing officers made a
finding of gross negligence in respect of the two pilots.
It is unfortunate that some of Lord Philip’s conclusions
were apparently leaked, as they were fairly extensively
reported over last weekend. Perhaps the Minister might
like to comment on this in his response and tell us
what action, if any, is being taken.
The principal recommendation that the board of
inquiry finding of negligence to a gross degree should
be set aside has been accepted and implemented by the
Defence Council. Lord Philip felt that the Ministry of
Defence should consider offering an apology to the
families of Flight Lieutenant Tapper and Flight Lieutenant
Cook. The Secretary of State for Defence has just
given that apology and we agree with that.
There is also an issue of the large number of key
personnel who were travelling together on the Chinook
that crashed. The matter was reviewed after the board
It would appear that successive Secretaries of State,
initially from the Conservatives and then from Labour,
serving from the time of the incident until the last
election, felt they should follow the view of the reviewing
officers, which was backed up by legal advice, even
though it now seems from Lord Philip’s report that the
RAF’s own regulations were not followed since there
was not the necessary level of proof—namely, “absolutely
no doubt whatsoever”—which there should have been
for a finding of gross negligence. Indeed, investigations
by the Public Accounts Committee in 2000 and a
Select Committee of your Lordships’ House in 2001
both found that the findings of the board of inquiry
did not satisfy the burden of proof required.
The terms of reference of the review were:
“To examine all available evidence relating to the findings of
the board of inquiry into the fatal accident at the Mull of Kintyre
on 2 June 1994; and to report conclusions to the Secretary of
State for Defence as soon as possible”.
The review was not asked to make conclusions as to
the cause of the accident but it did not find new
evidence to suggest mechanical failure, and no safety
issue with the Chinook mark 2 has been raised in the
report. Lord Philip’s conclusion is very specific. He
states that according to the regulations in force at the
time, a finding of negligence should only have been
made against air crew who had been killed in an
accident if there was “absolutely no doubt whatsoever”
about the matter. Lord Philip indicates that competent
persons did have doubts, albeit not the reviewing officers,
and that accordingly the findings should not stand.
The Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence
accept Lord Philip’s finding that there was room for
doubt on the matter and that therefore the finding of
negligence to a gross degree was unjustified. We believe
that, in the light of Lord Philip’s report, the Secretary
of State and the Ministry of Defence have made the
correct decision. It is only right that if a finding of
negligence to a gross degree is to stand, the evidence
must be such as to leave no doubt whatsoever. Lord
Philip has quite clearly found that not to be the case.
I have three questions to put to the Minister. In the
Statement, it was said that the report reveals that the
pilot expressed concerns that he felt unprepared to fly
the aircraft. Could the Minister tell the House how this
matter was dealt with at the time, and what lessons
have been learned and implemented? Secondly, can
the Minister say what issues surrounding compensation
for the families of the deceased arise from the report? I
hope that this now brings this matter to a conclusion—one
that all will feel able to accept. With that sentiment in
mind, I have only one further question to ask the
Minister: will he confirm that there will now be no
further reviews or enquiries seeking to establish the
cause of the accident?
739
Mull of Kintyre Review
[LORDS]
4.39 pm
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, first, I thank the
noble Lord for his support for the work carried out by
Lord Philip and his review. I am also grateful to the
noble Lord for his support for what my department is
trying to do to establish what happened and what
lessons can be learnt. Like the noble Lord I, too, pay
tribute to the 29 people who died in this accident and
to their families.
The noble Lord asked me several questions, the
first of which was about the leaks. It was disappointing
that Lord Philip’s main recommendation was widely
reported over the weekend. We commenced enquiries
immediately to establish who was responsible and
those enquiries continue. There has been a lot of wild,
inaccurate and unhelpful speculation in the press,
which must have been very distressing and concerning
to the families. I deeply deplore that.
The noble Lord asked me about key personnel
travelling together. As Lord Philip’s report acknowledges,
we reviewed our process for transportation of personnel
vital to national security after the board of inquiry,
and we did produce guidance at that point. However,
the Secretary of State has said that he wants to take
another look to reassure himself that our procedures
in this area are adequate.
The noble Lord also asked about the safety issues
relating to the Chinook. Lord Philip’s report raises no
safety issue with the Chinook mark 2. Indeed, Lord
Philip writes in his report that,
“it is now regarded as a highly successful aircraft”.
The Chief of the Air Staff endorsed this position and
wrote to the Guardian in January last year. He said:
“The Chinook helicopter has a remarkable safety record and
has proved a mainstay of recent operations”.
The noble Lord pointed out that the pilot had expressed
concern. I quote from Lord Philip’s review:
“We were told that Flt Lt Tapper telephoned his Deputy
Flight Commander on the evening before the delivery of ZD576
to Northern Ireland expressing concern that some time had
passed since his conversion training. He felt unprepared to fly the
aircraft. He had attempted to persuade the tasking authority to
spread the load between more than one aircraft, but his request
had been refused”.
My Lords, I am sure lots of lessons have been learnt
from that, and certainly we put safety as an absolutely
pre-eminent issue as far as the Royal Air Force is
concerned.
The noble Lord asked me about compensation for
families. This is a confidential matter, but I can assure
him that this will be taken forward in the normal way.
Finally, I can reassure him that I very much hope that
this is the end of the matter. For the families of all
those who were killed, I very much hope this is the end.
Mull of Kintyre Review
740
noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan? He has
worked closely with the families, as recently as today,
to ensure that they are kept up to speed with what is
happening in your Lordships’ House and in the other
place.
All of this sorry saga hinges on a piece of legal
advice that was wrong. It is unfortunate that that
happened. There are family members of both Flight
Lieutenant Tapper and Flight Lieutenant Cook who
did not live to see this day. Our sympathy goes to them
as well. Will the Minister acknowledge that many
lessons had been learnt before now in matters of how
deceased air crew are represented before a board of
inquiry? It is not before time that we now have a
system that ensures that this miscarriage of justice
cannot ever again be repeated.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the noble Baroness for
what she said, and I certainly echo her thanks to Lord
Philip. I also thank the noble Baroness herself and my
noble friend for all the very hard work that they put
into this excellent report. I also assure the noble
Baroness that many lessons have been learnt from this
whole process, and hopefully we have a template to
make things very much better in the future.
Lord Bannside: My Lords, as the representative for
North Antrim in another place at the time of this
happening, this is a sad day. Yet it has some gladness
about it, because the record of the two men concerned
is now clear. That is a great relief to the families and to
those of us who have followed this carefully. I, as the
MP for that area, followed it very carefully and in fact
raised it in another place. The years have gone by.
Today, the fingers no longer point at the two men at
whom they were pointed. I am relieved that this matter
has come to this conclusion. Of course, there will be
soreness; death is cruel, and so are the circumstances
that bring about such deaths. I thank the two brilliant
men who served their Queen and country well. They
have now passed to the other side without any blemish
upon them. I am sure that on the great day when all
secrets are revealed, there will be full justice for all.
There will be a degree of joy and gladness that this
matter has come to this end. I do not want to make
any other comment than that.
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I
thank the Government for listening. I was a bit of a
nuisance to them, and I needed to be, but I am glad
that we have this good finding today. The way of two
wise men will stand the test, and it has stood the test.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the noble Lord for
what he says and I agree with him. I pay tribute to all
those in this House, the other place and outside Parliament
who have made this day possible.
4.42 pm
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: My Lords, I thank
the Minister for his repetition of the Statement from
the other place, and also thank the Secretary of State
for the willingness with which he has acknowledged
the conclusions of Lord Philip’s review. Will the Minister
reiterate his thanks to Lord Philip for his tenacity and
his wisdom in dealing with this matter, and also to my
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will my noble
friend pass on my thanks, on behalf of all the people
who took part in this inquiry, for the speedy way in
which the Secretary of State has considered our report,
and for the way in which he has accepted the
recommendations, made a fulsome apology and handled
this sensitive situation with the families so very well?
741
Mull of Kintyre Review
[13 JULY 2011]
Having said that, and having looked at this matter in
considerable detail and had some pretty robust exchanges,
it should be clearly understood that the air chief
marshals concerned, in reaching the conclusions that
they did, were misdirected. They acted in the best
possible way and felt that they were carrying out their
duties. The fact that this matter has now been resolved,
and that the two pilots who were killed while serving
their country have had this stain removed from them,
is a great tribute to my right honourable friend the
Secretary of State who initiated the inquiry and to
Lord Philip who led it. He has achieved something
that I have not achieved in 30 years of my political
career—unanimity between me and the noble Baroness.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank my noble
friend for that question. I assure him that I will pass
on what he says to the Secretary of State. He referred
to the reviewing officers—the two air chief marshals.
It is very important that I say this to the House: the
integrity and diligence of both senior officers whose
duty it was to review the board’s finding—Air Chief
Marshal Day and Air Chief Marshal Wratten—are
beyond question. They had all the available evidence
before them and reached their verdict with scrupulous
care and total honesty. They took appropriate legal
advice before reaching their decision. They clearly did
everything they could to secure advice in order to
make a comprehensive assessment of the evidence
before coming to their findings.
Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, I am
chairman of the Mull of Kintyre Group, which has
pestered successive Secretaries of State, and, indeed,
Prime Ministers, since 1996. This is a day from which
we derive considerable satisfaction. Speaking from the
opposition Benches, I give full praise to Liam Fox and
his colleagues for the manner in which they set up the
inquiry and accepted its findings. I also pay tribute to
my two colleagues in this House, and Malcolm Bruce
in the other place, for the work that they did with Lord
Philip in coming to what we regard as a satisfactory
ending to a sorry tale. It is a satisfactory ending that
should not only enable the two families of the men
who have been wronged for so long but afford an
opportunity for the book to be closed for the other
27 families whose support in this has been a great
consolation to us.
We know that attempts have been made to develop
conspiracy theories and to find a silver bullet. The
truth is that there is no silver bullet. However, there
has been a gross injustice based on legal advice that
appears now to have been fundamentally flawed. I
would like to think that the MoD will be more careful in
the manner in which it seeks and ultimately accepts
legal advice of this gravity in the future. I should
like to think that the counsel from whom the MoD
sought advice will never be employed in that capacity
again.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the
noble Lord for this all-party support. As I said to the
noble Lord opposite, I very much hope for the sake of
all the families that this matter can now be closed.
That is really important. We will never know the truth
of what happened that evening, but today is a happy day.
Mull of Kintyre Review
742
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I confirm what my
noble friend said: that there is indeed all-party support
for the Government’s decision and today’s Statement.
I remember well, as do many noble Lords, the events
of that day and the shock felt throughout these islands,
but particularly in Northern Ireland. While it was a
huge tragedy that those 29 people were killed, in my
part of the world, because of the extraordinary degree
of intelligence that was held in the minds of those
people, there was a great fear that many other lives
were about to be lost to the terrorist cause because of
the death of these extremely skilled and high-serving
officers.
Does my noble friend understand that in my part of
the world there remains anxiety and concern that the
request of the young officer that the 29 should not fly
together was set aside? It seems that that approach has
not been fully resolved until now, and the Minister is
indicating that there will be a further review on procedures.
These are not complicated questions. There is a notion
that it requires a review of procedures to ascertain
whether it was wise to take 29 of the most senior
security service officers together, but this is a matter of
common sense, not policies and procedures. Can my
noble friend understand the anxiety that the Statement
creates: that it takes policies and procedures in the
Ministry of Defence rather than common sense to
deal with the security of our people?
Lord Astor of Hever: Again, I am grateful to my
noble friend for this all-party support for the decision.
Of course I understand the anxiety. I clearly remember
that terrible, terrible day and I quite understand how it
must have felt in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier,
the Royal Air Force has learnt lessons from this disaster
and its safety standards are higher than those of any
other air force in the world.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it fell to me, rather sadly,
on 22 May 1997 to make my maiden remarks in your
Lordships’ House on this very subject. What we have
heard today is a lawyer telling us that he disagrees with
a decision of another lawyer. This is not a criticism, as
I fully understand the deeply held emotions of people
on this subject, but we have not heard a thing today
about how the crash occurred. I refer noble Lords to
col. 559 on 22 May 1997. The pilots elected to fly
under visual flight rules, which state that one must at
all times be in visual contact with the ground. We
know that the highest point of the Mull of Kintyre is
1,463 feet above sea level. About 40 seconds from
impact, the aircraft was flying at a height estimated at
between 200 and 400 feet. It flew from visual
meteorological conditions into instrument meteorological
conditions. It was approaching the Mull of Kintyre at
least 2,000 feet below the height at which it should
have been under instrument flight rules in order to
clear the Mull.
I am afraid that I will upset a lot of my friends
when I say that there is no doubt whatever in my mind
that the crash was down to pilot error. We have not
heard a thing today about the plane being unsafe—not
a word. That is because it was not: it is a brilliant piece
of kit. I am a sorry that I have to disagree totally with
this decision. I support the air marshals in the decision
that they came to.
743
Mull of Kintyre Review
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I sat through the
debate in 1997: I have a copy of it here, including the
noble Lord’s speech. I support Lord Philip’s finding
that there was room for doubt on the matter and that
therefore the initial finding of negligence to a gross
degree was unjustified. Lord Philip did not find that
the pilots were blameless, but rather that it was not
clear beyond absolutely any doubt whatsoever that
they were negligent. Those are the four important
words: “absolutely any doubt whatsoever”.
Lord Stirrup: My Lords, the Minister explained
that Lord Philip’s ruling on a point of law means that
a finding of gross negligence is not sustainable. However,
in relation to some of the issues that have been raised,
and perhaps as an aid to clarity for Members of the
House, will the Minister tell us what view Lord Philip
took of the conduct and findings of the board of
inquiry into the most probable cause of the accident?
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, Lord Philip’s review
concluded that the test on which the air chief marshals
came to their finding of negligence to a gross degree
did not meet the standard of objectivity that he judged
to be right. Therefore, the finding has been set aside.
Lord Philip did not criticise in any way the conclusions
drawn by the president of the board of inquiry.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, as someone who
took part in the first debate in this House on this
subject, perhaps I may ask, very quietly and gently,
how it is possible that it has taken so long for this
conclusion to be reached: namely, that there was not
sufficient clarity to confirm the errors attributed to the
pilots. As my noble friend said, there had to be a
conclusion that there was no reasonable doubt. This
point was pressed very hard during the first debate
and in all subsequent exchanges. Were it not for the
persistence of honourable Members and members of
the pilots’ families, this matter might still have been
subject to the wrong conclusion. Therefore, as others
have done, I thank my noble friend and, through him,
the Secretary of State for Defence for having ordered
this further inquiry. I emphasise the point with which
he concluded his Statement; it is to be hoped that this
will draw a line under this very sad event.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I deeply regret that
the time that has elapsed has added to the families’
distress. The Secretary of State has apologised for the
sorrow caused to the families by the original finding of
negligence to a gross degree. I share my noble friend’s
aspirations that this will be the end of the matter.
Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, I welcome the
Minister’s Statement. I also welcome the report of the
review body and wish to be associated with the words
of gratitude to Lord Philip and his review team. I
particularly commend the clarity of this report to
noble Lords; it is in the clarity that the decision is
supported, as we have already heard in this House this
afternoon. At the heart of this report is the decision
that the legal advice that informed the original decision—
repeatedly tested, I have to say, including independently—
was wrong.
744
For my part, when I was Secretary of State for
Defence, my noble friend Lord O’Neill and others of
his group made representations to me and presented
me with quite a substantial body of information arguing
for just this outcome. I challenged the legal advice, in
the sense that I sought independent legal advice. Indeed,
I went further because I challenged another point of
law—it has not become part of this report—which I
think should also have instructed the conclusion that
we have today. I regret that I was no longer in post
when that process came to a conclusion.
I do not know this, but I am certain that the
original legal advice was reinforced by the advice that
came to my successor, my noble friend Lord Hutton,
when he was Secretary of State for Defence. I have no
way of knowing that that was the case, but I suspect it
was. While I understand that this appears to be an
argument between lawyers, there is a pretty straightforward
argument at the heart of this, which Lord Philip and
his review team exposed in a simple and uncomplicated
fashion. For those reasons I welcome this decision.
I am pleased for the families of Flight Lieutenants
Tapper and Cook that this conclusion has been come
to today. However, other families were involved in this
dreadful tragedy, the anguish of which has been protracted
over a long period. I know from my own information
that many of those families and individuals in them
were disturbed because of the controversy that continued
in relation to this. Every time the issue was raised,
there was trauma for individuals and families of the
other 27 deceased. I seek reassurance from the Minister
that the department with responsibility for this will
ensure that those families are supported through this
process, because some of them are now left in a
situation where they do not know what was responsible
for the death of their loved ones.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the noble
Lord for the points that he makes and his question. I
also thank him for his support. I agree with what he
says about the clarity of the report. I was aware of the
noble Lord’s concerns when he was Secretary of State
and, like him, my thoughts are with the families of all
the 29. They will be supported by my department and,
to start with, they will get copies of the report and the
discussions in this House and the other place, and that
will be followed through.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords—
European Union Bill
Commons Amendments and Reasons
5.04 pm
Motion A
Moved by Lord Howell of Guildford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 3
and 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for
their Reason 5A.
5A: Because the outcome of the referendum should be determined
by those who vote in it and should not depend on how many do not
vote.
745
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My Lords, we now
come to the consideration of the other place’s response
to your Lordships’ amendments to this important
legislation. Your Lordships will recall that we examined
this Bill in great depth over eight sittings in Committee
and three days on Report, so I hope we can deal with
these matters thoroughly but also reasonably briefly.
Your Lordships’ House rightly took a good look at
the detailed provisions of the Bill. We did our duty in
scrutinising it, and we saw fit to make a number of
amendments to the Bill—15 in all.
I shall make a brief comment to set the scene before
coming to the Motion. There were four sets of issues
which led us to focus on these matters today. The
Government listened to the well and strongly put
arguments on, first, the construction of Clause 18 and
proposed amendments in the other place, which we
will come to later. We also listened carefully to the
arguments put forward on three other sets of issues:
the turnout threshold, which is the Motion immediately
before us; the proposed changes to the shape of Clause 6;
and on the introduction of a sunset—maybe it should
be renamed “suspension”—clause. The other place
also looked at these things very carefully. On Monday
last, the other place disagreed, as do the Government,
with your Lordships’ amendments on those three latter
issues, and it is now for this House to consider and
decide whether to insist on your Lordships’ amendments
or to accept the message from the other House.
The first of these issues is the subject of this Motion,
which relates to Amendments 3 and 5 that were moved
with great eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson
of Horton. We had two debates on them, one in
Committee and one on Report, and on Report your
Lordships voted in favour of these amendments by
221 votes to 216. In contrast, the other place considered
these amendments and disagreed to the Lords
amendments without division, by consensus.
As my right honourable friend the Minister for
Europe summing up the core issue said during the
debate in the other place,
“The outcome of a referendum should, in our view, be determined
by the will of those who vote and not by how many turn up to
vote”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/11; col. 65.]
It remains our view that it is vital that in any referendum
held in accordance with this Bill people are able to go
out and vote in the knowledge that their active engagement
in the process will count and that their vote will count.
A threshold for any referendum held in accordance
with this Bill would stymie the entire intent of the Bill.
In short, without going over again all the arguments
that we have so carefully examined in your Lordships’
House, installing a mechanism whereby the will of the
electorate is automatically declared unimportant and
the power to decide is passed back to Parliament is not
the answer, nor is it the answer in the view of the
House of Lords Constitution Committee. I shall not
delay the House with a quotation from that Committee
about the undesirability of thresholds. We saw that on
the single occasion where a threshold was used, in
1979, the clearly expressed will of the people was
European Union Bill
746
frustrated. That example was used on Monday last by
the shadow Minister for Europe who said that it is why
many,
“Labour Members have reservations about the use of the 40%
threshold”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/11; col. 75.]
In November last year, Chris Bryant MP, who was
Minister for Europe under the Labour Government,
said that referendums were not a good idea. What
interests me—I think that your Lordships also would
like to know—is whether noble Lords opposite share
those reservations, which they appeared not to share
on Report. Please can we know whether they have
changed their view?
It now falls to your Lordships to consider whether
to insist on these amendments, given the opposition,
once again, to the threshold from the other place and
given the clear and well informed doubts on all sides
about the wisdom, sense and advisability of having
thresholds injected into referenda for either these or
wider matters. I hope that your Lordships will decide
that we need not pursue this issue further. I beg to
move.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, we have not
proposed any amendment to Motion A, which has
been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford.
Accordingly, we accept the decision of the House of
Commons to refuse any role for Parliament in the
event—a perhaps rather unlikely event—of a referendum
with a small or even derisory turnout. It is regrettable
that, not just in relation to this Bill but in relation to
other issues more widely, we have not established how
we might deal with such cases. As we see in the
Localism Bill and elsewhere, the referendum is likely
to play a much bigger role in government in Britain in
the future and on more issues.
Although in this case the House of Commons has
refused the role which this House proposed for Parliament,
no doubt the noble Lord the Minister will agree that
because Parliament is sovereign it could in the future,
if it so wished, amend the Act to insert a role for itself
as we proposed in relation to a low or very low turnout
in a specific referendum. But that issue does not arise
today.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I want to associate this
side of the House with what the noble Lord, Lord
Williamson, has said. The matter will not be pressed
today but I would ask the House to understand the
reasons in the briefest sense for why this was argued
and why I think, even in the earlier example of devolution
decisions in the past, people were keen to see some
sort of threshold. The proposal for a 40 per cent
threshold is not a benchmark which would be insisted
on for every kind of vote in every kind of circumstance,
although some people might in many circumstances
wish to see that figure exceeded.
We are talking about changes in quite fundamental
constitutional arrangements. It seems quite reasonable
to say that there should be some degree of consensus
that is visible and substantial when a major constitutional
change is to take place. These changes in relationships
with Europe would be significant constitutional changes,
which is precisely why this legislation is before the
House in the first place. It would be wrong to say that
747
European Union Bill
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD TRIESMAN]
it is not simply a matter of how many turn up to vote
because whatever the proportion is you would still have
to win the vote as well in order to achieve the result.
To conclude, a number of constitutional changes
are before your Lordships’ House in this parliamentary
Session. We have had them on constituencies, on AV
and in this Bill. We will probably see some in any Bill
about reform of your Lordships’ House. In introducing
piecemeal constitutional change, always with the possibility
of it being adopted without there being real and
genuine safeguards, we will end up with a set of
jig-saw pieces from different jig-saws all shaken into
the same box and without prospect of being joined
together in any realistic way or without people making
realistic decisions about the overall impact of what we
are doing. We deny ourselves the safeguard today and,
once again, I suspect that we will regret it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I consider
that the very strong and articulate arguments put
forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton,
and very carefully considered by this House, deserve a
little more than the rather supercilious dismissal of the
whole argument by the other place:
“Because the outcome of the referendum should be determined
by those who vote in it and should not depend on how many do
not vote”.
One might say that that is almost contemptuous. I
support what the noble Lords, Lord Williamson of
Horton and Lord Triesman have said, although I do
not expect them to press the matter to a vote.
5.15 pm
However, I want to make one other reference, because
it shows that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is right
in saying that this issue cannot simply be put on a shelf
and forgotten. Let me give three very quick quotations
to the House. The first quotation is:
“The Government is under pressure from Tory MPs to reform
industrial relations laws so unions would have to secure a turnout
of more than 50 per cent in ballots before action could go ahead”.
The second quotation is:
“The Confederation of British Industry has suggested a 40 per
cent threshold”,
before any industrial action can take place. Finally,
third quotation is from the Conservative Mayor of
London, Mr Boris Johnson, who has argued for a
“50 per cent threshold” before London Underground
could determine a strike.
This is an example of the fact that it is not enough
to dismiss the proposals as if they were superficial and
politically driven. It is clear in one area after another
that the issue of thresholds is alive and relevant, and
that already, in other spheres of legislation, there are
very strong arguments that thresholds must be seriously
considered. I advise the House to be a little careful
about simply dismissing the argument for some kind
of threshold.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I hesitate to
enter again into the whole great debate on referendums,
which really moves us away from the issues of the
European Union Bill. My noble friend Baroness Williams
748
has again put forward some strong arguments. These
are matters that have been debated over the years.
When we come to a Bill of this nature, the issues are
similar to when one comes to legislation about local
elections or elections to the European Parliament.
Indeed, I believe there is even a parliamentary election
on record in this country where the vote has been
below 40 per cent but no one has suggested they
should be invalid.
I suspect this debate will continue, but it is the view
of the Government that in these circumstances such a
threshold would create a charter for the abstentionists.
It would be extremely attractive to those who were
anxious not to vote and to promote the desire not to
vote. It would undermine the whole purpose lying
behind the structure of the Bill, which is to check the
haemorrhaging of confidence and popular support
for the European Union’s development and to reinforce
the case for the European Union’s development. That
is why I am a little sad to hear those who have
dedicated their lives and efforts to promoting an effective
and fit for purpose European Union not to be supporting
it. However, I understand the alternative views and I
leave the matter there.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I am grateful to the
noble Lord for giving way, but it is a pity that he has to
caricature what the original amendment said. It did
not suggest that a vote with a turnout under 40 per
cent would be invalid. It suggested that it would be
advisory and not mandatory—that is completely different.
Frankly, some of the arguments that were adduced
about the level of participation in the European Parliament
elections are not transposable whatsoever to the area
we are currently discussing, which is a national referendum.
Lord Howell of Guildford: Perhaps I should have
hesitated longer before speaking because we are opening
up the whole issue again. The invalidity I am applying
is that the referendum would then become advisory,
whereas the whole requirement and central thrust of
the Bill is that the referendum is mandatory on
Governments, not on Parliaments—you cannot be
mandatory on Parliaments. That is what I intended to
say, so I am sorry if I did not convey it accurately. We
have had the debate, so I beg to press the Motion.
Motion agreed.
Motion B
Moved by Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 6
to 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for
their Reason 13A.
13A: Because the decisions concerned would involve an increase
in the competences or powers of the European Union in relation to
the United Kingdom and should therefore require approval by
referendum as well as by Act.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we now turn to
the list of decisions in the existing treaties which were
previously subject to the requirement of approval by
Act and by referendum under Clause 6 but which for
the most part would require approval only by Act as a
749
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
result of your Lordships’ amendments. As with the
previous amendments, the Government listened carefully
to the arguments put forward after the amendments
were agreed by a vote of 214 to 209 in this House. The
other place considered these issues further two days
ago after having examined in detail the make-up of
Clause 6 during its consideration at the start of this
year. It has disagreed with your Lordships’ amendments
on the basis of our opposition to these changes and by
consensus. In so doing, the shadow Europe Minister,
Wayne David, said:
“Of course, Members in the other place are entitled to their
views, but we have reservations about the proposal that referendums
should be confined to these three subject areas, and it is important
to put on the record that my comments set out the Labour party’s
position”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/11; col. 75.]
It now falls to your Lordships’ House to consider
whether to insist on its amendments on the basis of
the approval of this clause, twice over, by the other
place. I would be particularly interested to learn from
noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite whether
they will reflect the Labour Party’s position today or
continue to adopt a different approach.
In moving the amendments on Report, the noble
Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, stated that,
“the long list of potential referendums is excessive and
disproportionate”.—[Official Report, 13/6/11; col. 552.]
While I appreciate that there are strongly held views
on this issue, I should like briefly to repeat why the
Government do not agree with this view. The coalition’s
programme for government sets out at the start of the
section on Europe that,
“no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a
referendum”.
All the decisions listed in Clause 6 in its previous form
would constitute such a transfer, as recognised by the
other place in its reason for disagreement. As we have
made clear previously, Clause 6 consists of five selfstanding decisions of great sensitivity, such as on
whether to join the euro or to give up national border
controls, and seven sensitive national vetoes using a
passerelle and avoiding formal treaty changes.
We are debating this Bill in the context of a wide
malaise within the European public across most EU
member states and a worrying disconnect between the
Brussels institutions and the national publics of the
member states. Michel Barnier, European Commissioner
for the Internal Market, said in a recent speech in Berlin:
“For 60 years we have been building Europe for its citizens
and in their name; but too often we have been doing it without
them. A malaise has taken hold and the gap between Europe and
its citizens has gradually widened”—
that is to say, not just within the UK but across the
EU. The deference on which Europe was built, which
was given to managerial élites in Brussels on behalf of
its peoples but without their informed understanding
and consent, and through which substantial powers
were transferred to Brussels, has now disappeared. We
have to rebuild public confidence in institutionalised
co-operation among European Governments. We have
to carry our voters with us, not sweep through complex
multilateral commitments over their heads.
Successive Governments in Britain have failed to
make the case for positive European engagement over
the past 20 years or more. Suspicions of French and
European Union Bill
750
German intentions, woven into an anti-European
narrative, have been endlessly recycled in much of the
British media. Some noble Lords might like to reflect
on whether there ever was a Faustian pact with the
Murdoch press in its Anglo-Saxon but anti-European
stance, whereby it would support British Governments
so long as they maintained an opposition to stronger
European co-operation and in particular to international
regulation of media ownership and competition.
If I may speak as a Liberal Democrat, I am entirely
comfortable with the constructive approach that this
coalition is taking to relations with our European
neighbours, large and small, and its positive engagement
with the institutions of the European Union. However,
it will take us time to regenerate public confidence and
to rebuild public trust. The provisions of the Bill,
including those of Clause 6, are there to reassure our
sceptical citizens that the British Government will not
attempt to slip past them unexplained further transfers
of power or competence to institutions which at present,
sadly, inspire limited loyalty and widespread mistrust.
The other place has now considered the scope of
Clause 6 on two occasions. In both cases the other
place has approved that the scope of the referendum
requirement should incorporate the 12 decisions. On
the second occasion it did so by overwhelming consensus.
It now, therefore, falls to your Lordships’ House to
consider whether or not to insist on its amendments,
but I beg to move that it accepts the view of the other
place.
Motion B1
Moved by Lord Liddle
As an amendment to Motion B, at end insert
“but do propose Amendment 13B in lieu”
13B: Clause 6, page 5, line 49, at end insert—
( ) Where this section requires that the referendum condition is
met before a decision is approved, the referendum condition will
only be mandatory where a Minister of the Crown lays before
Parliament a statement indicating that in the Minister’s opinion
the issue in question is of major economic and constitutional
significance.”
Lord Liddle: My Lords, I beg to move Motion B1 in
the name of my noble friend Lord Triesman. The
original amendment which this House carried reduced
the number of referendum locks in the Bill from 56 to
three—that is not counting major treaty change. That
was the amendment that we carried and that has been
considered by the other place. This amendment substitutes
for the position we took on that occasion the view that
referendums should be mandatory only where, in the
view of the Secretary of State, they are of major
economic and constitutional significance. I assure noble
Lords opposite that that is fully in line with the policy
of the Labour Party.
When the Bill first went through the House we were
told many times by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that
all the issues covered were constitutionally or economically
significant, but when you actually look at it, that
cannot be the case. When you look at the questions of
moving from consensus, or unanimity, to majority
voting listed in Schedule 1 to the Bill, they cannot
751
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD LIDDLE]
conceivably be regarded as constitutionally significant.
For instance, there are matters such as the approximation
of national laws affecting the internal market, the
guidelines of economic policies and excessive deficit
procedures. As we know, on one of these items—the
British Government changing the list of military products
exempt from internal market provisions—the noble
Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, pointed out that we
had been arguing for this as a country in our national
interest for years in the councils of the Union. So the
Bill contains far more referendum locks than those
that could be regarded as of major constitutional
significance.
Noble Lords on the government Benches are fond
of quoting the Lords Constitution Committee when it
suits them. What they fail to quote is the major
conclusion of the Lords Constitution Committee on
referendums—that they should be used only on matters
of major constitutional significance. They cannot
conceivably argue that all the items covered here pass
that test. If we do not apply this test, as in this revised
amendment, we are making a major move from a
representative democracy to a plebiscitary democracy
and that is something that should be of as much
concern to Eurosceptics as it is to pro-Europeans.
The other problem with this plethora of locks, as
we have argued before, is that they will gravely inhibit
the ability of any British Minister or Government to
represent our national interests in European on a
flexible basis as issues come up. No Government will
volunteer to hold referendums, not because they fear
Euroscepticism but because, as has been shown by all
the academic evidence that has studied them, referendums
are, in the main, decided by the people on issues other
than the question being asked. That is what you get in
a plebiscitary democracy. All kinds of issues are decided
on questions that are nothing to do with the subject of
the referendum. If it is impossible to put issues to
referendums, then Britain will be very constrained in
its European policy. If this is continued for 10 or
20 years, it is bound to lead to a process of British
self-marginalisation in the European Union.
I do not believe for a second that that is what the
noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Wallace, and
the Benches opposite want. However, the truth is that
the Adullamite cave of anti-Europeans in the other
place and in the Conservative Party, who have insisted
on putting the Bill in the coalition agreement, want to
make Britain marginal in Europe because they want
the Bill to lead to Britain coming out of the European
Union.
Lord Dykes: Is not the noble Lord also perturbed
that at the last annual Ditchley lecture the former
Prime Minister, the right honourable John Major,
feared that Britain was already a semi-detached member
of the European Union.
5.30 pm
Lord Liddle: Yes, I heard that John Major had said
that. It is a great concern, which will grow as a result
of this policy.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—
European Union Bill
752
Lord Liddle: I am sorry, I am not going to give way
any more.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord was
telling the House how frightful it would be if the
United Kingdom were to leave the European Union. I
do not know whether he has seen the latest state of
public opinion in this country, which is very much at
odds with your Lordships’ House. If the noble Lord
cares to read a newspaper—which may not be his
regular reading—in the shape of today’s Daily Mail,
he will see that the public now would vote by 50 per
cent to 33 per cent to leave the European Union if a
referendum were held tomorrow. Your Lordships are
even more out of touch with the British people of
your own generation because among the over 60s the
percentages are 61 per cent to leave and only 29 per
cent to stay in. That is a poll carried out by
YouGov@Cambridge for the political news website
Dods PoliticsHome, so it is quite respectable. The
noble Lord and your Lordships who do not like the
Bill are completely out of touch with British public
opinion.
Lord Liddle: That is because the argument for British
membership of the Union has not been made forcefully.
That is why we need to do that in future. However, we
are not going to do that as a result of this Bill. That is
where noble Lords opposite are wrong.
All our political institutions suffer from major distrust.
If, again, you consider the polling evidence on trust in
Parliament or trust in the Government, you will find
that there is as much mistrust in the British Government,
the British Parliament and the British political parties
as there is in the European Union. Of course, one does
not underestimate the degree of scepticism among the
public, but it is ironic that we are discussing the
question of Europe today when the Murdoch press is
in such difficulty in its relations with the British people.
I do not know how many noble Lords in this House
have received mail and been approached by members
of the public because of the amendments that we
carried when the Bill went through the House before,
but I suspect very few. The real public anger today is
directed at the media—particularly at the Murdoch
press and at News International, which more than
other organisation has used its position to obstruct
positive British policy in the European Union. By
going along with this Bill we are sacrificing representative
democracy and Britain’s ability to pursue an effective
policy in Europe.
I do not think, as I say, that is why the proposers are
putting this Bill forward. I think that the Liberal
Democrats are rather embarrassed by this piece of
legislation, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace,
has told us.
It may upset the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of
Rannoch, greatly but I have a lot of friends in Brussels.
One of them passed on to me a letter that Nick Clegg,
the Deputy Prime Minister, had sent to Andrew Duff
MEP about this piece of legislation. Towards the end,
it says:
“In addition, any referendum to ratify a Treaty change covered
by the EU Bill’s referendum lock must first be preceded by an Act
of Parliament in order to provide Parliamentary approval and to
make provisions for the holding of a referendum”.
753
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
We all agree about the Act of Parliament. He goes on
to say:
“This would, for example, enable a future Parliament to
decide that the provisions in the EU Bill should not apply by
amending the Treaty change Bill to that effect”.
The only way I can read that statement is that the
Deputy Prime Minister believes that the provisions of
what would become the European Union Act 2011
would not apply if, in future legislation ratifying a
European decision or a European treaty, a clause was
inserted that the question was not constitutionally
significant and therefore did not justify a referendum.
I would very much like to know whether the Minister
agrees with that interpretation of the Deputy Prime
Minister’s letter; whether he agrees and accepts that in
any future Act ratifying an EU decision a Minister could
insert a clause rather along the lines of our amendment;
and if so, why the Government refuse so adamantly to
accept this sensible amendment? I beg to move.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord
Liddle, called his amendment sensible. We should be
clear that it is a wrecking amendment. It requires the
Government to assert that a proposal is of major
constitutional and economic significance. The noble
Lord himself said that no Government voluntarily
submit to a referendum. No proposal would come into
the scope of this Bill unless the Government had
supported it and had voted in favour of it in the
European Union, so we can take it that the Minister
and the Government would be behind whatever proposal
was being put forward. We are then asking the Minister
to volunteer to put a referendum through the terms of his
amendment. As he said, no Government will voluntarily
do that. We have the example of the Government’s
record on the Lisbon treaty, which by every measure
should have been put to a referendum but which the
Government solemnly told the House did not require
one. It is partly because of that that we have the
mistrust to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred.
Because of the Lisbon treaty we now have a treaty
that allows many changes to the fundamentals of our
treaty relationship with Europe, including the removal
of vetoes on a whole range of policies covered by
Clause 6, and amendments to the scope of the institutions
and the powers of the European Union itself through
the passerelle clauses. All are to be done through the
agreement of Governments without the need for a
treaty change, and therefore without the need for a
referendum on a treaty change. That is why we need
Clause 6: because the Lisbon treaty enabled those
changes to be made without a treaty change, and
Clause 6 ensures that that is picked up. The noble
Lord’s amendment would completely destroy that
provision and overturn the view of the other place.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, as the person
who tabled most of the amendments that are the
subject of this debate, I should say a few words. One is
meant to rejoice when a Minister eats a large quantity
of humble pie. I have to say, I am not rejoicing at
listening to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, eating
humble pie for having helped to lead his party to the
various majorities that confirmed the Lisbon treaty.
Frankly, it is a sad day when the Liberal party recants
European Union Bill
754
from the policy that it has pursued for so many years,
saying that it is out of touch with the people and has
not taken sufficient account of their views.
Leaving that to one side, I took the trouble to listen
to the debate in the other place. I think I was the only
Member of your Lordships’ House who did so. It was
rather a sad occasion, much less well attended than
this one. I am glad to see a wonderful cross-section of
the views held in this House, which will no doubt be
vigorously debated in the minutes or hours that follow.
There was practically nobody there. When the noble
Lord says that the decision was adopted by consensus,
it was the consensus of around 15 or 20 people. They
were mainly the people who went into the Lobby
against the Government on Clause 18 and managed to
muster 22 votes. They are therefore people who, by
their own admission, would much rather than Britain
was not in the European Union. That is a perfectly
respectable position to take; it is the position that the
noble Lord, Lord Pearson, takes.
On the matter that we are discussing now, I support
the amendment. No one, including me, is persisting
with the amendments that we tabled to the Bill and
were voted on in this House. They would have reduced
the number of referendums substantially, though not
to only three. The amendment did not affect the
provisions that would have required a referendum if
any general constitutional treaty, such as Lisbon, Nice,
Maastricht or the Single European Act, had come
forward. That was not covered by the amendment that
was rejected by the House of Commons. Only the
numerous provisions that provide for 56 other referendums
were covered.
I should like briefly to make three points in favour
of this amendment. First, on marginalisation, given
the problems with holding a referendum at particular
moments in our parliamentary cycle, there is a risk that
people may be minded to vote for reasons that have
nothing to do with the question on the ballot paper.
Therefore, a British Government would be compelled
to reject a change in Europe that they believed to be in
the British interest and wished to support because
they did not feel able to go to the country in a
referendum. This is exceedingly serious. That is why
we should all listen rather carefully to someone I
respect enormously, Sir John Major, who said at Ditchley
in the annual lecture that he gave last Saturday that
Britain was at risk of being a semi-detached member
of the European Union. I know that is not the object
of the Government. I have heard many government
spokesmen flatly deny that and say how active we are.
However, they should take this risk seriously.
5.45 pm
The second problem is the one that has been alluded
to already by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, which is
that this is a major extension of plebiscitary democracy
in a country that has hitherto prided itself in putting
its faith in representative parliamentary democracy.
This is not a small subject. Frankly, what is odd about
this is the huge extension of the plebiscitary approach
in one sector of our national and international life,
which is not applied to any of the rest of it at all.
When it was suggested in our earlier debates in Committee
and Report that perhaps the Government were in
755
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD HANNAY OF CHISWICK]
favour of referendums on reform of the National Health
Service or the education system, strings of garlic were
hung around the government spokesman’s neck. They
swore mightily that they had no such thought. But this
is a very odd way to go about constitutional change. It
really is pretty peculiar to introduce this huge raft of
potential referendums into this area.
Finally, on my third point, I support this amendment
because the lack of flexibility given by the Bill, if it
were to pass and become an Act, is a major danger. It
imports rigidity into the whole British approach to
Europe and, by transposition, it risks importing rigidity
into the whole evolution of the European Union.
Institutions that do not have the means to reform and
adapt themselves become fragile and risk falling out of
contact with what they are meant to be doing. This is a
really serious problem being caused here, and these
rigidities are liable to damage both the European Union
and our own national interests. The purpose of the
amendment is to provide a little bit of flexibility where
none exists in the present Bill, which is why I support it.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: I was attempting
to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to give way
during his very impassioned defence of this particular
Motion. I merely wish to tease him a bit for one
moment by saying that it is clear that he does not
understand the readership of the Daily Mail—and I
am sure that that is the case, as it does not appear to be
his favourite reading, from what he said on an earlier
intervention. But I do not think that he absolutely
understands the Liberal Democrats either. Indeed, I
am not actually sure that he listens to the Liberal
Democrats. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made it
absolutely plain in his statement that he was a Liberal
Democrat, and I too, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle,
knows, belong to that party.
None the less, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made a
very serious and profound point, which was reflected
in his signature to the important letter to the Times today,
which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other immensely
eminent noble Lords have signed also. The point, of
course, is that the issues reflected in the EU Bill
for referendums are of “fundamental constitutional
importance”, to quote the letter. The statement made in
the letter, which he reflected again today in his speech,
is that:
“The Parliamentary Constitution Scrutiny Committee
recommends that referendums should be confined to changes of
fundamental constitutional importance”.
Of course, economy of the truth is something that
others, maybe even Secretaries to the Cabinet, have
used to great effect. While I personally disagree profoundly
with him on losing a national veto over key areas
outlined in the Bill being regarded as of “fundamental
constitutional importance”—I think they should be—none
the less, I take issue with the noble Lord for the way in
which he has clipped the important statements made
by the Constitution Committee in its report on
referendums in the UK. The report goes on to say:
“There are difficulties in defining what constitutes a ‘fundamental
constitutional issue’. Although some constitutional issues clearly
are of fundamental importance, and others not, there is a grey
area where the importance of issues is a matter of political
judgment”.
European Union Bill
756
The committee did,
“not believe that it is possible to provide a precise definition of
what constitutes a ‘fundamental constitutional issue’”.
While it is,
“possible to set out in legislation specific issues which should be
subject to a referendum”—
Baroness Quin: I am grateful to the noble Baroness
for giving way. I was a member of the Constitution
Committee and was very active in promoting the
report on referendums. The noble Baroness should
recognise that the committee as a whole was very
sceptical about the use of referendums, which it wanted
to be used only in very limited circumstances.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: I thank the
noble Baroness. Of course she is absolutely correct.
She was a member, so how can I argue with her? None
the less, on the record the committee pointed out that
Parliament should judge what issues will be the subject
of a referendum.
I feel profoundly that that is why the other place has
clearly supported all these issues that other noble
Lords are seeking to remove. The other place has the
touchstone of having the pulse of the electorate—after
all, the other place is elected. In recent months, four
out of five members of the public have said that they
believe that transfers of sovereignty should be put to
referendum, so I really think that noble Lords would do
best to withdraw their opposition to the other place’s
position and not press Motion B to a vote. I think
it would be an error of judgment on their Lordships’ part.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I warmly support the
amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord
Triesman and which has been spoken to so eloquently
by my noble friend Lord Liddle.
Occasionally, the peoples of small countries can
give those of larger countries some salutary advice.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of a meeting and a long
discussion with the president of the Slovenian upper
Chamber. We were discussing very openly the current
political malaise in Slovenia—it is doing very well
economically but there is political malaise there—and
the fact that the people of Slovenia were completely
turned off by the political class, both the Government
and the Parliament. We were told that one of the
major reasons for this was that they are fed up with
having referendums. They are saying to the Parliament,
“We elected you to take decisions and to govern, and a
Government is there to govern, so why can you do
nothing without first asking the people in referendums?
We elected you to take those decisions”. I think that
they have a point. This is a country that, not so long
ago, had no democratic institutions at all. It had no
means by which people could express their opinions;
they have them now. What is their reaction to the
massive referendums to which they are subjected?
They say, “That is not the way we want to be governed.
We did not give up the yoke of communism to be
governed in this way”. Perhaps occasionally it is a
good idea to listen to small countries.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, of all the
people have spoken in this debate, the noble Lord,
Lord Hannay, has the greatest practical experience,
757
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
since he has had the responsibility of seeking to negotiate
on the international plane in Europe and elsewhere. If
he cannot persuade the House, nobody can. In supporting
this amendment and therefore, I am afraid, not acting
in accordance with the wishes of the Government, I
agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay,
has said.
As somebody who, as I have said on previous
occasions, takes his holidays in Ireland and has seen
what has happened in the Irish referendum, I think
that the good thing about this amendment is that it
places us in roughly the same position as the Irish.
They have referenda only according to constitutional
criteria such as those in this amendment, so the Irish
Government are not fettered with the inflexible overreach
of the Bill as it otherwise stands. Therefore it seems to
me that this amendment has the merit of Parliament
authorising the Minister to exercise her or his discretion
in the particular case using a criterion that is well
understood and doing so under the authority of
Parliament.
‘Otherwise, what we will really be seeking to do is to
fetter decision-making by future Governments and
Parliaments, even though that would be most unwise. I
was once induced by the whipping arrangements to
stand on my head and to vote against my own amendment.
I then made it clear that I would not make an idiot of
myself again in that way, and I do not propose to do
so today either.
Lord Davies of Stamford: My Lords, this is a very
revealing debate. The Government have behaved rather
dismissively towards this House. The noble Lord, Lord
Howell, has said, rather pro forma, that the Government
have carefully considered our arguments. In actual
fact, there has been no attempt whatever to come even
5 per cent of the way to meet us. I hope that, as a
result, your Lordships will have the courage of their
convictions and continue to stand by the principles we
voted on previously. I particularly support this new
amendment, brought forward by my noble friend Lord
Triesman and so ably and vigorously argued by my
noble friend Lord Liddle.
I said that it has been a revealing debate. I thought
that the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell—the only
Conservative to have taken part in this debate, so far at
least—really gave the game away. He entirely supported
the point I have been making all along: that no
Government have a referendum voluntarily at all. If
they can possibly avoid it, no Government ever have a
referendum; that is exactly what the noble Lord said
and exactly what I have been saying. That means that
the apparent intention to have referenda on any or all
of the 56 subjects in the Bill is entirely hypocritical.
There is no such intention whatever. We all know that
it would be quite absurd to have a referendum on
almost all of them—on 50, at least, out of the 56. The
British public would think it a ludicrous waste of time
and money, and they would be completely right.
The intention is really entirely obstructionist, which
is what I am so worried about. It sends the worst
possible signal to our partners in the European Union.
Indeed, it presages a period of great difficulty for us in
our relations with our EU partners and our ability to
positively influence the EU. It is so important that we
European Union Bill
758
influence the EU in the right way because it is such a
vital element in the modern world, where in so many
contexts we cannot possibly achieve our national purposes
acting on a purely national basis. We need to form an
effective, cohesive bloc with our European partners
and argue with them in the relevant international fora.
What does one make of this argument that the
Government keep on coming up with—the noble Lord,
Lord Wallace, repeated it this afternoon—that this
extremely obstructionist concept of having referenda
on all those subjects is somehow indispensable in
better communicating to the British public the virtues
and merits of our membership of the European Union?
The noble Lord’s argument really does not have any
conviction at all; it does not ring genuine or true.
Anybody who knows the first thing about marketing
knows that if you want to sell something, the one
thing you can never do is be negative about it. If you
want to sell it at all, you have to sell it with enthusiasm
and genuine conviction. Once you start saying, “Well,
this is a problem so we need to apply brakes and think
of new blockages”, and so forth, you have lost it
completely. The noble Lord was a very distinguished
professor of international relations but if he had chosen
a marketing career, he would have been an absolute
disaster. He would never have sold a single car or tube
of toothpaste on the basis of the approach which he
outlined this afternoon.
Our enacting this Bill will have two effects. One is
that there will be substantive damage done to the
interests of this country in specific areas. In an amendment
on Report, I raised the issue of a single market in the
defence industry. That is quite clearly in our national
interests, but we would not now be able to agree to it
unless we had a referendum. I went through that and
explained that we really would shoot ourselves in the
foot—that was the expression I used—if we went
ahead with that. The Government did not seriously
argue against that case at all. They simply said, “Sorry,
we are embarked upon this course and there may be a
few things to be thought of ”. The noble Lord, Lord
Howell, was nice enough to say that I may have some
arguments there but that they would carry on
regardless—that was more or less the response I had.
Let me give another case, because it is important to
look at specific, concrete cases where it may be in the
national interest to transfer powers or competences to
the institutions of the European Union, particularly
the Commission. A few years ago the Commission
made a proposal that it should have the right to audit
and monitor the accounts of member states. That was
opposed by a number of member states, including
ourselves and the Germans, and it did not go through.
Had it been able to go through on a qualified majority
voting basis then we would have had the Commission
monitoring the national accounts of Greece. The scandals
and mistakes that have occurred with devastating
consequences—going into tens of billions of euros, as
we all know, and the threat of a banking crisis which
undoubtedly will affect us if it arises, and so forth—would
have been avoided, because somebody else would have
been able to go through those accounts. The European
Commission would have been able to do so. Of course
all the Eurosceptics in this Chamber and in the other
place would have said, Oh, this is a terrible thing
759
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD DAVIES OF STAMFORD]
because it is somehow another integrationist step forward”,
but it would have been enormously in our national
interest.
6 pm
Such occasions can easily occur in the future. We all
know that we cannot predict the crises and challenges
of next year or even six months hence, let alone five or
10 years hence, but we are now denying ourselves
definitively an effective possible weapon to deal with
such challenges and crises. That is the effect of the
Bill. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell:
there ain’t going to be no referenda on this Bill. We all
know that was complete rubbish. What this Bill is
actually doing is enacting a complete blockage so far
as we are concerned.
The second consequence of this, of course, is that it
will give a great boost to the enhanced co-operation
agenda in the EU. Our partners will know in advance
that there is no point in bringing the Brits into the
discussion—because they are paralysed; because they
have got to say no; because no Minister could possibly
even say yes subject to a referendum, because no
Government are ever going to want the referendum.
Therefore they will not want the Brits in the room
from the beginning: that is quite clear. So, they will say
we have got to make progress on this, we have got to
take a decision on this, we have to do it ourselves,
under the enhanced co-operation procedure—which is
now of course available under the treaty. We are going
to give a tremendous boost to that. This means, of
course, that we will not be present at that discussion.
We all know that the European Union is a horse-trading
organisation, and agreements are often in terms of
packages—a perfectly natural thing in human affairs.
If we are not part of the discussion in one particular
area, it may make it much more difficult for us to do
an advantageous bargain or deal in another context
which is very important for us. We are going to be
steadily and progressively left out of the mechanism of
decision-taking in the European Union. That is a very
serious prospect and we are bringing it not only closer
but so close that it is a damned racing certainty if we
enact this Bill in its present form.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, at this
stage in our proceedings we have to do two things.
First, we have to decide whether we are persuaded by
the arguments put forward in the other place that what
we have decided here should not stand up. Secondly,
we have to decide, if we are not persuaded, whether we
stand by what we have done or whether we acquiesce
in what the other House has decided.
My fundamental objection to this Bill and my
support for the amendments that we passed is based
on a view which has not much to do with European
affairs at all, but a great deal to do with the British
constitution. Up to now, we have had a constitution in
which the referendum, until modern times, had no role
whatever. We had sufficient confidence in parliamentary
government to believe that the representatives of the
people should be responsive to the people but not
slaves to the momentary wishes of the people, and that
that was the right way in which decisions should be
European Union Bill
760
taken. A breach was made, 25 years ago, 35 years ago
or more, but one breach and one breach only. This
legislation changes the balance dramatically by making
referenda, instead of extremely rare, things which
could be extremely common.
The amendments that were passed by this House
mitigate what I consider the damage to the British
constitution a small degree. The question is, are we
persuaded by the arguments put forward in the other
place that the mitigation that we introduced is something
which we should no longer support? I am not so
persuaded, because the amendments that we put forward
were quite modest, still leaving a Bill which breached—in
my view unnecessarily and undesirably—the principle
of parliamentary government, but they were mitigatory
amendments and therefore we supported them in this
House, and we passed them in this House. Nothing
that was said in the other House persuades me that we
were wrong to do so, because the balance of the
constitution in which a referendum is a rare instrument,
applied only in exceptional circumstances, is one which
I continue to support. I am not persuaded by the
arguments put forward in the other House that the
modest amendments that we put forward, which would
reduce the plethora of amendments and other referenda
from a flood to a trickle, were undesirable. I was
persuaded last time we discussed this that they were
desirable, and I remain of that view now.
Lord Pannick: My Lords, I too support this
amendment, because I see it as a considered response
to the views of the other place. It supplies a criterion
which identifies when it is appropriate for a referendum
to be held. Since mention has been made of the views
of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’
House, of which I am a member, I will remind your
Lordships of the three points that the committee
made in its report on this Bill.
First, we noted that in our earlier report on the use
of referendums, we concluded that if referendums are
to be used they should be confined to fundamental
constitutional issues. Secondly, we noted that this
Government had expressed agreement with that criterion
in the context of the Parliamentary Voting System and
Constituencies Act. Thirdly, we concluded that it could
not be said that every treaty change which would,
under this Bill, require a referendum, would involve a
fundamental constitutional issue.
My answer to the point made by the noble Lord,
Lord Blackwell, is that I understand this amendment
to impose a duty on the Minister in good faith to
consider whether the issue is one of economic or
constitutional significance, and if so to lay a Statement
before Parliament. I do not accept that this leaves
matters entirely to political judgment: it imposes a
criterion, it is a considered response to the Commons
view, and I hope we will support the amendment
today.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I support the
amendment. The main consideration is that if the
Government do not relent on this question they will
be in denial on issues to do with the workability of the
scheme. I will give some examples.
761
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
First, it is proposed that these referenda be mandatory
on the Government. Secondly, it was said by the noble
Lord in a previous session that it might be rather
inconvenient if there were a whole string of different
referendums and so they could be grouped together in
some way for the purpose of having them on a certain
date. The issue of EU energy taxation being extended
or some other legal question on an industrial matter
might be put together for the purpose of the referendum
day. This taxes the imagination. I have tried to imagine
that I am sitting listening to a conversation in a pub in
Burton-on-Trent. After all, this is the demotic that we
are all being asked to say is so much more important
than parliamentary democracy. So, I am sitting in a
pub in Burton-on-Trent, and after a discussion on
what is running in the 2.30 at Newmarket, Fred says to
his mate Alec, “What are you doing on this thing that
they want us to vote on tomorrow?”. “No idea, Fred,
it’s all Greek to me”, replies Alec.
How do we know that the people want all these
referendums? How much time would elapse in Brussels
if we simply, as the awkward squad, sat for several
months on a whole string of items until the famous
day when they could be brought together? That looks
so totally unreasonable that people in Europe—they
are friends of ours, presumably; we are in a Community—
might say, “If you are a member of a club, you ought
to be more co-operative than that. If you carry on as
you are, you might as well get out”. If we held a
referendum on staying in or getting out, I am pretty
confident that the staying in vote would win. There
might be consensus on that, but it is not the subject of
this amendment. This is a vicious circle. If you want to
be a member of a club, you have to co-operate. If I
carried on like this in my tennis club, it might be
suggested that I joined another club more suited to my
temperament. The Government do not have the candour
to say what they want to do because I do not think
that some of their members would agree with that
position. However, they want to go as near as they can
to implying what they want to do.
In practice, this amendment meets the test set by
the Constitution Committee. I think that there is
consensus in the House on it.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I will be very brief. I do
not think that it can be disputed that the Bill in its
present form makes it infinitely more difficult to stick
to the constitutional principle announced by the Scrutiny
Committee that referenda should be restricted to matters
of fundamental constitutional significance. Why would
a spread of more plebiscites be so dangerous? It is
because the system of parliamentary government has
been far superior in preserving certain rights, particularly
minority rights, than would be the case with referenda
and plebiscites. For example, one can imagine the
populist propaganda that would pour out further to
restrict asylum seekers and make this a less civilised
country. That would apply also to those suspected of
committing terrorist offences. We have heard some
examples of that. However, this goes beyond minority
rights and individual rights. What about protectionism?
“British jobs for British people” was Mr Brown’s ill
advised slogan. If protectionism had spread throughout
Europe or throughout the world after the crash, we
European Union Bill
762
would be in an infinitely worse position. As regards
tax, is not the example of California, which is now a
bankrupt state, a very good reason for not allowing
the spread of referenda?
6.15 pm
Lord Deben: My Lords, my problem with this
amendment is that it seems to me to meet precisely
what the Government want. The Government have
been arguing that this clause would apply only to
matters of constitutional value and that those who
have worried about various aspects of it are worrying
unnecessarily. We now have an amendment which
specifically says that the Minister must say publicly
that the referendum concerns a matter of constitutional
or economic importance. That seems to me not an
unreasonable thing to do when it is precisely what the
Government say this clause is meant to do. Although I
do not believe in referenda in any circumstances, I am
not approaching this from that point of view. Frankly,
I am trying to help the Government because it seems
to me that they have not convinced all of us that their
explanation of this clause is precisely right.
My noble friend Lord Blackwell is entirely wrong:
this is not a wrecking amendment—unless the
Government’s proposal is a wrecking amendment—in
fact, it enhances what the Government have asked for.
Your Lordships should say to yourselves, “Whether
we are Eurosceptics or enthusiasts for Europe”—as I
am—“whatever our view may be, it is not unreasonable
to say that referenda should be held on matters of
considerable importance, not ones which are not of
considerable importance”. It is not unreasonable to
put that in the Bill.
As regards the way in which we have approached
this, I believe that there are real issues for our stance in
the European Union. Those who are Eurosceptic ought
to be just as concerned as those of us who are of a
different opinion, because unless we are able to argue
about minor matters with the freedom which a
representative Government have, we will do ourselves
down on many of the issues that have been raised. If
this amendment merely allows for that freedom, it is
important and valuable and certainly does not in any
way wreck the proposal.
There is truth in the argument that says that we
should watch any constitutional change of this magnitude
with great care. I say to the noble Baroness behind me
who spoke on the Liberal Democrat position that the
more she read what the Constitution Committee of
this House said, the more she made the case for the
amendment, because the Constitution Committee said
that if you are going to have referenda, you should
make sure that they are on serious matters. Sometimes
it is difficult to decide what are serious matters. We
have produced an amendment which says to the Minister,
“You have to make up your mind, you have to agree to
it and you have to say that publicly”. After all, most of
our Bills have a statement on the front that the relevant
Minister knows that it accords with human rights. It is
not unreasonable to ask Ministers to make that choice.
I think that is what the Government want. Why,
therefore, have they not accepted this amendment, or
something like it?
763
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD DEBEN]
I end with a plea to my noble friend. He knows that
many of us are not entirely happy with the logic of
saying that we have to have all this in order to reconnect
with the public. Could he not move towards us just a
little and be prepared to put in the Bill what he has
told us is actually there? That would make us feel that
the Government had listened to us and that there was
a two-way discussion on this. If he does not do that, I
am afraid that I cannot even begin to reach out to the
concept that this Bill enhances our relationships and I
shall begin to recede into a position of wondering
whether it is not intended to make people like my
noble friend happier. I am not sure that that is what we
should be debating.
Lord Flight: My Lords, does the Minister agree that
certain noble Lords are perhaps a bit out of touch
with British public opinion? It is clear that the British
public are against Governments surrendering any further
sovereignty to the EU without the consent of the
people. That was very much reflected in the attitude
taken to the previous Government’s signing up to
Lisbon, having promised a referendum and then having
ratted on it. The whole point of the Bill, clumsy
though it may be, is to provide a deterrent to stop
Governments of any political hue giving away yet
more sovereignty, and the British people not having a
say in that. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, gave the
game away. He was arguing that he wanted a situation
where Governments could fudge it and give away a bit
more sovereignty and was very unhappy that they
might be deterred from doing that through fear of
losing a referendum. The whole point of the Bill is to
provide an effective deterrent to Governments giving
away sovereignty. This amendment would weaken that
principle.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I took part in virtually
all the debates that we have had so far on this Bill, and
it seems to me that the amendment would be a wrecking
amendment. I understand that the Government and
the coalition brought forward the Bill after long
consideration and to provide assurance to the British
people before they surrendered any powers—powers
of the people and powers of this Parliament, if we are
talking about parliamentary democracy—to the
institutions of the European Union. Indeed, we had
long discussions about these provisions, and after
hearing all the debates I believe that the Government
were right to try to get it through this House.
Unfortunately, they did not do so.
The Bill went to the House of Commons and I have
read the debates. The Labour Party did not oppose
these clauses in any reasonable way and did not support
Amendments 6 to 13. There was very little discussion
on them, as a matter of fact. If it was Labour Party
policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, assured us
and as is contained in his amendment, why was it not
moved in the House of Commons? That is where it
should have been done, but it was not done. What is
the gain? If the Labour Party believes in restricting
the effect of Clause 6, why did it not try to do that
in the elected House? In the circumstances, this
House ought to take note of what the other place has
done.
European Union Bill
764
Lord Lea of Crondall: The noble Lord spent many
years in the House of Commons. Is it not the position
that the Labour Party was looking at the Bill, as
amended by the House of Lords, and that it was not
incumbent on the Labour Party to do anything along
the lines he suggests?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It was not incumbent on
the Labour Party to do so, but it had the opportunity
to do so and did not. If it believed, as the noble Lord,
Lord Liddle, said when he moved his amendment, that
this should be its policy, why did Members not do it
when they had the opportunity in the House of
Commons? That is the question that has to be answered.
I assure the noble Lord that I know the procedures in
the House of Commons. I was a Whip in the House of
Commons and I have sat on a number of committees
dealing with amendments that have come from the
House of Lords. The House of Commons was perfectly
entitled to move an amendment but it did not do so.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Lea of Crondall: I am going to put the matter
right for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It was a Bill
that had been amended in this House, which is what
the House of Commons was considering.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The House of Commons
is entitled to amend amendments that we have made in
this House, but did not do so. The Labour Party did
not do so because it did not want people outside to get
the impression that it was against consulting them
about losing further powers to the European Union.
That is the real reason behind it.
I know that the House wants to get on, but I just
want to say that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred
to Greece. Of course, it is very clever to do that
because we know the appalling state that the eurozone
is in at present. He made the reasonable point that if it
were a unitary state the Commission would have examined
the accounts of the Greek Government. It had the
opportunity to do so before Greece was admitted to
the eurozone, but it did not do it because it was a
politically driven decision. It wanted as many countries
in the eurozone as possible, whether they were broke
or, like Germany, prosperous. We should be very careful
when using the present crisis to undermine the Bill. I
would like it to go further but it is the best we are
going to have, and I hope that the House will not insist
on the amendments on this occasion.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I had not
intended to speak in this debate and I will be extremely
brief. I rose to speak only because so many of my
noble friends have made rather powerful speeches, but
ones with which I disagree. I take very seriously the
point made about moving too far in favour of plebiscitary
democracy. One has to agree that that is a real danger.
Balanced against that has to be the fact that the
seeping away of the power of Parliament to the European
Union is also an extremely serious issue. I agree in
general that referendums should be held largely on
765
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
constitutional issues because they are a good way of
settling how we live with each other and how we are
governed.
We had quotations from the side opposite and from
Cross-Benchers in earlier debates from Edmund Burke
and the judgment of members of the legislature. One
might quote back at them Tom Paine, who argued that
constitutions belong to the people: that it is not for
politicians to decide the rules by which government is
conducted—sovereignty comes from the people. While
I think that referendums should be on constitutional
issues—important constitutional issues, as has been
said—the totality of our relationship with Europe is a
huge constitutional issue. It is therefore right that
referendums should play a part in that.
That poses the question: is it right that we should
have in this Bill so many different powers and so many
different issues all rolled into one that might, as has
been said, give rise to a flood of referendums on trivial
issues? I do not believe that that will be the consequence
of this Bill. That has been said before in our proceedings
on the Bill, so I shall not go on about it at any great
length. I will say, however, that that will not happen
because: first, these measures are likely to come in
packages; and, secondly, there are reserve powers—
reserved to the nation state and left out of the previous
treaties of Lisbon, Nice and Maastricht—because
individual countries in the past have wanted to preserve
them, and not necessarily Britain. There are other
countries in the European Union, and one can look
through the minutes of the constitutional convention
leading up to the Lisbon treaty to see how some other
countries in the past have argued for the veto to be
preserved in certain areas. This is not just at the
insistence of British politicians.
6.30 pm
Baroness Quin: The noble Lord said that he could
foresee referendums dealing with issues in packages.
In those circumstances, how are people who agree with
one issue but disagree with another supposed to vote?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: That question was raised
by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, earlier in the debate.
The answer is: just as they vote in elections. They have
to decide on five or six issues in an election. In the
past, there were referendums in other countries on
treaties in which they had to decide on a series of
questions raised by those treaties. I repeat my point
that where a veto exists, it is not necessarily just at
Britain’s insistence but because other countries, too,
wanted it.
Thirdly, I think we will have referendums only
where a British Minister agrees with the proposition
that will be put to the people of this country, and
where the Government believe that they can win the
referendum. For that reason, and with great respect, I
do not agree with the point made by the noble Lord,
Lord Hannay, that our flexibility in negotiations will
be impeded because a certain area is covered by the
possibility of a referendum being held on it. If a
Minister wishes to argue in favour of something,
presumably he is confident that he can sell it to the
public. If he cannot sell it to the public, and they are
European Union Bill
766
going to disagree with it, perhaps he should think
carefully about whether it should be advanced at all.
Therefore, although I agree with the general proposition
that we do not want to go down the road of having a
massive extension of plebiscitary democracy, I do not
think that that will be the consequence of the Bill.
That assertion has been repeated many times, but the
argument is not convincing and I urge my noble friend
to support the Government on this.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I hope that I
will be forgiven if I say that I have a faint feeling of
having been here before—and forgiven also for not
responding to every strongly held view and argument
put forward in this debate that was put forward again
and again in the past. The Government and I regard
some of these arguments as deeply flawed and consider
that they do not understand or come to grips with the
realities of political life today, either here or in the rest
of the European Union. I will also deal briefly, as is
the custom, with the Motion—it is not the custom to
make long second speeches on a Motion—and with
the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle,
which goes very much further than anything standing
against the Government’s Motion that the amendments
be resisted.
On the decisions involved in Clause 6, none is in the
grey or insignificant category. They are all there for
very strongly established reasons that are largely supported
by many other countries. Many vetoes are maintained
because the signatories to the Lisbon treaty did not
want them to go into the QMV category. They are
there because their use could only ever provide for a
transfer of competence and power from the UK to the
European Union—for reasons that we have explained
from this Dispatch Box and that many of my noble
friends have explained again and again—and so should
be subject to the referendum requirement.
It is difficult to accept that any of the decisions in
Clause 6 would not be significant in constitutional or
economic terms. Those who say that it stretches their
imagination to understand the significance of the
measures listed in Clause 6, or Schedule 1, which
springs from it, surprise me. Surely a decision on
whether to give up our vetoes on, for instance, the
multiannual financial framework, border controls or
joining the single currency—I refer now to the amendment
of the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Triesman,
not to the main one that accepts them—would all fall,
under Amendment 13B, into the bracket of something
that had to be judged according to whether or not it
was significant. This is a completely unnecessary process.
Clearly they are of the most profound significance.
I know that the shadow Minister for Europe said
on Monday that he considered other items in Clause 6
to be not so important. He exempted the important
three—border controls, the European currency and
one other—but dismissed the others as paperclips and
minutiae. We do not accept that analysis. We firmly
believe that the other issues are also of great significance
and, when understood in terms of their impact on
jobs, work and the processes by which our law system
operates, certainly could be subjects of conversation
in the pub in Burton-on-Trent, where the noble Lord,
Lord Lea, has been listening to conversations.
767
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD HOWELL OF GUILDFORD]
On the European public prosecutor, I know that it
is regarded by some of my noble friends, and by some
noble Lords opposite, as not being of constitutional
or economic significance. However, it is because it
involves affording a supranational body the ability to
prosecute citizens of this country within the scope of
its own criminal justice system in respect of alleged
crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests. Someone
must decide what that financial interest is and whether
the crime has been committed. Is that a paperclip or
minutiae issue?
What about the vetoes listed in Schedule 1? Why are
they not significant when they all relate—that is why
they are there—to the red lines adopted by successive
Governments, fought for very hard by the previous
Government and sustained by this Government, covering
foreign affairs, security and defence policy, economic
and tax policy, including issues of the EU’s budget,
which all of us admit is a red-hot issue, social security,
employment policy, justice and home affairs policy,
and citizenship and elections? Are these all minutiae,
paperclip decisions and things that are never discussed
in any pub? I have to ask where some of my noble
friends, and some noble Lords, have been if they think
that these matters are of no significance, because they
include not only domestic issues, where after all Parliament
can make and unmake laws, but transfers of power,
sovereignty and competence that would almost certainly
be irrevocable—in fact, they would be irrevocable.
The amendment before us would, for instance, allow
the British Government to relinquish their veto over
decisions relating to the multiannual financial framework
without first getting the consent of the British people.
That is a hugely important decision that Members in
the other place were particularly concerned with, and
rightly so. The Minister for Europe rightly pointed out
that the forthcoming decision on that framework will
in effect set budgetary decisions and ceilings for the
next five to seven years of the EU’s life and development.
Are these minutiae, paperclip decisions or matters that
people will not understand? I ask my noble friends
and noble Lords who think that these matters are
insignificant to think again. Their significance is obvious.
It is vital that these matters remain subject to
unanimity and that whichever British Government are
in office—this matter should be above party—continue
to have the right of veto. Similar views are taken in
almost every other country in the European Union.
We all know what happens when one gets casual about
the veto and lets it go. This was the case in the
surrender of the veto on Article 122 of the TFEU,
which opened the way to fearsome, huge and titanic
new financial commitments to the funding of Europe
in its present financial difficulties.
The amendment before us would reduce precisely
the clarity that we all seek. It would also risk the
possibility of judicial review on a decision by the
Minister not to consider one of these clear-cut decisions
to be significant. The so-called pragmatic flexibility
that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, keeps reminding us
about and seeks could well be impeded by his own
amendment. He would end up in a quagmire of pragmatic
flexibility of his own making. It was too much of this
pragmatic flexibility approach in the past that caused
European Union Bill
768
antagonism—the turn-off, if you like, of popular support
for the European Union and for Ministers’ actions.
The ministerial discretion that some of my noble
friends and noble Lords call for has become the ministerial
indiscretion and undermining of trust and support for
the European Union that we are trying to correct.
Lord Goodhart: Would my noble friend accept that
it is impossible for a court to make decisions on what
is done in the Houses of Parliament? If the Minister
declares, therefore, that he believes something to be—or
not to be—a matter of importance, it is not a matter
that could then go to the courts. It would be settled by
the House itself.
Lord Howell of Guildford: Ministerial decisions are
open to judicial review. That is not a matter that we
discussed much in Committee or one that we would
necessarily want to see operate very fully in this or any
other area of ministerial decisions on any aspect of
policy. However, judicial review is there and ministerial
decisions can be challenged.
The House of Commons has twice approved the
scope and operation of Clause 6 following a clear
exposition from the shadow Europe minister and his
views on party policy on Amendments 6 to 13.
I do not want to take further time meeting the
marginalisation argument. Frankly, it is a chestnut, as
there is absolutely no impact on Ministers’ discretion
and flexibility merely because they have sanctions
behind them. Most European member states’ Ministers
have sanctions of various sorts lying behind them on
the decisions that they reach.
The plebiscitary democracy issue, frankly, belongs
to the pre-internet age, before the web and the internet
system. We see all around the world the wider public’s
insistence on having a say where major issues about
the transfers of power and competence away from
their sovereign control are involved. That is exactly
what would happen here. The idea that there would be
56 different referenda coming along is pure fantasy
and does not relate to the actual way in which these
issues would arise. There would be no great frequency
of referenda; this is not the pattern for the future. It
will not be the result of this Bill and it certainly would
not be the outcome of the way in which the European
Union has operated, is operating, or is likely to operate
in the future. It is not in the interests of the 27—maybe
soon 28—members to proceed in that way.
I think that the noble Lord would be wise to accept
the Motion and the view taken in the other place. He
would be wise to reject the amendment and therefore I
ask him to withdraw it and accept the Motion so ably
moved by my noble friend.
Lord Liddle: My Lords, we have had a full debate,
and I do not want to take up the time of the House. I
just want to make one comment on what the Minister
has said. As you know, I believe in the noble Lord’s
integrity in putting this Bill forward. I do not believe
he is putting it forward for anti-European reasons. I
do not think that that is what he thinks, but the truth is
that the list of referendum locks contained in this Bill
far exceed any reasonable person’s definition of issues
of fundamental constitutional significance. On that
basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
769
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
6.44 pm
Division on Motion B1
Contents 210; Not-Contents 244.
Motion B1 disagreed.
Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Adonis, L.
Armstrong of Hill Top, B.
Armstrong of Ilminster, L.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
[Teller]
Beecham, L.
Berkeley, L.
Best, L.
Bhattacharyya, L.
Bilston, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blood, B.
Borrie, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Brennan, L.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Browne of Ladyton, L.
Burns, L.
Butler of Brockwell, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Christopher, L.
Clancarty, E.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Collins of Highbury, L.
Condon, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crawley, B.
Cunningham of Felling, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Davies of Stamford, L.
Deben, L.
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Drayson, L.
D’Souza, B.
Dubs, L.
Dykes, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Falkender, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Fellowes, L.
Filkin, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Ford, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Gale, B.
Garel-Jones, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Giddens, L.
Glasman, L.
Golding, B.
Goodhart, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grantchester, L.
Grenfell, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Hanworth, V.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Hattersley, L.
Haworth, L.
Hayter of Kentish Town, B.
Healy of Primrose Hill, B.
Henig, B.
Hennessy of Nympsfield, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollick, L.
Hollins, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howells of St Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Stretford, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Hylton, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Jones, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Judd, L.
Kennedy of Southwark, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kingsmill, B.
Kinnock, L.
Kinnock of Holyhead, B.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Levy, L.
Liddell of Coatdyke, B.
Liddle, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lister of Burtersett, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Low of Dalston, L.
Luce, L.
McAvoy, L.
McConnell of Glenscorrodale,
L.
McDonagh, B.
McFall of Alcluith, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate,
L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Mallalieu, B.
European Union Bill
Mandelson, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Meacher, B.
Monks, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Nye, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
O’Loan, B.
O’Neill of Bengarve, B.
O’Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Pannick, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Prashar, B.
Prosser, B.
Quin, B.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Reid of Cardowan, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
St John of Bletso, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sherlock, B.
Simon, V.
Smith of Basildon, B.
Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stern, B.
Stevenson of Balmacara, L.
Stirrup, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Sutherland of Houndwood, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tonge, B.
Touhig, L.
Triesman, L.
Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller]
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Walpole, L.
Walton of Detchant, L.
Warner, L.
Warnock, B.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Watson of Invergowrie, L.
West of Spithead, L.
Wheeler, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Wills, L.
Wood of Anfield, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Hornsey, B.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
NOT CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.
Addington, L.
Ahmad of Wimbledon, L.
Alderdice, L.
Alliance, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]
Ashdown of Norton-subHamdon, L.
Astor, V.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Baker of Dorking, L.
Bannside, L.
Barker, B.
Bell, L.
Benjamin, B.
Berridge, B.
Bew, L.
Black of Brentwood, L.
Blackwell, L.
Blencathra, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury,
B.
Boswell of Aynho, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brinton, B.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville,
L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Browning, B.
Burnett, L.
Buscombe, B.
770
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Carrington, L.
Cathcart, E.
Chadlington, L.
Chester, Bp.
Chidgey, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cormack, L.
Cotter, L.
Courtown, E.
Craigavon, V.
Crickhowell, L.
Cumberlege, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dear, L.
Denham, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dobbs, L.
Doocey, B.
Dundee, E.
Eaton, B.
Eccles, V.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elton, L.
Empey, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Faulks, L.
771
European Union Bill
Fearn, L.
Feldman, L.
Feldman of Elstree, L.
Fellowes of West Stafford, L.
Fink, L.
Flight, L.
Fookes, B.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Fowler, L.
Framlingham, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Freeman, L.
Freud, L.
Garden of Frognal, B.
Gardiner of Kimble, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
German, L.
Glasgow, E.
Glenarthur, L.
Glendonbrook, L.
Glentoran, L.
Gold, L.
Goodlad, L.
Goschen, V.
Grade of Yarmouth, L.
Greaves, L.
Green of Hurstpierpoint, L.
Greenway, L.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Harris of Peckham, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Henley, L.
Heyhoe Flint, B.
Higgins, L.
Hill of Oareford, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts,
L.
Home, E.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howe, E.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Hussain, L.
Hussein-Ece, B.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jenkin of Kennington, B.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Kakkar, L.
Kilclooney, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Kirkham, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Kramer, B.
Laird, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lang of Monkton, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Leach of Fairford, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lexden, L.
Lindsay, E.
Lingfield, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Loomba, L.
Lothian, M.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Macdonald of River Glaven,
L.
MacGregor of Pulham
Market, L.
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Maddock, B.
Magan of Castletown, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mancroft, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marks of Henley-on-Thames,
L.
Marland, L.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Methuen, L.
Montrose, D.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Moynihan, L.
Naseby, L.
Neill of Bladen, L.
Newby, L.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Nicholson of Winterbourne,
B.
Noakes, B.
Northover, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
O’Cathain, B.
Paisley of St George’s, B.
Palmer of Childs Hill, L.
Parminter, B.
Patel, L.
Patten, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Plumb, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Ramsbotham, L.
Rana, L.
Randerson, B.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Ribeiro, L.
Risby, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rogan, L.
Rotherwick, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Sassoon, L.
Scott of Foscote, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Selsdon, L.
Sharkey, L.
Sharman, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shipley, L.
Shrewsbury, E.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Slim, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Spicer, L.
Stedman-Scott, B.
Stewartby, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Stoneham of Droxford, L.
Stowell of Beeston, B.
Strathclyde, L.
Swinfen, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Tebbit, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tope, L.
Trefgarne, L.
Trimble, L.
True, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tyler, L.
Tyler of Enfield, B.
Ullswater, V.
Vallance of Tummel, L.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Wakeham, L.
772
Waldegrave of North Hill, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Walmsley, B.
Warsi, B.
Wasserman, L.
Wei, L.
Wheatcroft, B.
Wilcox, B.
Willis of Knaresborough, L.
Willoughby de Broke, L.
Wolfson of Aspley Guise, L.
Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.
Young of Graffham, L.
Younger of Leckie, V.
Motion B agreed.
6.58 pm
Motion C
Moved by Lord Wallace of Tankerness:
That this House do agree to Commons
Amendments 14A and 14B to Lords Amendment 14.
14A: Line 3, leave out from beginning to “directly”.
14B: Line 7, at end insert “only by virtue of that Act or
where it is required to be recognised and available in law
by virtue of any other Act”.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace
of Tankerness): My Lords, we have had a number of
interesting debates on Clause 18 at every stage in your
Lordships’ House and in the other place. We have
heard from those who sought to ensure that the clause
was more than declaratory and from those who expressed
concern that Clause 18 might somehow affect our
obligations as a member state. As my noble friends
Lord Howell and Lord Wallace of Saltaire have said,
and I have made clear, that is not the case. I hope we
have assured your Lordships’ House very effectively
that this clause is declaratory and is intended to be
declaratory. It underlines the existing legal position
and confirms how directly effective and directly applicable
European Union law takes effect in the United Kingdom,
no more and no less. It will certainly not change in any
way the constructive activist/pragmatist approach that
this Government have and will continue to pursue in
our engagement with our European Union partners
on the priorities that matter to the people of this
country.
Although the clause is declaratory, we believe it
serves an important and valuable purpose. I echo the
words of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of
Clashfern who said on Report:
“It is important that this declaratory measure should be made
because of the theory sometimes propounded that Community
law in the United Kingdom derives from the treaty alone by virtue
of the European Union legal order. I believe that it is right that we
should make it plain at this juncture that that is not so”.—[Official
Report, 15/6/11; col. 790.]
I welcome the acceptance by your Lordships’ House
and the other place of the principle underlying Clause 18.
What we have before us, as we did on Report, is the
question as to how we apply that clause and whether
the 1972 Act should be the only Act which is to be
covered by Clause 18. In this, I fully recognise the
reasoning behind the approval which your Lordships
gave to the amendment on Report.
773
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
The aim in doing so was quite rightly to make the
clause as specific and clear as possible, an aim which is
wholeheartedly one which one could support. But, as I
have already said, I recognise the concerns expressed
by noble Lords that Clause 18 should make more
specific reference to the European Communities Act 1972.
When we debated this on Report, I made it clear that
the reason we could not accept the amendment was
because we were of the firm belief that a number of
other Acts of Parliament also give effect to directly
effective and directly applicable European Union law
independently of the 1972 Act. Therefore, to accept a
provision that referenced the 1972 Act alone would be
to accept a change in the existing legal position, which
could go beyond what we had always intended.
Although the European Communities Act 1972 is the
principal means by which directly effective and directly
applicable EU law takes effect in the United Kingdom,
the amendment agreed by your Lordships’ House could
have created a significant risk that the courts might
interpret the clause as restricting the ability of the
other Acts of Parliament to incorporate directly applicable
or directly effective EU law into our United Kingdom law.
The amendment accepted by your Lordships’ House
also removed the phrase, “It is only” from the clause.
This wording is intended to make it explicit that it is
only by virtue of Acts of Parliament that directly
effective and directly applicable EU law takes effect in
the United Kingdom. Removing this reference leaves
open the possibility of arguments to be made that
directly effective and directly applicable EU law could
enter into United Kingdom law by other means, which
undermines the very rationale behind the clause.
Nevertheless, we have reflected on the amendment
and the Government have demonstrated already that
we wish to listen to arguments put forward by noble
Lords. When there are grounds for a change to be
made, we are prepared to make the change. In doing
so, I wish to put on record our gratitude to my noble
and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, with
whom we have discussed in depth possible alternatives
to his amendment to ensure that any amendment in
lieu addresses his concerns sufficiently.
The Government subsequently proposed amendments
to your Lordships’ amendment in the other place,
which we believe achieves these two objectives. These
amendments are before us today. It may help your
Lordships if I set out how the clause will read if these
two amendments are added:
“Directly applicable or directly effective EU law (that is, the
rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and
procedures referred to in section 2(1) of the European Communities
Act 1972) falls to be recognised and available in law in the United
Kingdom only by virtue of that Act or where it is required to be
recognised and available in law by virtue of any other Act”.
As I have indicated, we are particularly grateful for the
engagement of my noble and learned friend and for
his advice. My understanding is that he is content with
the amendments to his original change.
I am also pleased to note that the other place voted
overwhelmingly in favour of the government amendments
by 485 votes to 22. These amendments were supported
by the Opposition, with the shadow Minister for Europe
calling them,
“a modest improvement to what was suggested by the Lords”.—
[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/11; col. 98.]
European Union Bill
774
I therefore beg to move that this House acknowledges
the considerable support of the other House for these
two amendments to the amendment that was proposed
by this House. I ask your Lordships to support these
amendments today. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, as the one who
took the main argument on Clause 18 on Report with an
amendment which was carried by quite a reasonable
majority in your Lordships’ House, I am happy to assure
your Lordships that this debate need not be anything like
as long as the previous one because I am entirely happy
with the proposed amendments and the resulting Clause 18.
The amendments restrict the matter to directly
applicable and directly effective EU law. We are not
concerned with other Acts which introduce EU law
directly—for example, where it uses a particular provision
of EU law to make law in this country. We do not need
to concern ourselves with that. Originally, in an attempt
to meet with the Government, I drafted an amendment
which covered that as well as this. But I understand
that it is now agreed that we just need to deal with
directly effective and directly applicable EU law.
I am not 110 per cent convinced that there are other
Acts which do this but, using the suggestion of my noble
friend Lord Flight of the belt and braces, there is no
harm in adding this because the 1972 Act is now
specifically referred to. There is no doubt in my mind
that it is the key to this aspect of EU law in this
country. I hope that your Lordships will accept these
amendments and my gratitude to the Government for
their acceptance of the principle of the amendment
which was accepted here, and for defending me from
various allegations that were made in the other place
about my motivation.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in respect of
the amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord
Mackay of Clashfern, successfully passed in this House,
I agree with him that the clause now before your
Lordships is entirely satisfactory. I just want to say a
few of things about it. First, I do not think that
Clause 18 was ever necessary, except in a political
sense. Secondly, I do not think that the law was ever
unclear. Thirdly, it is one of the comical aspects of our
unwritten constitution that if you ask a group of
lawyers or law students the origin of the doctrine of
parliamentary sovereignty, they never know the answer.
The answer of course is that it comes from the common
law. That answer is most unwelcome to a certain kind
of thinker, who thinks, “Oh dear, if it comes from the
common law, the courts might take it away again”. We
do not have to go into that today.
This amendment states the position as has always
been made clear in the case law and therefore does no
harm. I only wish that it had not been necessary in the
first place. I also wish that the original Explanatory
Notes that the Government introduced had not been
maintained instead of being withdrawn for political
reasons for another set of Explanatory Notes, all of
which shows the unfortunate aspects of a Bill which is
a politically cosmetic exercise in this respect.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I express
gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay
of Clashfern, for his work on the previous amendment
775
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
European Union Bill
776
“Thus this clause is declaratory of the existing legal position.
The rights and obligations assumed by the UK on becoming a
member of the EU remain intact. Similarly, it does not alter
the competences of the devolved legislatures or the functions of
the Ministers in the devolved administrations as conferred by the
relevant UK Act of Parliament”.
emphasis. We debated this proposition at considerable
length throughout your Lordships’ consideration of
the legislation. We know there are a number of sunset
clauses in a number of pieces of legislation, for the
most part for specific operational reasons. The Lords
has expressed concern over the granting of new
extraordinary powers for the Executive, such as in
response to the firefighters’ dispute eight years ago. In
all these sorts of cases, Parliament has sought to
ensure that these powers were retained for only as long
as was necessary.
With the Bill there has been a rather different line
of argument. There are those who have a general
dislike of the Bill, which they are perfectly entitled to
have, and there have been arguments put forward in
favour of a sunset clause because, it is claimed, this
legislation seeks to bind future Parliaments. I repeat
what was observed in another place—I perhaps have
not comprehended the value of any counterarguments
to it—that all legislation by a Government can bind
future Governments, and maybe the Government of
the day wish it would. All legislation is reversible. The
need for additional provisions in the Bill seems weak.
Instead of repeating my arguments, I will simply
quote from the European Scrutiny Committee, which
put the matter very clearly:
It would be very helpful if the noble and learned Lord
could confirm that those Explanatory Notes, only as
Explanatory Notes, remain as they were originally
applied to a different Clause 18 from the one that this
House is about to accept.
“All Parliaments legislate for the future. Laws passed by one
Parliament do not contain a sunset clause at the Dissolution. The
real point is whether a government can, in law, make it difficult for
a future Parliament to amend or repeal the legislation it has
passed; in our view it cannot. Our conclusion therefore is
straightforward—that an Act of Parliament applies until it is repealed”.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I thank my
noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern,
my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill and the
noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for the support that has
been given to these amendments. With regard to the
Explanatory Notes, I can confirm to the noble Lord
and the House that, as is customary, the Government
will review the Explanatory Notes in their entirety.
The notes on this clause will be considered as part of
the exercise and we expect that there will have to be
some consequential change to reflect the new wording
of the clause. But that apart we have reviewed the
Explanatory Notes in the light of proposed changes
and consider that the notes, as drafted, accurately
reflect the purpose and effect of Clause 18. I hope that
that gives the reassurance that the noble Lord is seeking.
In the belt-and-braces spirit which my noble and
learned friend mentioned, I hope that the House will
support these amendments.
Again and again there has been the proposition that
somehow this type of legislation weakens Parliament,
but Parliament remains central to the whole pattern of
agreeing by Act of Parliament whether there should
be referenda. The argument for the sunset clause is
that each Parliament should be given the chance to
decide whether its sovereignty has been curtailed by
the Bill. We do not accept that case. As the Minister
for Europe said in another place:
[LORD HANNAY OF CHISWICK]
and for having set the Government’s feet upon a better
path than that which they were on in the original text
of the Bill. Like the noble and learned Lord, if he is
not 110 per cent certain that this is absolutely necessary,
who am I to be other than not 110 per cent certain?
But I am certainly not arguing against it.
Will the noble and learned Lord the Minister confirm
the Explanatory Notes that were made when the original
Clause 18 was put forward and confirm that the
Government stand by these Explanatory Notes now?
For the avoidance of all misunderstanding, the Printed
Paper Office handed to me yesterday a copy of the
Explanatory Notes. I shall make two references. My
first is:
“This clause does not alter the existing relationship between
EU law and UK domestic law; in particular, the principle of the
primacy of EU law. The principle of the primacy of EU law was
established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice
before the accession of the United Kingdom to the European
Communities”.
The second reference is:
Motion agreed.
Motion D
Moved by Lord Howell of Guildford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment
15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their
Reason 15A.
15A: Because Part 1 and Schedule 1 are not provisions
to which it is appropriate to apply a sunset provision.
Lord Howell of Guildford: This is the issue of the
sunset clause. I believe there is another amendment to
be moved which is related but with a slightly different
“The Bill does not substitute the British people for Parliament,
for Parliament will continue to have a central and strengthened
role”. —[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/11; col. 74.]
Parliament would have the opportunity on each occasion
to approve a transfer of competence or power and to
approve the holding of a referendum. In contrast this
provision would actually reduce the control that
Parliament would have on treaty changes and passerelles
until the Government of the day decided whether to
revive Part 1 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill. It would
actually have the counter-effect of that, which I believe
is the intention of those who put it forward. In any
case, we have a system that is designed precisely to
review how all Acts of Parliament are used once they
are enacted. The previous Government introduced a
system of post-legislative scrutiny. Well done them,
because under that the Government of the day are
required to publish a memorandum to Parliament on
the operation of each Act of Parliament up to five
years after the commencement of the Act. This is
considered by relevant parliamentary committees, which
can decide whether to conduct a detailed examination
of that legislation. I ask again: what is the point of this
additional proposed provision?
777
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
I am happy to repeat the commitment of my friend
the Minister for Europe and say that this Government
agree that this system is a useful tool that should be
exploited and that a future Government must publish
a full report on how the Bill has been used within five
years of this legislation becoming law. This will result
in the clarity and the reflection that colleagues in the
other place rightly seek, but without arbitrarily depriving
the British people of their say at the end of this
Parliament.
This has now been considered by the other place,
which has disagreed with your Lordships’ amendment
by a very substantial majority of 89 votes. Therefore,
it falls to your Lordships’ House to consider whether
to insist on the amendment or accept the clear and
considered view of the other place; and whether to
accept, in the light of what I have said, that this is a
necessary amendment or challenge to the Government’s
Motion that needs go forward. I personally doubt that
it need go forward and I urge your Lordships to let the
Motion stand.
7.15 pm
Motion D1
Moved by Lord Goodhart
As an amendment to Motion D, at end insert
″but do propose Amendment 15B in lieu″
15B: After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—
“Suspension of section 6 and Schedule 1
In Parliaments subsequent to the Parliament in which this
Act is passed the Secretary of State may by order
approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament
provide that any provision of section 6 or Schedule 1
shall be suspended for the duration of that Parliament or
for any lesser period.”
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendment 15, which
the other place rejected, provided a kind of sunset
clause for the whole of Part 1 but gave power for
future Parliaments to restore the Bill. Amendment 15B
replaces Amendment 15 with more limited powers. In
the first place Amendment 15B applies only to Clause
6 and Schedule 1 and not to the rest of Part 1.
Secondly, the original Amendment 15 cancels the
operation of Part 1 and Schedule 1 at the end of the
duration of the present Parliament and leaves incoming
Governments to revive those provisions of the Bill.
Amendment 15B leaves Clause 6 and Schedule 1 in
force unless and until a new Government wish to
suspend them, and suspension cannot go beyond the
duration of the Parliament which suspended them.
Thirdly, the original Amendment 15 is all or nothing.
Part 1 and Schedule 1 either are entirely out of action
or are entirely in force. Amendment 15B provides for
the suspension of any one or more of provisions
contained in Clause 6 or Schedule 1. Amendment 15B
is therefore much more flexible than Amendment 15,
and that is a very important difference. It is surely
plain that some of the decisions that may lead to a
referendum under the Bill will not be appropriate for
such a referendum because of the limited importance
for ordinary citizens of that particular decision or
because of the uncontroversial nature of that decision.
European Union Bill
778
In such cases Amendment 15B allows the Government
to proceed by order, which requires the support of
both Houses but without a referendum.
We need flexibility. Without it we may waste money
because a decision which is not controversial has
nevertheless to go through the process of the referendum.
Without flexibility we may lose the benefit of useful
decisions because a referendum is of little concern to
the majority of citizens who have no objection to it
and therefore a small minority are able to defeat the
Government. Without flexibility the Government may
decide not to go ahead with a decision which is useful
and non-controversial but not important enough to
justify the cost and effort of a referendum.
Nothing in Amendment 15B would affect the
referendum lock in the present Parliament, but future
Parliaments should have some control over it. I recognise
that the amendment would give the Government and
Parliament power in theory to avoid referendums on
matters where a referendum would have wide support—
especially, for example, in the case of adopting the
euro—but there is no likelihood whatever that any
Government would refuse a referendum in cases of
that kind. In any event, if your Lordships’ House
accepts the principle of Amendment 15B, I can see no
objection to amending it so that it does not apply to
those categories where there is likely to be a strong
demand for a referendum.
This Government propose to rely on favourable
referendums in specified circumstances. So be it, but
we should not enforce the same restriction on future
Parliaments—that is for each Parliament to decide.
Does the Minister recognise that it is impossible for
the Government to prevent a future Government
exercising their power without a referendum to bring
in legislation? If that is so, it makes the situation
somewhat different, but it seems nevertheless desirable
for Amendment 15B to be included, because it makes
simpler provision for varying the Bill now being enacted.
It is desirable to take Amendment 15B on board. I
hope that the Government will consider doing just that.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, this is again
a wrecking amendment, which is how the noble Lord,
Lord Blackwell, described the previous amendment. It
goes to the very heart of the Bill and would neuter it
completely if it produced a sort of son of a sunset
clause. People outside this Chamber and outside
Parliament will simply not understand what the House
of Lords is doing if it votes for it. The Bill is intended
to give British people a voice and protect them from
further laws and further integration produced by Europe.
They will not understand if the House of Lords
supports this amendment, which goes against the whole
tenor of the Bill.
On the earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord
Liddle, made some great play about the lack of trust in
politicians and Parliament in general. Although he
would not interpret his remarks that way, I take them
to support the use of referendums, precisely because
of the lack of trust in Parliament and government in
general in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell,
prayed in aid the people of Slovenia, who apparently
trust their Parliament and say that they do not want
referendums. But that simply is not the case in this
779
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
European Union Bill
780
[LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE]
country. The voters in this country do not have the
same faith in their Government and Parliament as the
people of Slovenia apparently do. If the amendment is
carried, it will drag Parliament even further into the
contempt that British people already have for it. It is
extremely dangerous, and I hope that it will be voted
down by this House.
As the noble Lord who speaks for UKIP said, this
will arouse suspicions among some members of the
public that Parliament is taking away the right to be
consulted while giving the appearance that that right
still remains. I can think of nothing that would be
more likely to undermine trust than to maintain the
legislation on the statute book but incorporate into it
a provision that would take the guts out of it.
Lord Radice: The House of Lords is a very effective
revising Chamber and has proved that on this Bill by
making it better and more manageable than it was at
first. However, the House of Commons has not accepted
our amendments, except in the case of the definition
of parliamentary sovereignty—I congratulate the noble
Lord who so ably pioneered the provision that we have
now just passed. We have just rejected the idea of
confining referendums to major issues. Therefore, there
is a case for a sunset clause.
This Bill is an attempt, as the people who introduced
it in the House of Commons have made quite clear, to
bind successor Governments, and it involves a major
extension of referendums. In a sense, it is a major
constitutional innovation. Noble Lords who have so
ably supported Governments of the past in Europe
have said to us that we should take seriously the
danger of marginalisation that might arise from the
Bill. Therefore, there should be a reassessment mechanism
in it. I consider that we have a new, mild and flexible
version of that in this amendment, which it would be
very useful to Parliament to have. We should go beyond
what the Labour Government introduced, which has
been mentioned already; that is, a committee report
on whether a Bill has been effective. Perhaps that
should be part of the process, but we should then go
on, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, to have a
mild version of a sunset clause.
7.30 pm
Two versions of the sunset clause have been put
forward: Amendments 15 and 15B. Amendment 15, of
course, goes very wide, because in effect it allows the
disapplication of the whole of Part 1 and of Schedule 1.
I do not agree with the clause for the general reasons I
have given, but in addition to the general reasons,
Amendment 15 has some unintended consequences. It
removes not just the referendum lock but the Act of
Parliament lock as well, in some instances. Passerelles
and parliamentary control under Clauses 7 and 10 are
to be removed.
Many noble Lords who have been against the Bill
have said, “Oh, but we approve of the parliamentary
control; we approve of the need to have an Act of
Parliament if there is a transfer of power”, but under
this wider version of the sunset clause, that, in many
instances, will go. Not only the referendum lock will
go, but the parliamentary lock as well. That might be
why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goodhart, has
put forward a narrower version of it that concentrates
on Clause 6 and Schedule 1. Of course, that is even
more pick and choose, because it says that any
provision—not the whole of Clause 6 or the whole of
Schedule 1, but any provision within Clause 6 or
Schedule 1—could be suspended. Again, I put it to
the House that this will give the appearance that the
referendum lock remains, but it will in effect be removed
when the Government decide that it would be convenient
to remove it. It also, in some instances, does away with
the parliamentary lock where that falls under Clause 6.
For example, there would be no requirement for
parliamentary approval if there was a decision to join
the European public prosecutor, or no parliamentary
lock as regards the passerelles under Clause 6.
The noble Lord pointed out that this was just for
the duration of the Parliament; it would have to be
renewed in future Parliaments and would be suspended
only temporarily, but if you suspend a particular
provision temporarily and give away the power under
the temporary suspension of that provision, you have
given it away permanently. There is not much use in
having the power back after you have given away the
power that you originally wanted to protect. This is
very dangerous. It is far-reaching and would give rise
to a very cynical reaction among the public if carried.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, sunset clauses
are appropriate in some legislation: for example, when
one has emergency legislation and Governments take
exceptional powers. Those powers may have an effect
on civil liberties for instance. Counterterrorism Bills
sometimes have such an effect. However, this is not
emergency legislation; it is legislation that seeks a
long-term and permanent change in our relationship
with Europe.
There is another reason why a sunset clause would
be inappropriate. It is in effect, as proposed, a reversal
of primary legislation via a resolution. It is a fast-track
procedure for removing legislation. In a way, it is a bit
like the Article 48(6) provision in the European Union
treaty which this Bill is designed to act as a safeguard
against.
One is either for or against this legislation, and
many noble Lords have given reasons, powerfully and
eloquently, why they are deeply opposed to it. However,
they cannot have it both ways. To suspend the legislation,
either in whole or in part, is to fudge the decision. If
noble Lords do not agree with the legislation, they
cannot hide behind amendments that would allow
the referendum requirement to be taken out while
maintaining the appearance and the structure of the
legislation giving effect to consultation and decision
by the people.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the noble
Lord, Lord Lamont, always argues very effectively
and has done so yet again. He invariably falls back on
logic and argument rather than on attempts to raise
emotional feelings of one kind or another that are
inappropriate, but I want to put to him a rather
different point. He said, which was fair enough, that
this kind of sunset clause often applies to emergency
legislation, in particular to emergency legislation that
781
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
leads, for example, to exceptional powers being taken
by a Government that need to be looked at later in a
rather less heightened atmosphere in order to decide
whether they should remain on the statute book.
Many of us will know that emergency legislation
passed back in the 1940s still sits on the constitutional
pattern of far too many countries that use it to suppress
human rights, so one has to be very cautious about
that kind of thing.
There is another very different factor about this
legislation. It is highly speculative legislation. It makes
assumptions about the kinds of issues that are likely to
come up over the next few years. We know enough
from what we are reading even today that major issues
are likely to come up. These go all the way, as John
Major said at the Ditchley Foundation only a few days
ago, to the question of how one changes eurozone
practices—whether one will look again, for example,
at the tendency towards an increased or enhanced
stability pact. These issues will have the greatest impact
on the UK, even though we are not, of course, a
member of the eurozone. In this respect the noble
Lord, Lord Radice, was absolutely right to say that we
cannot know what might arise. The whole point of the
sunset clause as we are presenting it is that it gives the
British public, in the broadest sense of the word, an
opportunity to see what the impact has been of this
speculative legislation, which some say will make it
very difficult for our representatives in Brussels to
represent our own national interests. That is an untested
statement. The other untested statement is how far
they will feel heavily dissuaded from expressing
British national interests for fear that it might set off a
referendum.
The great beauty of the sunset clause is that it will
unquestionably turn the Bill into a general election
phenomenon—an issue that will have to be considered
at the next general election—which is, in the mind of
many of us, exactly what it ought to be. The British
public will be able to consider in the round whether it
is wise or unhelpful legislation and to do so in what
will undoubtedly be a very substantial turnout, and
because this will be an issue about whether this legislation
will continue, it will come at the right moment and in
the right way before the British people so that they can
decide.
Lord Empey: My Lords, I said on Third Reading
that the proposal for a sunset clause was ill conceived.
I believed that to be true then, and I believe it to be
true now. While I was not present for the debate in the
other place, I did read it today and unfortunately a lot
of unkind things were said about this House, which is
unusual. A consistent theme throughout the discussion
on the amendments was that a number of them were
wrecking amendments. That is how this amendment
was seen by a number of Members in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that only a small
number were there, and that was undoubtedly true,
but to some extent that makes the point, because if
Members in the other place were actively supportive
of the decisions of your Lordships’ House some weeks
ago, why did they vote with their feet and not turn up
to debate some of these amendments? They obviously
did not see merit in them. That is the only reason I can
think of why they would abstain in such a way.
European Union Bill
782
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I point out to the noble
Lord that Amendment 15B was not put to the Members
of the House of Commons. It is a newly introduced
amendment and what he is saying has very little bearing
on this issue.
Lord Empey: I was referring to the remarks of the
noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and commenting that of
course very few people participated in the debate, so
that point is valid. The noble and learned Lord is right
to say that this particular amendment was not before
the other place, but at the end of the day the purpose is
the same. The noble Lord, Lord Radice, described is
as a “soft sunset”. Well, whether you have a hard
sunset or a soft sunset, it is still a sunset, and at the end
of the day I just wonder, in view of our discussions in
this House about our own future, whether it is wise for
Members of this House to send anything back to the
other place that contains the word “sunset”. It is
probably not the best thing for us to do. There is no
constitutional imperative to send this back to the
other place. If we believed that there was, it would be
the duty of this House to do so. I just do not see that
in front of us.
On the continuous use of the word “flexibility”, we
all like flexibility in government, but it is a euphemism
for something else. It means that Ministers can go on
to take decisions, and it is precisely that flexibility that
has existed for the past 35 years that leads to the Bill
being in front of your Lordships’ House tonight. It is
unfortunate that we have to go through these procedures,
but I see no alternative but to go ahead with the Bill,
and I believe that the amendment as currently drafted,
or in its original form, casts a dagger at the very heart
of what the Bill stands for. I hope that noble Lords
will reject this proposal.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I support the
Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goodhart.
I preface my remarks by referring to my noble friend
Lord Empey’s statement about not angering the House
of Commons. It would be unwise, frankly, if we went
into a pre-emptive cringe at this stage. I am not sure
that that would help us very much in the difficult
debates ahead.
No noble Lord in the House today has addressed
Amendment 15. We accept that it was voted against by
the House of Commons, and in any case it is not
permissible for us to return to the identical amendment
again. That is not being suggested. The amendment of
the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goodhart, is meant
to produce what has been called by the noble Lord,
Lord Radice, a “soft sunset”.
I listened to the debate in the other place and one of
the things I heard there quite surprised me, although
on reflection I think it was entirely valid. The Minister
for Europe was questioned by one of the not terribly
friendly members of his own party who would rather
see us outside the European Union. He was asked
whether it would be possible for this Parliament or a
future Parliament to insert a referendum requirement
in the primary legislation that approved the matters in
this Bill that are not subject to a referendum but are
subject merely to primary legislation. He replied, “Yes,
absolutely. No problem. If that is what Parliament
decides, you can add another referendum—just like
783
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD HANNAY OF CHISWICK]
that—in the primary legislation”. That startled me
and led me to think that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont,
when he talked about it having both ways, might not
have heard of that development in constitutional practice.
When the Minister replies to the debate, can he say
whether the converse is also true? In the primary
legislation that would have to be introduced in the
House of Commons on the back of a decision by the
government in Brussels to go ahead with one of these
matters, could Parliament simply waive in that legislation
the requirement that is in this legislation? It will be
interesting to hear what he has to say about that. I do
not see that the proposition that the Minister for
Europe agreed to—that a referendum requirement
could be added where one was not required under this
legislation—could be valid if the contrary proposition,
which I have also put, was not valid. Perhaps the
Minister will reply to that.
Frankly, with some of the arguments that have been
introduced about how flexibility is a dirty word, my
heart fails me when I think of people strapping themselves
to masts, waiting for the ship to go down and saying,
“Thank God I am tied to the mast and I cannot
swim”. It is not a very good argument. The circumstances
in which flexibility could be exercised are extremely
limited and will be difficult to invoke; this amendment
simply suggests a way of doing it. We would be very
wise if we were to once again ask the Commons to
think again about this matter. This is not a wrecking
amendment and, for the reasons I have given, I do not
think it takes the matter much further than it is
already, with the possibility of the House of Commons
varying the provisions at the moment that it enacts the
primary legislation. I hope that some further thought
will be given to this and that we will not all turn
ourselves to the belief that this is a wrecking amendment,
which it is not intended to be.
7.45 pm
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I shall
speak against Motion D1. The reasons for doing so
are quite straightforward. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay,
commented on flexibility and how important it is that
in going forward in unpredictable circumstances we
should have flexibility. While I agree with him there, I
am not clear that Amendment 15B provides that flexibility
because, in order to have a suspension of Section 6 or
Schedule 1, it would require us to have the approval of
both Houses. Does the noble Lord believe that the
approval of both Houses could be arrived at in a
manner which did not revisit all of the contentious
issues in Section 6 or Schedule 1? If they could have
been debated without extensive deliberation or scrutiny—
call it what you will—we would not have spent as
much time as we have on the Bill. On the other hand,
flexibility nevertheless exists in the ability of a future
Government to repeal either the entire Act, as it will
be by then, or sections of the Act.
My noble friend Lady Williams spoke of the
importance of the people of this country having their
say on a sunset clause—I prefer to call it a suspension
clause—in a general election. If the Act went forward
unamended, the people could still have their say because
there could equally easily be a debate on whether or
European Union Bill
784
not this Bill should be repealed by a new Government
were they to win the election. I did not intervene in the
debates on the earlier amendments but this debate has
been about trust in the people and the constitution,
and much has been made about the move to plebiscitary
democracy.
The theme of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, throughout
the course of the Bill has been his anxiety for the
Liberal Democrats and whether they feel awkward
and embarrassed by it. The presumption underlying
those comments—and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle,
has been a member of my party, the Liberal Democrats
—is that we are reluctantly going along with these
measures and that there is no philosophical underpinning
whatever. During the passage of the Bill we have had
commentary about Burke and parliamentary democracy,
and about an hour ago the noble Lord, Lord Lamont,
referred to Tom Paine. The philosophical underpinning
for why the people should be trusted comes from no
less a person than John Stuart Mill. He said:
“A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more
docile instruments in its hands, even for beneficial purposes, will
find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished”.
That is why we have supported the Bill and why we
trust the people; they are ultimately sovereign.
Lord Liddle: My concern throughout the Bill has
been for the position of Britain in Europe and that it
should remain an active partner in the European
Union. I fear that the provisions of the Bill will
ultimately prevent us from being so. I am sorry that
some Liberal Democrats appear to think that this was
not a matter of high principle: it is a matter of high
principle to which I have committed my political life.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: When the noble
Lord’s party returns to government, we look forward
to it engaging with the country in debating whether
the provisions of this Bill should be repealed. We look
forward to engaging with it in that debate.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I fear that
some of the speakers in this debate are guilty of a
terminological inexactitude. If we wait here for another
hour or two, as seems quite likely, we shall find that
the sun sets and there is nothing we can do about it.
That was the effect of Amendment 15—the sun was
going to set when there was a general election and
there was nothing we could do about it. Amendment
D1 is quite different. It is not a sunset at all: if it is, it is
a voluntary sunset—something I have never heard of
before.
The Act, as it will be, remains in force after an
election and unless and until a Minister wants to
amend Section 6 or Schedule 1, partially, not at all or
wholly. That seems to be eminently sensible. It leaves
the discretion after the election entirely in the hands of
the new Minister, the new Government if there is one,
and a new Parliament. It does not force anybody to do
anything—it gives them the opportunity to do it. It is
a much easier way of doing it than having to go
through the process of repeal or partial repeal. It
seems to me to be eminently sensible and flexible and I
hope the House will give effect to Amendment D1 this
evening.
785
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, if the purpose
of this Bill were gesture politics, with no outside
effects, then perhaps it would be possible to go along
with it. However, the provisions proposed in this
amendment are reviewable by a Government and are
by no means gestures alone. They are bound to have a
significant effect on the ability of our Ministers negotiating
in the Council to decide issues of massive importance
to the people. We have been told that none of those
issues will be considered by the people in the lifetime
of this Parliament so the Government appear to be
putting on ice any questions about improving the
efficacy of the working of the European Union until
the end of this Parliament.
My noble friend who opened this debate said that a
subsequent Parliament could amend this Bill or throw
it out. He is right, but he also said in an earlier debate
that the Government have no intention of using this
Bill in this Parliament. If that is the case, why are we
having to legislate at all? It seems to me that the
appropriate time to do that would be in the next
Parliament if that is when these measures are supposed
to bite. The notion that we are legislating for the future
in this way is bound to have almost no effect on public
opinion beyond putting up scaremongering notices
about the possibility that after the next election we will
all collapse in a heap and be walked over by our fellow
members of the European Union. That is guaranteed
to make the issue of Europe a very divisive one at the
next election.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Goodhart
seems to be eminently sensible. It has not been rejected
by another place. It is new and it is not merely differently
phrased but differently conceived. I supported the
sunset amendment as it was drafted but I am happy to
support my noble friend’s revision. It would allow
Ministers to decide, in the light of the circumstances at
the time, whether the issue before Europe and before
this country was of such massive importance that it
would be inappropriate to prepare a referendum. My
experience of dealing with European matters in Parliament
suggests that debates are long and thorough about
European issues. The public are made completely aware,
by debate and deliberation, what the issues are. Surely
some of those who are supporting this Bill must
remember the debates on the Maastricht treaty—the
hours after hours in which Members of Parliament
considered these matters. To suggest that the public
were not aware of it is simply to deny the facts of
history.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, suggested
that this was a wrecking amendment. It is not—it is an
amendment that enables the Government of the day
to decide whether the national interest is better served
by legislative process—by debate, as we had over
Maastricht—than by having a prolonged debate in
public leading to a referendum.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I took part in
the debates on the Maastricht treaty. I remember them
very well. The central point about those debates and
about the way the treaty was pushed through is that we
were not given a referendum. There was a big debate
here on whether we should have a referendum on the
Maastricht treaty. Unfortunately, that Motion was
European Union Bill
786
lost and we did not have a referendum, and that is part
of the problem with the EU in this country. The
people have never been given a vote since the referendum
on the Common Market in 1975. This sort of amendment
will stop them having a say, which they should be given.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: We live in a representative
democracy and elected Members of Parliament are
put into that position of authority to act in the best
interests of the citizens of this country. The notion
that by not having referenda we are somehow denying
the fundament of our parliamentary democracy seems
to be a complete and utter nonsense. It is not only the
Maastricht treaty that was carried through by Parliament
in that way. Mrs Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister,
also introduced the Single European Act which introduced
majority voting and there was no question of a referendum
about that. If you look at the opinion polls of those
years, and indeed of the years around Maastricht, the
public were far more supportive of our membership of
the European Union than they are now.
I heard the remark of the Minister for Europe,
Mr Lidington, that it is only people of my generation
who are supportive of the European Union. When we
were active young Members, supporting the European
Union, the public listened and believed what we were
saying—that it was in the interests of the people of
Britain. Now we have a new generation, a whole
generation younger than me, who claim that it is our
fault that the public are not with them. The nonsense
of that is that they have never seriously tried to explain
what the purposes of the European Union are; what
its achievements are and what its goals are. That is why
we are wasting our time with this ridiculous piece of
legislation, which is a waste of parliamentary time in
scrutiny and is deceiving the public. We have been told
it will not be voted on. There will be no referendum on
this side of the next election and after that the picture
will all change.
8 pm
Lord Judd: My Lords, the noble Lord knows by
now that I have unlimited respect for his consistent
contribution on European matters. This peroration of
his is very powerful. Would he not agree that the
trouble with this wretched piece of legislation is that it
could not be better designed to undermine our influence
on the mainland of Europe?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I believe that
the House is ready to hear the closing speakers. I sense
where the House is.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I had sat
down and was perfectly happy to hear the view of the
noble Lord, Lord Judd. The House is eager to take a
decision.
Lord Triesman: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I insist—
787
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
Lord Triesman: My Lords, either the Whip on the
other side is making a judgment that he is inviting the
House to endorse or he is not. I do not mind either
way but I suspect he is right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this is perfectly
out of order. If necessary I will get the House to vote
on whether I can speak.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I believe that I
heard the voice of the House, and I believe that the
House is very clear that it wants to hear the closing
speakers.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Triesman: My Lords, we are taking part in this
debate this evening because the House of Commons
did not accept Amendment 15. The noble Lord, Lord
Empey, made the point that the other place may have
been indifferent because relatively few Members were
there. I ask him not to make that judgment in general
about things that happen at the other end. When most
debates are conducted, you see the camera sweep
around without many people being there. It is entirely
possible that you could regard this as indifference to
almost everything, or you could say that it is the
nature of the life of this place. I certainly do not think
that the House could accept what he commended to
us—that we should send no messages that are in any
sense disagreeable to people in the other place. Such a
supine response from this House to matters on which
we feel amendments are needed would surely be exactly
the opposite of the role that this House should play,
and ample argument for its having no role at all.
What is fundamental at this stage is that this legislation
takes us, in several constitutional areas, into waters
that are—I candidly submit to the House—unknown.
We are being invited to change from a system that is
fundamentally parliamentary in the main thrust of its
work to a system that is plebiscitary. It will on one
reading lead to a significant number of plebiscites—that
is entirely possible—or on another to very few, as the
noble Lord, Lord Lamont, suggested. That is also
entirely possible; I do not know which it will be. What
I do know is that it will be fundamentally different
from the way in which we have conducted parliamentary
debate on key issues over many generations.
There is a fundamental constitutional change in
that Parliament will offer the public votes—either
frequently or infrequently, depending on which reading
one takes—on whether to overturn the decisions that
it has taken as a result of major debates and major
opportunities to review changes in Europe in both
Houses. Inevitably, there will be a fundamental change
in how we conduct our relationship with Europe as a
whole. That is what is intended. Some people advocate
that, while others of us believe that this is a
disproportionate way of trying to do that. None the
less, these are all fundamental changes.
I suggest to the House that, in sailing into these
waters, the reality is that we do not know how it will
play out. Least of all do we know in what circumstances
it will play out. We do not know which things will
provide the most significant changes, although we
European Union Bill
788
have reason to believe that the present difficulties in
European nation state economies give us ample evidence
that they will be the tapestry against which all of this
will play out. We do not know how the constitutional
matters will play out. I doubt anybody here has the
temerity to suggest that they know in which circumstances
all these matters will play out either.
I entirely understand the argument that there are
some things, even against the background that I have
described, that are so important to the people of the
United Kingdom that they will insist on having a say
on them. It is also true that the Government of the day
will be bound, in those circumstances, to try to make
judgments of their own about what the interests of the
country are at any time. There is no point to a
parliamentary democracy where the Government of
the day say, on some quite critical issues, “We will not
be finally responsible for taking judgments about what
the interests of our country are”. That would be a
peculiar country to live in and one in which the notion
of fundamental democracy had been considerably
eroded. Variations by subsequent Governments in
subsequent Parliaments, of the kind that are suggested
in this amendment, seem just to be prudent as a means
of allowing the possibility of dealing with circumstances
as they arise in a way that is more flexible—I am not
afraid of that word—in all of those circumstances.
I am wholly in agreement with the noble Baroness,
Lady Williams, when she says that a significant number
of these issues will be judged in general elections.
When people look at the questions that must be resolved,
they will look at them in general elections. For those
who say “Trust in the people”, my trust is at its highest
point when they decide which Government they want
in a general election. That is a fundamental form of
trust. I accept that there will be circumstances in
which a referendum would be absolutely right. I hope
I have been clear from this side of the House that these
include such matters as defence policy, Schengen and
the euro. There is a raft of policies where I can see that
that would be entirely true. However, I do not believe
that, in comparison with a general election and the
decisions that are taken, the people of the country—in
whom, inevitably, trust must be placed in all such
circumstances—believe it is somehow better to replicate
“The X Factor” than to deal with real politics in real
circumstances. “The X Factor” may be fine as a form
of entertainment, but it is hardly a way of dealing with
the national interest when it must be dealt with under
stress or duress.
I also agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams,
when she responded to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
This is an important point; I hope the House will not
mind my repeating it. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont,
is right when he says that the case for clauses that limit
the life of legislation is far clearer in dealing with
emergency legislation. You do not know whether you
will need it in the future, and you are not 100 per sure
that it will meet the intentions for which it was introduced.
However, there is also a completely reasonable case for
saying that, when we are taking such significant steps
into the dark in constitutional terms, there needs to be
a way to say, “How do we make sure that we’ve got the
balance right in the interests of the country? How can
we make sure that we are taking the right decisions
789
European Union Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
in the right way against the right environmental
circumstances?”. That is, after all, the function of
government.
I cannot stand at this Dispatch Box and claim that I
know with certainty where those new balances will lie.
It is precisely my point that none of us knows where
they will lie. However, this generation of politicians or
the next will have to make those judgments. They will
come around and they will have to be made. Politicians
should be in a position to make them with the greatest
confidence and authority that they can. It is critical to
our country that they are successful in doing so.
I hope we will accept Amendment 15B. It is a much
more limited suggestion than Amendment 15. It seems,
in every respect, to grant flexibility without overriding
the key provisions of the Bill in any significant way. It
commends itself strongly to me on that basis. Most of
all, it commends itself on the basis that, if it is true
that the cause for dissatisfaction is the belief that
Parliament has let too many of its roles and responsibilities
go toward Europe and for those reasons fundamental
constitutional change is needed—because that is the
argument for this kind of fundamental constitutional
change—let us be certain as time goes by that we have
got it right, that the balances are right and that whatever
the causes were we have not backed ourselves into a
cul-de-sac or something worse.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the
noble Lord—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: We are now winding up.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: If anyone wishes to
challenge me and move that I no longer be heard, let
them do so, but I wish to ask a question. If I had been
allowed to do so without the very rude interruption of
the Whip on the Bench, noble Lords would have saved
themselves a lot of time. What I wanted to ask—and I
am going to ask it now—is whether, when the amendment
states that a future Government “may”, it means
“shall”. We often have debates about what “may” and
“shall” should mean, and I think it is important that
before noble Lords vote, if there is going to be a vote,
they know whether they are voting for something that
commits the next Government to something or is
permissive for the next Government. Now I will sit
down and be quiet.
Could I just add that the Whip on the Bench did
not intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan,
who widened the debate on this very narrow amendment
to the extent of whether we should be in or out? I
think I have been extremely badly treated, and I hope
that the Whip will apologise.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I would not
want to upset the noble Lord. I was taking the view of
the House. In this business of a self-regulating House,
occasionally we have to use judgment, and it was my
judgment that we were ready to conclude this debate,
and I believe that is the case.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I might say to the noble
Lord that he is not entitled to make that judgment.
European Union Bill
790
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I start by
thanking the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the
careful and conciliatory way in which he moved the
amendment, now some time ago. I do not regard this
as a wrecking amendment, but I do see it as an
amendment that will confuse and complicate the principles
behind this Bill, weaken their role and not help to
reassure our sceptical citizens.
In answer to the insistent question of the noble
Lord, Lord Stoddart, my reading of this amendment,
which I am sure is that of the noble Lord, Lord
Goodhart, is that it is intended to be a permissive
power and not an obligatory power for the Secretary
of State, which is why it says “may” and not “shall”.
In its favour, the amendment rejects the passive
approach proposed by Amendment 15; that is to say,
the amendment in lieu requires the Government to
take a positive decision to seek to suspend some of the
provisions of the Bill. It is permissive in that respect.
A Government taking such a decision would undoubtedly
be mindful of the possible reaction of the British
people to such a move. It would therefore be open to a
greater degree of transparency in terms of the motivation
of the Government of the day that the original sunset
clause would not, to the same degree. As the noble
Lord, Lord Lamont, noted, it allows for the suspension
of the requirement for an Act of Parliament before
any of the decisions in Clause 6 are taken, depending
on the terms in the order. So it risks diluting the
increased engagement for Parliament, which is an
important part of this Bill. The level to which Parliament
and the people would be involved in these important
decisions would then be in the hands of Ministers, a
principle that runs against the spirit of the Bill.
A number of noble Lords suggested that the Bill
was intended only to apply to future Governments. I
remind noble Lords that in the next Session of this
House, we will consider legislation under the terms of
this Bill on Croatian accession and the European
stability mechanism, and that the conditions of the
Bill will apply to those.
8.15 pm
Let me offer some reassurance to the noble Lord,
Lord Goodhart, and his supporters on the context in
which the Bill will operate once translated into law
under future Governments and Parliaments. I remind
your Lordships of the principles of parliamentary
sovereignty—that no Parliament can bind its successors.
If for any reason a future Parliament wished to suspend,
disapply or repeal any of the provisions of this Bill, it
could do so, unconstrained by the wishes of this
Parliament. Most likely, it would decide to do so at a
time when it was considering an Act of Parliament
required under the terms of this Bill. At such a time,
the particulars of that draft decision would be clear
and so might the question of whether to disapply this
Bill, or not. If I may say so, that is a Clause 18
statement, which is declaratory and in no sense changes
the basis of how we operate. No future Government
would venture to do so unless they had made real
progress in regaining the trust of the British public in
the processes of European co-operation that have
been so seriously weakened in the past 15 to 20 years.
791
European Union Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD WALLACE OF SALTAIRE]
I set out earlier the Government’s support for the
previous Government’s new system of post-legislative
scrutiny, which would allow a detailed, proper and
timely examination of this legislation after five years. I
repeat again the commitment of my friend, the Minister
for Europe in the other place, that this Government
are committed under the now accepted procedures of
post-legislative scrutiny to the principle that a future
Government must publish a full report on how this
Bill has been used within five years of this legislation
becoming law. I hope that that offers reassurances to
the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and his supporters.
We believe that this is the most effective approach,
rather than installing an instrument that would not
re-engage the people of this country and would remove
the transparency and certainty that this Government
have adopted from the start as watchwords for the Bill.
Having given those assurances, I hope that the
noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, let me start by making a
small and not very serious comment. From time to
time my noble friend Lord Lamont and others have
referred to me as being learned. Unfortunately, I am
not. If I was in the House of Commons, I would be,
but in your Lordships’ House I am not.
On more serious matters, I start by thanking my
noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Wallace of Saltaire
for their balanced and serious response to the debates
that have taken place on this matter. So far as an
incoming Government are concerned after the next
general election, they will, whether or not Amendment 15B
is present, have the power to repeal all or part of the
EU Act, as it will then be, without a referendum. If
Amendment 15B is adopted, the incoming Government
can use that amendment as an alternative to repeal
and replacement of the complete Act. Members of
Parliament will be involved either way, either in supporting
a new Bill or in approving the making of the order
that will need to be passed under this Bill. This is not a
big step.
The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster,
made a very good point on this and explained very
clearly the distinction. Amendment 15B just gives a
simple way of dealing with an action that could be
done without it. I see no reason why Amendment 15B
should not be included in the Bill. While I seriously
considered the question of whether we would pass this
amendment without going to a vote, I think this falls
short of that. It is therefore my intention to ask for the
decision of your Lordships’ House.
8.21 pm
Division on Motion D1
Contents 148; Not-Contents 215.
Motion D1 disagreed.
Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Armstrong of Hill Top, B.
Armstrong of Ilminster, L.
Bannside, L.
European Union Bill
Bassam of Brighton, L.
[Teller]
Beecham, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bilston, L.
Blood, B.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Browne of Ladyton, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Christopher, L.
Clancarty, E.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Collins of Highbury, L.
Condon, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Davies of Stamford, L.
Deben, L.
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Drake, B.
Drayson, L.
D’Souza, B.
Dubs, L.
Dykes, L.
Elder, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Ford, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Gale, B.
Giddens, L.
Gilbert, L.
Goodhart, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grantchester, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Harries of Pentregarth, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Healy of Primrose Hill, B.
Henig, B.
Hennessy of Nympsfield, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St Davids, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Hylton, L.
Jones, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Judd, L.
Kennedy of Southwark, L.
King of Bow, B.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kingsmill, B.
Kinnock, L.
Kinnock of Holyhead, B.
Kirkhill, L.
792
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Levy, L.
Liddle, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McAvoy, L.
McConnell of Glenscorrodale,
L.
McDonagh, B.
McFall of Alcluith, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate,
L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Mandelson, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Meacher, B.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Nye, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Paisley of St George’s, B.
Patel, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Reid of Cardowan, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
St John of Bletso, L.
Sawyer, L.
Sewel, L.
Sherlock, B.
Simon, V.
Smith of Basildon, B.
Soley, L.
Stern, B.
Stevenson of Balmacara, L.
Stevenson of Coddenham, L.
Strasburger, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tonge, B.
Touhig, L.
Triesman, L.
Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller]
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Warnock, B.
West of Spithead, L.
Wheeler, B.
Whitaker, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Wills, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
NOT CONTENTS
Addington, L.
Ahmad of Wimbledon, L.
Alderdice, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]
793
European Union Bill
Ashdown of Norton-subHamdon, L.
Astor, V.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Baker of Dorking, L.
Barker, B.
Benjamin, B.
Berridge, B.
Black of Brentwood, L.
Blackwell, L.
Blencathra, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury,
B.
Boswell of Aynho, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brinton, B.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville,
L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Browning, B.
Burnett, L.
Buscombe, B.
Byford, B.
Cameron of Dillington, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Carrington, L.
Cathcart, E.
Chadlington, L.
Chester, Bp.
Chidgey, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cormack, L.
Cotter, L.
Craigavon, V.
Crickhowell, L.
Cumberlege, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dear, L.
Denham, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dobbs, L.
Dundee, E.
Eaton, B.
Eccles, V.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elton, L.
Empey, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Faulks, L.
Feldman, L.
Feldman of Elstree, L.
Fellowes of West Stafford, L.
Fink, L.
Flight, L.
Fookes, B.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Fowler, L.
Framlingham, L.
Freeman, L.
Freud, L.
Garden of Frognal, B.
Gardiner of Kimble, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
German, L.
Glenarthur, L.
Glendonbrook, L.
Glentoran, L.
Gold, L.
Goodlad, L.
Goschen, V.
Greaves, L.
Green of Hurstpierpoint, L.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[13 JULY 2011]
Greenway, L.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Harris of Peckham, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Henley, L.
Heyhoe Flint, B.
Higgins, L.
Hill of Oareford, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts,
L.
Hollins, B.
Home, E.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howe, E.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Hussain, L.
Hussein-Ece, B.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jenkin of Kennington, B.
Kilclooney, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Kirkham, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Kramer, B.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lang of Monkton, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Leach of Fairford, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lexden, L.
Lingfield, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Loomba, L.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Macdonald of River Glaven,
L.
MacGregor of Pulham
Market, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Maddock, B.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mancroft, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marks of Henley-on-Thames,
L.
Marland, L.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Montrose, D.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Moynihan, L.
Naseby, L.
Newby, L.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Nicholson of Winterbourne,
B.
Northover, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
O’Cathain, B.
Palmer of Childs Hill, L.
Pannick, L.
Parminter, B.
Patten, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Plumb, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Ramsbotham, L.
Rana, L.
Randerson, B.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Rennard, L.
Ribeiro, L.
Risby, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rotherwick, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Sassoon, L.
Scott of Foscote, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Selsdon, L.
Shackleton of Belgravia, B.
Sharkey, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shipley, L.
Shrewsbury, E.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Spicer, L.
Stedman-Scott, B.
Stewartby, L.
Stirrup, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Stoneham of Droxford, L.
794
Stowell of Beeston, B.
Strathclyde, L.
Sutherland of Houndwood, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Tebbit, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tope, L.
True, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tyler, L.
Tyler of Enfield, B.
Ullswater, V.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Wakeham, L.
Waldegrave of North Hill, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Warsi, B.
Wasserman, L.
Wheatcroft, B.
Wilcox, B.
Willis of Knaresborough, L.
Willoughby de Broke, L.
Wolfson of Aspley Guise, L.
Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.
Younger of Leckie, V.
Motion D agreed.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
Bill
Report (4th Day)
8.33 pm
Motion
Moved by Baroness Browning
That the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it would be
helpful to the House if the noble Baroness could give
some indication of the Government’s intention. My
reckoning is that there are 18 groups left to be debated
on Report. Can she tell me at what point she intends
that the House be adjourned tonight?
The Minister for the Home Office (Baroness Browning):
My Lords, I come to the Floor of the House tonight
ready to complete Report. I do that particularly for
this reason: there have been times during the course of
this Bill when we have made quite rapid progress, with
the co-operation of both sides of the House, but noble
Lords will know that I have amended this Bill so that
Members of your Lordships’ House could apply for
and carry out the function of a full-time police and
crime commissioner. During that debate, I was persuaded
by Members of this House that your Lordships could
not only carry out their functions in this House but
hold down a very demanding full-time job as PCC as
well. Everybody will know that people who engage at
that level are people who do not clock-watch but get
the job done. They stay until the job is finished; that is
what I intend to do.
795
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[LORDS]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I found that
the most remarkable response. The Opposition have
been very co-operative on this Bill. We agreed to do
Committee in six days and Report in four days. We did
not agree that the clock should start at 8.35 of the
evening. On average, we have taken about half an hour
per group. At that rate, we would be meeting for
another nine hours. I regard that as wholly unacceptable,
as I am sure that other noble Lords will do. I suggest
to the noble Baroness that a discussion should take
place in the usual channels on an appropriate way
forward. It is not acceptable to say to the House that,
at this time of the night, we should start a full day’s
debate on Report.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before my noble friend
replies, will she bear in mind that some of us who have
amendments tabled for debate this evening intend to
keep our speeches very short so that we will be able to
conclude this stage of the Bill?
Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I, too, add my protest
to what is going on here this evening. We have just
spent several hours on what many people in this
House considered to be a completely useless and totally
unnecessary Bill. We are now faced with a Bill in
which, from my point of view, the most important
issue that we are yet to discuss—universal jurisdiction—is
right at the end. That will probably come at something
like 2 am or 3 am. That is an insult to all the people
who have died by the actions of international war
criminals and I am absolutely furious that the House
has organised the business in this way.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Well, my Lords, I am
certainly not furious and I always listen to my noble
friend the Minister with great care but I say to her that
there must be a preparedness on the Government’s
part to stop at a reasonable hour. This House has a
justified reputation for considering legislation with
great care and revising it on the basis of knowledge
and a solid evidence base. I fear that once we pass a
very late hour today, that power of this House will be
lost.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it may be
helpful if I remind the House that we are moving into
Report and that nothing may be resolved at this
moment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath,
pointed out that the Opposition have always said that
they would complete Report today. That is part of a
firm agreement. It was also for the convenience of the
Opposition Front Bench that the exchange on Lords
consideration of amendments on the EU Bill was
moved to today.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am not
going to take an intervention from anybody in the
Chamber at the moment. I would be grateful if the
noble Lord could sit down because it is a courtesy of
this House that two persons do not stand at the same
time. I would have thought that somebody who was a
Member of another place and of another Chamber
might be aware of that. I am pointing out—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: You stood up.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
796
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I did not stand up
while anybody else was talking. I do not carry out that
kind of breach of conventions. I am trying to assist
the House by pointing out that the Government have
tried to schedule business for the benefit of the Opposition
and for the whole House. Clearly, we are always prepared
to have discussions. We have done little else over the
past week. Those discussions can continue but it is a
matter of this House that they do not continue on the
Floor. Of course, the Motion may be now put that we
do resume Report stage. I invite noble Lords to agree
to that, pending that there can then be discussions
elsewhere. I understand, by the look of it, that the
noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip will be happy
to reply to that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take that, in
the end, as a very positive intervention by the noble
Baroness the Government Chief Whip. I am more
than happy to have some discussion off the Floor of
the Chamber because it is pushing it to start a day as
late as this. The noble Baroness is quite right to
remind the House that we certainly signed up to try
and complete Report in four days. I do not think that
anybody expected the European considerations to go
on for as long as they did. We tried to play our part in
keeping them as short as we possibly could, but it is
unreasonable to expect the House to debate serious
issues such as universal jurisdiction, or issues that are
a passionate concern for some, such as licensing, and
the rest. As it happens, we have tabled only four or five
groups of amendments for this stage of the Bill. We
have tried to keep our opposition to the Bill within
reasonable bounds and have done so. We have kept to
our side of the bargain but, particularly on a
Wednesday—and with a Thursday sitting starting at
11 am and a Friday sitting at 10 am—it is not right to
keep the House beyond reasonable hours.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I will make
two points. First, it is my understanding, in terms of
procedure, that in this House as well as in other
Houses if a noble Member wants to intervene in the
speech of another noble Member it is appropriate to
stand, and for the other Member to consider whether
or not to give way. I am sure even the Government
Chief Whip would recognise that that is the normal
procedure.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, we have
just carried out that procedure correctly, because I did
not stand until the noble Lord gave way. I made it
clear I was not taking interventions. The noble Lord
and I have exchanged views on that on other occasions.
This is continuing a debate which leads nowhere.
Discussions outside can be fruitful; discussions by the
noble Lord continuing now may jeopardise the success
of those discussions. Perhaps we might continue in the
proper manner in a House that takes its procedure
seriously.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I was making two points.
I made my first point and I gave way to the noble
Baroness, as appropriate. The second point I want to
make—it is open to Members to make these points
and I say that to my own Front Bench as well as to
797
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[13 JULY 2011]
other Front Benches—is that when my noble friend
the Chief Whip agreed that we should discuss this
today it was on the basis that the day started at
3.35 pm. That is, if I can work it out right, five hours
ago. Therefore we are not getting a full day in any
sense. That is why I agree with noble Members opposite,
particularly from the Liberal Democrats, who have
indicated their deep concern. If concern is expressed
by the Labour Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats
I would have thought the Government should take
account of that.
Baroness Paisley of St George’s: My Lords, I would
like to add my voice and appeal that we leave this
matter until tomorrow. At this late hour, no one can
make guarantees. Although speeches may be short,
when there are interventions it lengthens the thing out
far too long. Those of us who are past our green years
need to get home and get a bit of rest before coming
back early in the morning. We will then have a fresher
mind and more patience than we have at this hour of
the night.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it has been said that
the Liberal Democrats are protesting. I hope it is
understood that it is not all of those on the Liberal
Democrat Benches. I urge the speedy start and, I hope,
conclusion of talks outside the Chamber to see how
we go.
Motion agreed.
Clause 63 : Appointment of acting commissioner
Amendment 229A
Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
229A: Clause 63, leave out Clause 63 and insert the following
new Clause—
“Acting police and crime commissioner
(1) Where a police and crime commissioner is unable to
perform his or her functions under this Part, the relevant police
and crime panel must appoint an acting police and crime commissioner
from amongst its members.
(2) A person who is appointed to the role of acting police and
crime commissioner under subsection (1) has the same powers
and is subject to the same requirements as a police and crime
commissioner, in accordance with this Act and any other enactment.
(3) In appointing an acting police and crime commissioner
under subsection (1), the relevant police and crime panel must
stipulate the maximum length of time that the person may hold
that position.
(4) A person ceases to hold the position of acting police and
crime commissioner—
(a) in the event that the police and crime commissioner is
able to resume his or her functions under this Act;
(b) at the end of the maximum term stipulated by the police
and crime panel; or
(c) as otherwise stipulated in this Act or any other
enactment.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we come to a
very important matter: the appointment of acting
police and crime commissioners. Whatever our views
on this Bill, one thing is clear: the police and crime
commissioners will have considerable power and authority
over policing matters in their local police force area.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
798
A second point is that, with the numbers so elected,
inevitably there may be circumstances in which a police
and crime commissioner may become incapacitated:
they may be suspended, they may decide to leave office
voluntarily, or they may die in office. Quite rightly, the
Bill contains provisions for the appointment of an
acting commissioner. That is well and good. However,
theproblemwithClause63(2)isthatanactingcommissioner,
appointed by the police and crime panel, can only be
appointed if they are a member of the police and crime
commissioner’s staff at the time of the appointment.
The acting commissioner can exercise all the functions
of a police and crime commissioner, other than issuing
or varying a police and crime plan under Section 6, so
the acting police and crime commissioner can dismiss
the chief constable. They can set the precept and, as
my noble friend Lord Beecham has reminded us, that can
be around 9 to 11 per cent, depending on whether you
are in England or Wales, of the total council tax bill.
8.45 pm
I find it quite extraordinary that a staff member—
perhaps the chief executive, the director of finance, or
the chief of staff—can be appointed to exercise the
powers of an elected police and crime commissioner.
The reason that this Bill is so constructed is because
the Government have decided on this extraordinary
concept of a corporate sole. Instead of having sensible
governance where it would be clear who might be well
placed to be appointed as an acting police and crime
commissioner, the Government are flailing around
and have come up with this wonderful idea that if the
police and crime commissioner in some way cannot
carry out their office, a member of their staff should
be appointed to do so. That is unacceptable, and I can
think of circumstances in which in fact it would be
wholly unacceptable. What if the commissioner was
suspended because they were charged with an offence
which carried a potential imprisonment of more than
two years? What if the commissioner were charged
with corruption? What if that corruption involved
members of their staff ? We must remember that there
are no corporate governance safeguards over who the
police and crime commissioner appoints as a member
of their staff: it is wide open for corruption in any
case, and corruption will occur. It is inevitable in these
arrangements that there will be corruption. We have a
situation where an acting police and crime commissioner
has to be appointed from among the staff, in the
circumstances I have described, of a police and crime
commissioner charged with corruption. In those
circumstances what possible confidence could the public
have in those arrangements and in the acting police
and crime commissioner?
My amendment seeks to put in place a much more
sensible arrangement which allows the police and crime
panel to appoint a panel member to serve as the acting
police and crime commissioner. That would provide a
much greater safeguard in terms of public confidence.
We had a good debate on this in Committee. I very
much hope that the noble Baroness will be sympathetic
to my amendment.
Lord Condon: My Lords, I support the amendment.
We discussed this in Committee. I can think of virtually
no circumstance where every member of the police
799
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[LORDS]
[LORD CONDON]
and crime panel would be ineligible to stand as acting
commissioner, if the circumstances warranted it. I can
think of many sets of circumstances where it would be
inappropriate for every single member of the elected
commissioner’s staff not to be eligible to be the acting
commissioner for the very circumstances set out by
the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. If the elected police and
crime commissioner has been suspended or has had to
stand down temporarily because of allegations of
corruption or other behavioural issues, it would not be
in the public interest for a member of what is going to
be, in the Minister’s own words, a very small number
of support staff to stand as the acting commissioner if
there were a serious allegation of corruption against
the commissioner. The Minister has been reasonable
and conciliatory on many of these issues. This is a
blindingly obvious case where it would be far more
appropriate for a suitable member of the police and
crime panel to act in circumstances where the elected
police commissioner is no longer eligible to be
commissioner for a period.
Lord Shipley: My Lords, I add my voice to those
who support this amendment because I see it as a
critical part of the necessary checks and balances on
the powers of the commissioner. I say that for two
reasons. First, the acting commissioner could be in
post for eight to nine months—that is, for up to six
months as permitted in the Bill, together with the
period during which a replacement is elected. Frankly,
to have an unelected acting commissioner for that
length of time is unacceptable as they will set the
budget and the precept. Although there is a veto on
the precept, nevertheless they will be responsible for
making the proposal on the precept and they will
make a decision about the budget. All those functions
should be undertaken by people who have been elected
as opposed to people who have not been elected.
Secondly, the commissioner will have appointed the
staff member to their substantial post. The only power
that the panel will have is over which staff member is
nominated, although they have to bear in mind the
advice given to them by the commissioner who is
incapacitated. I regard this as an absolutely fundamental
issue. The panel must be able to appoint from among
its own members. Between now and the next stages of
the Bill, I very much hope that my noble friend the
Minister will make clear to colleagues in the other
place that this matter is of fundamental concern to a
large number of Members of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Beecham: My Lords, I correct my noble friend
Lord Hunt, who has underestimated the extent of the
precept as a percentage of the local council tax, which
would fall potentially to the acting commissioner to
levy. It is 11 per cent in England and 15.5 per cent in
Wales—even greater than my noble friend indicated. I
respectfully suggest that there is potentially an equal
underestimate in relation to the period of vacancy. As
I read the Bill, the six-month period after which a
vacancy would have to be declared and a new election
take place, which would add to the length of time in
any event, arises in connection with incapacity. However,
there are other grounds on which a vacancy might
arise. In particular, there is the possibility of a police
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
800
and crime commissioner being suspended. That could
conceivably take an even longer period to resolve, so
there is the potential for this position to be filled by a
second-hand appointee, as it were, for a long period.
Of course, the whole rationale of the proposal for
police commissioners—flawed in the opinion of many,
certainly on this side of the House—is that it is necessary
to have somebody who is elected and who has a direct
mandate for the purposes of exercising the functions
that the Bill confers on the holder of the office.
There will be no such democratic element in the
event that the procedure currently in the Bill is enacted.
There would be no democratic mandate of any kind—
direct or indirect. It is intolerable that that should be
the case when within the police and crime panel, there
will be people with a mandate—not the complete
mandate—that will be claimed for the police and
crime commissioner in as much as he or she will be
elected for the whole force area. There will at least be
some democratic mandate for those elected local
councillors who will constitute the majority of members
of the police and crime panel. In those circumstances I
can see no argument for allowing—indeed requiring—the
appointment of somebody who has no mandate when
there are those available within the structure who
would have at least some mandate.
I hope that the Government will think again. The
noble Baroness was unlike her old self, if I may say so,
at the beginning of this debate when her rather surprisingly
peremptory statements were made. I would like to see
her return to what your Lordships might think is the
much more acceptable Browning version.
Lord Dear: My Lords, we are working against the
clock this evening so I will not repeat any of the
powerful arguments adduced so far. I say simply that I
agree with them and support the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey: This is an extremely important
issue and not one that we should rush through simply
because we are fed up. I am sure that I have just as
much stamina as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning,
although I am not required to take the whole Bill
through this House. We have to consider and debate
these issues seriously because, after all, that is the
function of this House.
This is a problem of the Government’s own making
in that, having decided that police and crime
commissioners—and for that matter MOPC in London,
although the issues are slightly different—have substantial,
individually held powers, the question then comes:
what do you do in circumstances when there is a
vacancy or someone needs to act while that happens?
The Government cannot have it both ways. They
cannot say, “Actually, it will be okay and we can have a
member of the staff of the police and crime
commissioner’s office to act in this function”, and at
the same time say, “The police and crime commissioners
are so important and will be so busy that they have to
work full time on these functions”. What are they
working full time on?
They are presumably setting direction—I am sure
they are not intervening in operational matters because
the Government are clear that they will not be doing
that. They will be providing guidance on what is
801
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[13 JULY 2011]
regarded as important to the electorate of that policing
area. Among their duties will be setting the level of
local taxation. There is no other area of British public
life when something that impacts on taxation is not
decided by people who are elected. If the noble Baroness
wants to interrupt and tell me of one that I have not
thought of, I would be delighted to receive it. There is
no such area.
This is one of the most important decisions and it is
one that will matter very much to the public in the area
concerned. The task of being an elected politician is to
balance what you believe are the important aspirations
that you might have for the public service concerned
and how much money can readily be raised in taxation.
That is an issue that this and previous Governments
have struggled with, and those who are actively engaged
in local government struggle with it each year. You
have to make a judgment and you can make it only if
you see both sides of the equation. You see the side of
expenditure and you see the side of what it will mean
in taxation. Only somebody who is elected will have
that perspective of what the public want in terms of
services delivered and what they are prepared to buy
through taxation. The public are not always single-minded
on these matters. We are all aware of those stresses
and strains, which is all the more reason why it must be
an elected politician who makes that judgment. Only
an elected politician with the authority of being elected
can strike that balance knowing what the electorate of
the area feel.
9 pm
The difficulty with this is that an official will see
this only from the point of view of the need to spend.
Through this practice, the Government are creating a
ratchet effect that will push up public spending. Officials
will see this as entirely about the need to spend, about
how many police officers and services they should
have and about how much information technology
should be purchased. Those will be the sorts of issues
that they will see, because they will not be individually
accountable to the public for the level of local taxation.
That is why this is such a dangerous precedent. By
saying that people who do not have elected authority
will make those judgments, the Government are creating
an effect by which only one side of the equation will be
seen by those who make the judgment. That is why the
principle of having an elected person carrying out this
role is so important. Their idea is that a chief executive
or a chief finance officer—before one even considers
whether it might be a chief of staff of a police and
crime commissioner—will make those judgements. Those
individuals by their nature will probably never face an
electorate, will never stand as a candidate and will
never have to balance the need to spend against the
need to tax.
I turn to the other powers of the police and crime
commissioner. I am not talking about day-to-day matters,
where the understanding of how an electorate feel
about an issue would be so valuable, but about the
extreme, major powers that one hopes will not be
exercised very often—for example, the power to dismiss
or appoint a chief constable. Again, one would expect
the person concerned to be accountable in quite a
different way. It will be at the moments of highest
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
802
drama—for example, when you are in the business of
dismissing a chief constable—when it will be most
important for the decision to be made by somebody
who is seen to be personally answerable to the electorate.
Personal answerability to the electorate is the cornerstone
of what the Bill is supposed to be about: putting in
place people who are personally accountable to the
entire electorate of a policing area and giving them the
responsibility. That is what is missing.
I will try to predict the Minister’s arguments so that
I will not have the temerity to interrupt her later when
she is in her new, forceful mode. No doubt she will
argue that to have a member of the police and crime
panel suddenly taking on this responsibility will blur
the distinction between the police and crime commissioner
and the police and crime panel. That may blur a
distinction, but is that a more important concern than
the concern of blurring the line between elected
accountability and someone who is appointed to carry
out the functions of raising and setting local taxation?
I have to say that it is not a significant argument.
The matter could be addressed in other ways. The
Government could have come forward with proposals
that would have enabled a deputy to the directly
elected police and crime commissioner to be elected to
fulfil those functions. They chose not to do it. They
could have created a clear, corporate structure around
the directly elected individual that could have taken on
this responsibility—but they chose not to do it. Therefore,
the problem is of their making. They must not tell the
House that it is not an important problem, because it
is vital. I wait to see what will be the reaction in local
communities the first time an acting police and crime
commissioner—an appointed official—sets the precept
and the level of local taxation, because there should be
no taxation without representation.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Before my noble friend
sits down, perhaps I might ask whether he has given
any thought to the situation of a police officer in the
force who has received money from tabloid journalists.
Would that be the responsibility of the chief constable
or of the commissioner? If it would be the responsibility
of the commissioner, how would someone standing in
from the panel be able to deal with that?
Lord Harris of Haringey: If such a circumstance
were to exist—and clearly this is all very much in our
minds at the present time—I suspect that the first
people who will recognise the level of public concern
that is going to exist are going to be individuals with a
personal, direct elected mandate in an area. Under the
Government’s model, where you have an elected police
and crime commissioner who has not been disqualified,
removed from office or incapacitated, then maybe that
works and that individual would express concerns.
There is a fascinating article by Daniel Hannan,
who I know is of enormous influence within the
Conservative Party. He complains, incidentally, that
the Government have got the nomenclature wrong;
they should not be called police and crime commissioners
but should be called sheriffs. He points out that there
is a historic British tradition of the local sheriff, who is
not the guy with the five or six-pointed star badge, but
an ancient, semi-feudal office. The City of London
803
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[LORDS]
[LORD HARRIS OF HARINGEY]
has sheriffs, so it must be all right, because it is the
same medieval construct that brought us corporations
themselves.
In those circumstances, the directly elected individual
—and this again is the point of the Government’s
proposals—is going to be the person who will sense
that this is something of deep concern to the public
and that something should happen. In the circumstances
of my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment, the point
about it is that, rather than have some official who has
never had to face an electorate making those judgments
and decisions, it would at least be someone with a
personal electoral mandate, albeit not for the whole
force area, but for a part of it, who would be reflecting
the public concern about such matters and taking the
appropriate action in those circumstances.
Again, I think the Government’s arguments are
flawed and they really need to address what is actually
a very serious problem, which would manifest itself
most seriously in circumstances where something is
seriously going wrong.
Lord Soley: My Lords, I will intervene briefly, mainly
to support what my noble friend has said.
On the previous intervention, the issue of offers of
payment by the media to certain police officers is very
much on our minds at the moment. In my view, this
issue is not—and never has been—a really central and
massive problem, but it has always been there. When I
introduced my Freedom and Responsibility of the
Press Bill 20-odd years ago, we looked at it then but it
has never been dealt with so I would say it should be
considered, particularly in the structure that Government
are setting up. There will be a temptation for certain
police officers to be paid by journalists. Usually, the
journalist makes the approach, in my experience, when
any offer is made. Journalists will talk about what they
do on a confidential basis—“Do not quote me” and so
on—but such things are said. Usually, the sums of
money are not huge—perhaps £20 for a bit of information
and a bit more for another piece of information.
We all have two or three concerns about this Bill,
but on this particular aspect there is a danger of what
you do if there is an issue of corruption, however
small it is overall, and how it is dealt with. I hope that
the Minister will deal with that point, which my noble
friend made very adequately from the Front Bench,
but has just been added to by my noble friend Lord
Harris of Haringey.
Baroness Henig: Before the Minister replies, I have
a brief query that I would like to ask. Between discussing
this in Committee and on Report, the Minister has
laid an amendment about deputies, so I think we have
covered this. I am therefore assuming that it is possible
that the noble Baroness might be saying—and it was
certainly what I understood when it was first mentioned—
that a deputy might assume this role of acting
commissioner.
When I looked at this in some depth, it seemed to
me that this deputy post was not one that would be
exempted from Section 2 of the Local Government
and Housing Act. In other words, it was going to be a
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
804
post where the incumbent would have to be politically
restricted. If that was in fact the case and it was a
politically restricted post, it would seem to me to be
completely wrong for that person who is politically
restricted to be able to act up. Am I correct in my
understanding of that? When that deputy post was
created, I had rather assumed that one of the reasons
for it was that the deputy could act up, but having
looked at it, I do not see how that could work. I would
be most grateful if the noble Baroness would perhaps
say something about that as well in her reply.
Lord Dear: If an allegation of corruption or any
other crime is made against someone, whoever the
officer might be, the procedure is well laid down, and I
do not think that the Bill would change it in any way.
The complaint is made to the chief officer of police,
who has to record the complaint, which is automatically
notified to the Independent Police Complaints
Commission. The IPCC can take over the inquiry or
supervise it, and discipline remains a matter for the
chief officer. If, in the doomsday scenario, the chief
officer does not deal with the complaint properly, then
it is for the police authority or, in this instance, the
police and crime commissioner, to step in. I do not
think the procedure would be changed by the Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I fully understand. That
was an exceptionally clear explanation. However, if
the commissioner was not there, and someone was
standing in for the commissioner, would it be appropriate
for the member of the panel who is standing in for the
commissioner to deal with the issue in the same way as
the commissioner would?
Lord Dear: In the theoretical instance cited by the
noble Lord, I do not think it would work that way
because the chief officer of police would have to
demonstrate that he had not dealt with the complaint
properly, and that would take some time. We are
talking about six months plus two months before an
election, so by the time that doomsday scenario occurred,
you would have an elected individual in place as the
PCC, as I understand it.
Baroness Browning: My Lords, this amendment
seeks to secure the appointment of an acting PCC
from the panel rather than from the PCC’s staff. I
recognise the points made today and previously in
Committee and remain open to suggestions about
how we might secure a process of appointment for an
acting PCC which provides the safeguards and political
neutrality that I have described in previous debates
and which would also provide assurance to a PCC that
any appointment of a temporary stand-in would not
endanger the continued delivery of the police and
crime plan and objectives. I say to the noble Baroness,
Lady Henig, that I am very happy to consider taking
forward the situation with the deputy, but the deputy
is not politically restricted.
Baroness Henig: When I looked at the government
amendments, there was no suggestion that there was
an exemption under Section 2 of the Local Government
and Housing Act. If there is no such exemption, is
that post not restricted? It does not say that.
805
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[13 JULY 2011]
Baroness Browning: My Lords, I will come back on
that specific point, but I want to make the point that
although I am not able to accept this amendment, I
am aware of the genuine concern that has been raised,
not just on Report but at previous stages, and I am still
trying to find alternative solutions. I shall explain to
the House why I do not feel able to accept this proposal.
I understand what is trying to be achieved, but plucking
the acting PCC from an inherently political body is
not the right solution to this issue. Some may say that I
am overplaying the need for political neutrality in
these situations, but I point to the debates in the other
place and in this House regarding the potential risks
of politicisation. If, as was put forward, politicisation
is such a key risk, then I would argue that establishing
an acting commissioner from within a very political
pool of people with a different mandate is the worst of
all worlds and likely to lead to conflict. The PCC’s
staff are politically neutral and, in the absence of any
other person with a political mandate spanning the
force area, we envisage that the PCC’s chief executive
would be best placed to continue to secure the maintenance
of an effective police force with the close support and
involvement of the police and crime panel for the
interim period.
As I have indicated, I cannot agree to the amendment
for the reasons I have given, but I keep an open mind
on coming back to the House on this issue with other
suggestions, and I will consider the proposal put forward
by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. On this basis, I
ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
9.15 pm
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, one of the Minister’s
concerns is plucking—I think that that was her term—
someone from a political pool. I understand the argument
that the commissioner may be independent, but
nevertheless he or she will be a politician because it is a
political job. I speak very much off the top of my
head, but is it worth Members of the House considering
whether an appointment from the panel, but made by
the commissioner, could be a candidate for this? Heads
are being shaken across there and there are nods
around here as to this being a possible way forward.
Given the stage of the Bill, I felt that it was worth
throwing this suggestion into the mix.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
806
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think the
point has been well put that the powers of the acting
PCC could be considerable. I apologise to my noble
friend Lord Beecham for underestimating the size of
the precept. It seems to me that it has grown between
Committee and Report stages. But it involves the
precept, the budget, the appointment of the chief
constable and the dismissal of the chief constable. I
am still concerned that the problem here is the construct
of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Harris has said,
once you decide to place on a political individual so
much power and responsibility, you clearly have a big
problem in deciding what to do if that person is no
longer able to carry out the job.
It seems to me that this is a very important issue,
which has been debated in the other place as well. The
Government clearly still do not have a clue about how
to deal with it. The noble Baroness said that she is
concerned about appointing the acting PCC from the
police and crime panel, which is an inherently political
body. But what is the PCC but politicisation? In terms
of the idea that the staff will be wonderfully neutral,
what on earth will the staff be doing? I am horrified at
the thought that the PCC will employ an army of
people. It will have one point, which will be to ensure
the re-election of the police and crime commissioner.
What else are they there for but to support that
person?
The noble Baroness has said that she will take this
away. I am very grateful to her, but can she confirm
that that means that she accepts that I can bring an
amendment back at Third Reading or that she will? It
cannot be dealt with in the Commons on ping-pong. It
is impossible to deal with this issue in that way. It has
to be dealt with by this House. We have only a few
days left. Will the noble Baroness confirm that she is
saying that this is a matter that requires further clarification
and can be brought back at Third Reading?
Baroness Browning: My Lords, I will commit to
bringing it back at Third Reading for clarification.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in that case I
am extremely grateful and I beg leave to withdraw my
amendment.
Amendment 229A withdrawn.
Baroness Browning: I am grateful to my noble friend,
as always, for making a constructive suggestion to
resolve this issue. I will, of course, with other points
that have been raised, take that into consideration.
Lord Boswell of Aynho: My Lords, would an alternative
approach, which would be not unfamiliar from board
practice, be to establish through the panel a nominations
committee, which could provide an element of filter,
rather than a direct overtly or covertly political
appointment?
Baroness Browning: I am grateful to my noble friend.
I have explained to the House that I am very happy to
take this forward without closing the door on it tonight,
even though I cannot accept the amendment. I will
return to the House at a later stage with this.
Clause 66 : Police and crime commissioner not to serve
for more than two terms
Amendment 230
Moved by Baroness Browning
230: Clause 66, leave out Clause 66
Amendment 230 agreed.
Clause 67 : Disqualification from election or holding
office as police and crime commissioner: police
grounds
Amendment 231 not moved.
807
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[LORDS]
Clause 69 : Disqualification of person holding office as
police and crime commissioner
Amendments 232 and 232A not moved.
Amendment 233 not moved.
Clause 74 : Police and crime commissioners not to sit
or vote in House of Lords
Amendment 234
Moved by Baroness Browning
234: Clause 74, leave out Clause 74
Amendment 234 agreed.
Amendment 234A not moved.
Clause 80 : The strategic policing requirement
Amendment 235
Moved by Baroness Henig
235: Clause 80, page 49, line 28, at end insert—
“( ) A report is to be prepared annually by Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Constabulary assessing the extent to which the
strategic policing requirement has been met in each police area
and nationally.
( ) A copy of this report must be laid before Parliament.”
Baroness Henig: My Lords, I would like to speak to
Amendments 235, 235A and 239. Can I just point that
I think there is a misprint on the groupings list? To
clarify, this group should comprise Amendments 235,
235A and 239.
Amendment 235 is a response to the widespread
fears of your Lordships expressed in earlier debates. It
is also a response to the concerns of policing professionals,
charities and businesses that an elected commissioner
might, for obvious reasons, want to focus on a local
mandate, and the fact that a lot of important, strategic
national issues are somewhat hidden from public view.
There is concern that all this might lead to cross-border
national or strategic policing issues being relatively
neglected under the Government’s proposed new model.
I dare say that we are as one in recognising and
wishing to respond in the most effective manner possible
to the ever present and, indeed, growing threats to
many of the so-called protective services or national
and strategic threats, which cross police force borders
or require specialist attention. The sort of crimes I
refer to are such things as cyber crime, threats from
terrorism, extremism, serious and organised crime,
people trafficking and the more sporadic—potentially
devastating—impact of civil contingencies. There is a
whole number of national incidents.
I do not wish to raise an apocalyptic spectre of
crimes and emergencies, but it is exactly because
these important issues are not the currency of local,
political, policing debate that I am concerned that it
might not be at the forefront of a commissioner’s
attention. There is a risk that commissioners may—for
understandable reasons—not give full weight to national
issues. Anybody who has attended local, public policing
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
808
meetings or read the results of public consultations
about policing priorities will understand that local
people are interested in local issues. One example is
born out of recent excellent research undertaken by
my home police authority, Lancashire, which revealed
that most people’s priorities for an elected Lancashire
commissioner were going to be tackling quite low-level
crime. Anti-social behaviour and environmental issues
such as littering and abandoned cars were the sort of
issues that people wanted commissioners to address.
I have experience of consulting local people on
their policing priorities. I used to always give people a
list of issues on which we wanted to consult them. It
would always include anti-terrorism and other matters
but the public always said “We do not want anti-terrorist
activity to be at the tope of the list because that is a
national responsibility”. When asked how this should
be paid for they said that the Government should pay.
They always put national issues at the bottom of the
list. As I went round the county, this happened every
time.
Even at a time in Lancashire when the Irish situation
was quite difficult—and Heysham was quite an important
area for activity which meant that the Lancashire
police were engaged in considerable anti-terrorist activity
—none the less people in Lancashire did not want
their precept to be spent on that kind of activity. That
worried me then and it worries me even more now
because I think that tendency will be even more
emphasised in this new regime.
What I propose as part of the solution to act as a
substantial check and balance on commissioners and
force actions is to have an annual report to Parliament
by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. I am
sure I do not need to remind the House that it has a
long and distinguished track record in both identifying
and trying to identify the best ways of closing the gap
in protective services. It is perfectly placed to provide
an annual guarantee that the gap does not widen in
the years to come, or, if it does widen, that it can alert
Parliament that this is happening.
My idea of an annual report to Parliament draws
on similar recent and successful provisions that have
enabled Parliament’s concerns about the potential impact
of certain Acts to be monitored and to some degree
ameliorated. I am thinking here of the distinguished
work of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as the independent
reviewer of counterterrorism legislation. That is just
one example of a way in which activity could be
monitored, so that Parliament could get some sense of
how things are working out. I understand that the
amendment would impose a new duty on the inspectorate’s
already, no doubt, hard pressed resources, but the
national issues are so important and the consequences
of us failing to ensure adequate provision for national
strategic policing requirements are so great that an
annual assessment would be one way of monitoring
the situation and measuring what forces are doing. It
would help commissioners in their debate with local
people to emphasise how important these national
strategic requirements are. It is in that spirit that I beg
to move the amendment.
809
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[13 JULY 2011]
Baroness Hamwee: I have Amendment 235A in this
group. The noble Baroness spoke about matters which
I raised at the previous stage, mentioning a number of
criminal areas which do not respect boundaries. This
amendment is arguably a little more local, but I have
been asked to raise it by Justice, whose concern is
exactly what I articulated at the previous stage and
what the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, has articulated
now. It is concerned that the creation of commissioners
could result in what it calls—it is rather a good phrase—a
competitive “race to the bottom” on populist law and
order policies. It mentions what one might call the
“invisible” crimes, such as domestic violence and crimes
against vulnerable individuals and members of minority
groups, which do not dominate public concern in the
way that street crime and anti-social behaviour do.
The Bill deals with offences such as terrorism and
organised crime, which require a national policing
response. Child neglect has been acknowledged in
another part of the Bill, but aggravated crimes against
minorities and a whole list of other matters, with
which I shall not detain the House, may not be a
priority—indeed, it is extremely unlikely—for any
commissioner seeking an electoral mandate.
I made the point to Justice that we had already
covered some of this ground, to which it responded
rather honestly that it was important to make the
rhetorical point. Although it is almost half-past nine
on perhaps our last day on Report, I shall make the
point not very rhetorically, not very eloquently, but in
quite a heartfelt manner.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think
that some of the issues that we are discussing in these
amendments are rhetorical matters. My Amendment 239
approaches the issues which my noble friend Lady
Henig raised in Amendment 235 from a slightly different
perspective.
Some 35 hours ago, I sat listening to the Home
Secretary introduce the new CONTEST strategy for
the United Kingdom. That document, which pulls
together the efforts being made to counter terrorism,
is fundamental to the issues that we are talking about
here in relation to the national strategic policing
requirement.
Of course, this document describes the importance
of having a national network feeding in to the
counterterrorist effort—if we do not have such a national
network, we cannot deliver effective counterterrorist
policing. That is why it is so important that the
Government have put the strategic policing requirement
into the Bill. What makes it difficult for us in your
Lordships’ House to consider these matters tonight is
that, of course, no one, as far as I am aware—certainly
none of your Lordships—has yet seen the strategic
policing requirement, or a draft thereof.
9.30 pm
When I have listened to senior police officers, they
say that there are a number of building blocks for
anyone to understand how this legislation will work.
One of those building blocks is the memorandum that
we have seen—the Minister has promised us that she
will come back to us on whether that will be part of
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
810
the Bill. Another key building block is what is going to
be contained in the strategic policing requirement.
Until we see that, we cannot see what will be the
balance of responsibilities for chief officers of police. I
hope that we will at least see a draft of the strategic
policing requirement before the Bill goes to Third
Reading. I had understood that something was due to
be published some while back for consultation. As far
as I am aware, unless it has appeared very recently,
nothing has yet been published.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My noble friend served
with me on the Joint Committee on the national
security strategy. Will he help the House and contemplate
how the strategic policing requirement might fit in to
the national security strategy? Would it be part of it or
relate to it in any way? It has certainly not been
mentioned, as I am sure my noble friend would agree,
in our meetings on the national security Joint Committee.
Lord Harris of Haringey: The Government are
trying to square the circle of putting a very high
priority on national security—the national security
strategy, the creation of the National Security Council—
and their policies on police and crime commissioners.
Clearly, the potential danger with police and crime
commissioners elected with a local mandate to articulate
the concerns of local people is that some national
priorities will not be given the same priority at local
level. Now, I am sure that no sensible police and crime
commissioner would say, “I am not interested in anything
being done on counterterrorism”, just as no sensible
police and crime commissioner would say that they
did not want to see anything done on serious crime.
However, when there are 41 directly elected individuals,
some of whom will fight very fiercely contested local
elections, or be facing fiercely contested re-election,
the question of whether the same priority is given to
national security matters as is given to other matters
becomes a real issue.
Because of our particularly slow progress as a
House on other matters before we arrived at the Bill
tonight—we are making rapid progress compared to
the progress earlier—I had the opportunity of listening
to a presentation downstairs from Professor Dave
Sloggett, a nationally known expert on counterterrorism
issues. In a rather chilling 15-minute tour d’horizon,
he simply spelt out the sorts of threats that we face,
which are contained in the CONTEST strategy, and
the context in which that is taking place at the moment.
Yes, Osama bin Laden has been killed, but that does
not mean that al-Qaeda goes away. We are actually
seeing a fragmentation and each of the different affiliates
going their own way, each presenting slightly different
threats.
We have Gaddafi in Libya, who has made an explicit
threat of suicide bombers in European cities; and
there is the changing situation in Northern Ireland,
where we have just seen two nights of sustained rioting
and serious disorder. Again, the fact that that has not
impinged significantly on the rest of the country makes
it all the more likely that there will be an aspiration for
it do so. We have the challenges of the Olympics. In
moving her amendment, my noble friend Lady Henig
referred to issues around cyber crime, and it is interesting
811
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[LORDS]
[LORD HARRIS OF HARINGEY]
that the CONTEST strategy for the first time refers to
the cyber terrorist threat. These are issues in which
local police forces have got to play their part; they
have got to raise their game. They are not necessarily
issues which will immediately emerge as the priority
for the elected police and crime commissioner in every
part of the country, yet every part of the country is
potentially affected.
Let us consider the way in which Roshonara Choudhry
self-radicalised herself, dropped out of her university
course and, having listened to speeches and read
material on the internet, decided that an appropriate
thing for her to do to take forward the cause would
be to assassinate a British Member of Parliament.
She then researched Members of Parliament on
TheyWorkForYou.com and purchased two kitchen
knives. Fortunately for Stephen Timms, a Member of
Parliament in the other place, she decided on the day
that it was easier to conceal in her clothing the shorter
of the knives. That is an example of the kind of threat
we face.
Not so long ago an individual in the south-west of
the country seriously injured himself in an attempt to
blow up a restaurant in which families with young
children were having meals. Again, he was an individual
who, as far as we know, was not significantly connected
to any of the networks.
It will be the responsibility of local policing, local
special branches and local intelligence to pick up on
these issues. If you get to a stage where this is seen as
not the responsibility of a local police force, your
ability to combat these threats will be severely weakened.
That is why the strategic policing requirement is so
important.
It is also important in the context of serious and
organised crime because we all know that if you do
not maintain consistent and strong pressure on the
issues around serious and organised crime, gradually
the quality of community life in all kinds of areas will
begin to deteriorate—and yet this will not be an
immediate priority for many police and crime
commissioners.
The Government have, properly, written into the
Bill a strategic policing requirement. However, they
have not specified how it will be enforced and how
they will make sure that it is met in every force area.
My noble friend Lady Henig has tabled an amendment
which would require Her Majesty’s Inspectorate to
produce a report on an annual basis and lay it before
Parliament to assess how the strategic policing requirement
is working. My amendment has a different focus; it
seeks to consider what happens in each individual force
area. It does not specify that the report should be laid
before Parliament because sometimes the content of
that report in relation to the strength, willingness and
effectiveness of local forces in combating terrorism
and serious and organised crime would best not be
publicly shared.
I know that the Home Office does not want to be
top-down on all kinds of issues, but on these issues it
needs to be top-down, which is why it has postulated a
strategic policing requirement. This will give the Home
Secretary a snapshot for each police force area and a
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
812
national overview, if you take the position that has
been put forward by my noble friend Lady Henig, of
what is going on and where there may be weaknesses.
Whether that will result in a formal intervention by
the Home Secretary or a less formal intervention with
the chief officer of police and the elected politician
who leads those areas applying pressure, I do not
think really matters. What is important is that the
Home Secretary has that information and has it as a
tool. Further, it is important that the locally elected
individual—the police and crime commissioner or the
MOPC in London—is aware of where they stand in
terms of meeting the strategic policing requirement.
They may well have a rose-tinted view of what the
level of problem is or what needs to be done. This
gives them that information and the opportunity to
decide. I find it extraordinary that there is nothing in
this Bill about monitoring how the strategic policing
requirement is to be met, how it is to be achieved and
what is to be done about it.
These amendments are put forward in a genuine
attempt not just to assist the Government to achieve
their objectives, which as you know are constantly at
the forefront of our thoughts on this side of the
House, but because it is critically and crucially important
for the national security of this country and indeed for
our ability to deal with serious and organised crime.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I hope I will be
forgiven for making a short intervention in support of
the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Henig
and indeed in support of the amendment of the noble
Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, as to its principle.
This Bill is to a great extent about the accountability
of the police. The whole purpose of the Government’s
policy, which I applaud, is to make the police more
accountable to the public. The noble Baroness, Lady
Henig, is attempting to do precisely that—to give
visible evidence of that accountability to enable the
public to judge from a document how accountable the
police are in terms of the strategic policing requirement.
The noble Baroness referred to the work of the
independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, which I
used to be. The independent reviewer is required to
produce at least two reports every year which enable
Members of both Houses, who use the reports extensively,
and others to judge the performance of the authorities
in relation to counterterrorism law. We have an
independent reviewer of the relatively new Northern
Ireland provisions for what is now public order law in
Northern Ireland. This role has been carried out since
it was introduced by Mr Robert Whalley. He has been
very successful in ensuring that those important parts
of the law he reviews in Northern Ireland, which can
prove, as we have seen in the past couple of days, very
controversial in the context of every day life, are
accounted for in the legislative assembly of Northern
Ireland and in this Parliament.
Following the legislation in relation to the UN
money-laundering provisions for named terrorist suspects,
we introduced recently an independent review which is
going to be carried out, as I understand it, by David
Anderson QC, who succeeded me as independent
reviewer of terrorism legislation. There again, we will
have a report which will deal with issues relating to a
813
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[13 JULY 2011]
part of the strategic policing requirement. Those who
carry out such roles from time to time have been asked
ad hoc to carry out reports which call to account those
who have been involved in aspects of counterterrorism
and related policing.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has a
distinguished and respected record of impartiality. It
has been able to secure changes in policing practice
around the country by the kindly method of report,
constructive criticism and engaging, sometimes, the
support of those in both Houses of Parliament. It
seems to me that there is nothing to be lost and
potentially much to be gained from the transparency
of a report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary,
particularly given the importance of the strategic policing
requirement, which has been amply described during
this short debate, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord
Harris.
I take issue with the noble Lord on only one detail.
He suggested that it might be difficult to write a report
that would be published that engaged with matters of
national security that are best left unsaid. I can tell the
noble Lord that there are ways of doing this; it can be
done. With the co-operation, which is always available,
of the security services in particular, there are ways of
writing reports that do not damage national security
but deal fully with all the principles that need to be
discussed.
I therefore believe that this is a constructive proposal
and I hope to hear that the Minister will also allow
this matter further consideration with a view to something
being brought forward at Third Reading.
9.45 pm
Lord Dear: My Lords, I wonder if I might put a
different gloss on the matters that we are debating in
this group of amendments. We know that there is a
strong likelihood that there will be a national crime
agency some time in the next calendar year. We already
have a discussion document about that. It refers to
tasking, which I am confidently assured means direction
from the centre. That means that there is bound to be
tension between local and national issues, which is a
good thing. It is democracy in action. It is inevitable
that the inspectorate will become involved, at the
behest of local or national figures. That is what it is
there for and that is my experience, having served in it
for more than five years, albeit some time ago.
I am concerned that the Bill is in grave danger of
becoming overprescriptive. We are covering detail,
which is good as far as it goes. However, to put it in the
Bill rather than take it as a matter of good sense or
encompass it in regulation stretches too far the issue
of what should be in the Bill.
I shall refer to Amendment 235A. Having followed
an all-encompassing definition of national crime, we
are then invited to put in something about children,
vulnerable adults, members of minority groups and so
on. I do not at all underestimate the threat to those
groups; terrible things are done to and with them.
However, if we are to pick out those groups, why do
we not put in something about drugs, counterterrorism,
and the theft of high-value motor vehicles and plant,
all of which happen on a European—if not a more
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
814
international—scale? Why do we not put in something
about cybercrime or identity theft? I shall sit down
soon because I want to brief, but my point is that we
should not drop into the trap of being overprescriptive.
Valid though all the comments from speakers so far
have been, it is asking the Bill to accept too much.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been
a very interesting debate. I understand what the noble
Lord, Lord Dear, is saying about the risks of
overprescription. However, we are talking about strategic
policing requirements. This is a matter of national
importance. My noble friends have argued very well
for their respective amendments.
No election will be won by a police and crime
commissioner on issues to do with national policing.
They will be won on local manifestos. Almost every
candidate will promise more police on the beat. The
question will be an auction over just how many police
will be on the beat at any one time. That is fair enough
and clearly responds to a general view held by many
members of the public, who like the police to be
visible. I do not argue with that. However, it will have
some consequences. It will put the squeeze on the
specialist units that the police forces have developed. It
will also put the squeeze on each force’s responsibility
to the national policing requirement. In some way or
other, without being wholly prescriptive, we need to
find a way in which to reassure Parliament that the
national strategic policing requirement will be carried
out as effectively as possible. It is not just terrorism; it
is also about serious organised crime. My noble friends
Lord Harris and Lord Foulkes were absolutely right
to develop the argument about the threats that we
face. We are in no position today to be complacent
about those threats.
In their approach to the Bill the Government have
really rather pooh-poohed the current tripartite
relationship. They have criticised police authorities for
a lack of visibility—although I have yet to hear any
conclusive evidence put forward on why they ought to
be visible. Furthermore, they believe that the tripartite
arrangement is at fault because Home Secretaries have
indulged in too much target-making. There will be a
debate about targets and their place but there should
be no doubt that in the end the Home Secretary is
accountable to Parliament and ought to be accountable
to Parliament for national policing strategy and the
effectiveness of police forces in making a contribution
to that strategy.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, about the
implications of the national crime agency. I also agree
with him that some tension will be constructive—but
tension could also be destructive. In the Bill we see
that the requirement in relation to the strategic policing
requirement is placed on chief officers of police. In
exercising the functions, they must have regard to the
strategic policing requirement. In other words, they can
ignore it, because “have regard to” is a very weak use
of parliamentary language. They have to have regard to
it, alongside other matters that are placed in the Bill.
We then look to page 2 of the Bill and see that in
Clause 1(4) that the,
“police and crime commissioner must … hold the chief constable
to account for”,
815
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[LORDS]
[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH]
a series of actions, but also,
“the exercise of the duty under section 37A(2) of the Police
Act 1996 (duty to have regard to strategic policing requirement)”.
All we have in statute is a requirement on the police
and crime commissioner to hold the chief constable to
account. Then we find that the actual requirement is
simply to have regard to. What if the police and
commissioner does not effectively hold the chief constable
to account? What if the chief constable has regard to
but does not take the necessary action? Where are the
safeguards and sanctions? There are none. That is
really our concern.
The amendments seem to be helpful and constructive.
My noble friend Lady Henig asks for a report to be
prepared assessing the extent to which the strategic
policing requirement has been met in each police area.
That does not seem overprescriptive; it is simply giving
an assurance to Parliament that there will be a process
by which Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary
has a means of looking at each police force area and
reporting on how they are doing in their contribution
to the strategic policing requirement.
My noble friend Lord Harris has another constructive
amendment around the inspection programme. In our
first debate the Minister was very helpful, although I
did not really follow her arguments. She was very
constructive in being willing to engage in the area of
the acting police and crime commissioner. Nothing is
more important than the national strategic policing
requirement. I hope that the noble Lord, who, I suspect,
is going to respond to the amendment, will be able to
be as constructive as his noble friend.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, before the
Minister replies to the debate, he will recall that nearly
an hour and a half ago the government Chief Whip
indicated that she would return speedily with a new
timetable for this Bill to propose to the House. We are
now approaching the normal time of rising of this
House. I hope that the Minister will give an indication
as to when the government Chief Whip will do us the
courtesy of returning to indicate what the new timetable
for this Bill will be.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: As always, the noble
Lord, Lord Foulkes, is immensely helpful in his
contribution to debates. I well recall his many constructive
contributions to the Parliamentary Voting System and
Constituencies Bill in an earlier period.
It is part of the intention of this Bill to build in
some constructive tensions between the local and the
national—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I am grateful to the
Minister, but this is a serious point. A number of
Members of this House have an interest in subsequent
amendments and are genuinely concerned that there
should be a proper debate on the Bill because some
very serious and important amendments are coming
up. They do not know what is going to happen. They
do not know whether these amendments are going to
be considered at three o’clock, four o’clock or five o’clock
in the morning or, more sensibly, on another day when
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
816
they can be properly considered by this House. It is the
normal role of this House to give proper consideration
to these amendments, and I hope that someone will
find out when the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will
return, as she promised an hour and a half ago, and
tell the House what the programme is going to be. If
not, people are hanging on here without any knowledge
about what is going to happen.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I will do my
best to get that information to the House as soon as
possible.
As I said, it is part of the intention of this Bill to
build in some constructive tensions between the local
and the national. We all understand that policing is a
constant dialogue between local, regional and national,
although I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Henig,
that things have changed a great deal in the last 20 or
30 years. Certainly when I was a candidate in Manchester
many years ago, there was a small Special Branch that
dealt with the IRA, but there were not the cross-cutting
collaborative units that we now see across the north of
England—drugs units, organised crime units and
counterterrorism units, which are now part of the
network in which our police forces co-operate with
each other. My perspective on policing is a West
Yorkshire one, but the Yorkshire Post, the Bradford
Telegraph & Argus and the local radio stations do not
simply focus on local crime, partly because local and
national issues, such as parades by the English Defence
League and drugs heists in which the drugs have just
been imported from some other country, are very
much part of the local scene. Therefore I think that the
widespread fears suggested by the noble Baroness may
be exaggerated.
Clause 80 sets out the strategic policing requirement,
which is an update of the Police Act 1996, as noble
Lords have said. That strategic policing requirement is
now being extensively consulted on by the Secretary of
State, ACPO, the Association of Police Authorities,
the Metropolitan Police service and others. Clearly
that is going to be a major part—
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, while I am
fascinated to hear that this consultation is taking
place, on the last occasion on which I saw representatives
of the Association of Chief Police Officers—I believe
it was last week—they had not yet seen a draft of this
document, so I am slightly bemused by that. Parliament
has to see it. We cannot understand what the balance
is going to be between the local and the national
unless we can see that document, even in draft state,
and understand it.
10 pm
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, Clause 80 sets
out in some detail the principles of the strategic policing
requirement. It is there in the Bill. There is a question
of how much detail we want to write into the Bill, but
Clause 80 sets out the fundamentals of that requirement.
Clause 96 adds to that the backstop power for the
Secretary of State to intervene if, in her opinion, local
police forces are not paying sufficient attention to the
strategic policing requirement.
817
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[13 JULY 2011]
I add that “have regard to” is not, as has been
suggested, a weak statement. It is a commonly used
phrase for a strong and appropriate duty, which places
an obligation on the chief officer and the PCC to
comply with the strategic policing requirement. In
policing terms, the duty to have regard has previously
applied, for example, to codes of practice that have
been used to implement a national intelligence model
across all 43 police forces in England and Wales, to
codify the use of police firearms and to ensure compliance
with the IPCC statutory guidance on handling police
complaints, which suggests that this is a widely used
and strong duty.
Lord Harris of Haringey: The Minister says that
this is intended to be a strong requirement. Clause 80,
which he referred to, says,
“must, from time to time, issue a document”.
What I am trying to clarify is: how can we see what the
impact of that strong requirement is unless we know
what the Government’s intentions are for the document’s
contents? That is not asking to have the wording of
the strategic policing requirement written into the Bill.
The Bill already says that there will be such a document,
but none of us have seen one. The Minister has talked
about consultations but as far as I am aware—I wait
to be corrected—last week no full-touch document
had been circulated for comments, despite the expectations
set out in here.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I promise to get back to
the noble Lord as soon as possible with an update of
where we now are on that. I stress that it is normal
practice to pass legislation without all the details of
the regulations being tied up before that Act is passed,
because ongoing negotiations about how the regulations
will be carried through are often under way. I am
assured that negotiations and consultations on the
strategic policing requirement are well under way.
Lord Harris of Haringey: The Minister talks about
regulations but I did not actually think that the strategic
policing requirement was going to be put in regulations.
I thought it was simply going to be a document. There
have been plenty of occasions when the document has
been so pivotal that Parliament has been advised of
what the content of regulations will be. Draft regulations
have been circulated so that people can understand
what their scope is. As I understand it, this is regarded
as one of the central planks in determining what is
local and what is national. I believe that Parliament
should therefore see this document in draft form before
we can move forward.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I promise to get back to
the noble Lord with a situation report, certainly by the
time we come to Third Reading. On Clause 96, I am
also informed that the backstop power available to the
Secretary of State to intervene where forces are not
having sufficient regard to national priorities has never
been used. It is there as a backstop power but police
forces, chief constables and police authorities have
necessarily recognised that there is a thread between
neighbourhood policing and local, regional and national
priorities. The neighbourhood police groups which I
have been out with in Leeds and Bradford are also
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
818
looking at potentially vulnerable individuals, at people
who may be radicalised and at areas where drugs are
being dealt or supplied. That feeds into a national
intelligence chain and is part of what we all understand
as policing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, stressed the
importance of criminal activities which, in some cases,
do not respect boundaries. She also talked about the
invisible crimes of domestic violence, vulnerable adults,
child neglect and aggravated crimes against minorities.
Again, I have sat in on MAPPA groups—multi-agency
areas—where police are working with other local social
services and non-governmental organisations, precisely
to look at those invisible crimes. Part of the way in
which attention is drawn to these crimes is by local
voluntary organisations working with police and other
agencies at the local level. In the nature of these cases,
much domestic violence and child neglect is essentially
local. Those elements which are not local—child
trafficking, sexual abuse, online sexual exploitation—are
dealt with now increasingly by the Child Exploitation
and Online Protection Centre and other forms of
collaboration between local police forces and national
agencies, which indeed will feed into the national
crime agency when that is developed. Again, in this
case there is not a tension but a thread between local
violence, local disorder, local abuse, and those more
limited elements in which children are trafficked or
abused and the internet is used for these purposes. I
can assure the noble Baroness that this does not need
to be written again into the Bill. Having said that, I
hope that I have given sufficient assurance to those
who tabled these amendments to enable them not to
press them.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble
Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, I say
that the thrust of the arguments is one which I made at
the last stage. The amendments themselves are about
mechanisms. Can my noble friend on the Front Bench
help the House as to whether it is necessary to spell
out these mechanisms? It seems that noble Lords
opposite are seeking mechanisms to assist the Secretary
of State—but does the Secretary of State actually
need to have the legislative powers? As I read these, I
would have thought that it was possible for her to take
steps, certainly in one of these amendments, and to
have considerable influence to ensure that the inspectorate
undertakes the others. To that extent, these amendments
are not necessary. However, the noble Lord has addressed
the arguments rather than the amendments, and if I
may say so, so have the noble Lords pressing the
amendments. I hope my noble friend may be able to
help the House on that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: There was a tension also
about how much detail one writes into the Bill. We
spent some time on these amendments with people
wanting reassurance that there should be much more
detail in the Bill than is required of them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: With the greatest respect
to noble Lords, a requirement for HMIC to publish a
report annually is not a target; it is simply information
819
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[LORDS]
[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH]
to Parliament. Surely the Minister is prepared to consider
that. As I have said, it is a very short time until Third
Reading, but will he take this back without commitment
and consider whether some reassurance might be made
to Parliament on this?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: In the next group of
amendments we will move on to HMIC, and it is part
of the requirement for HMIC that it will publish
reports for the public, so HMIC will be publishing
regular reports. The question of whether it should
have to publish reports on a regular basis for Parliament
is an additional thing of which I am not persuaded. I
will certainly consult further but I am not currently
persuaded that that is a necessary addition. Many
years ago I took part in a debate which required the
Government to report to Parliament twice a year on
developments in the European Union so that there
could be a six-monthly debate. Those reports have
continued to be published and somewhere in my attic I
have a number of them. I am a little doubtful about
additional reports.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Surely the Minister will
know from the debate that we have had on the European
Bill that many noble Lords in this House talk of little
else.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Before Minister comes
back on this, I say that this is not just about whether or
not this is a document published for Parliament; it is
about ensuring that there is a focus on the strategic
policing requirement. That is something which the
Government have not yet conceded. While I am on my
feet, and to prevent me getting up again, can he tell us
what he actually means by a situation report? Does
that mean that when we get to Third Reading which,
as far as I am aware, is still only a few days away, we
will have in front of us some idea as to what this
document will look like?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I had not
promised to give the detail of the strategic policing
requirement, which is currently under negotiation. I
am happy to give noble Lords a situation report on
where negotiations stand regarding the definition of
the strategic policing requirement. That is the most
that I can do.
Baroness Henig: My Lords, I have listened closely
to everything that has been said. I thank noble Lords
who have participated in this debate. I have listened
very carefully to the Minister. I agree that under the
present system there is a recognised way of reconciling
local and national police authorities; I do not think
that is in doubt. The problem is that we are embarking
on a completely new structure of police governance.
Everything that we are used to is being changed, and
not incrementally but quite radically. I think that we
all accept that. My amendment seeks to reassure the
public, given that we are faced with this completely
new and untried system. We owe it to the public to
reassure them that under the new system cross-border
crime, serious criminal issues and national crime will
be tackled by local forces.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
820
We have heard a lot about commissioners. I am sure
that good commissioners will act as the Minister thinks
they will; it is the not-so-good commissioners and the
areas where local people may be let down which are
the problem. I do not see that this measure is such a lot
to ask for when reports are prepared in many areas of
our national life. Why cannot they be prepared by the
inspectorate in this area? I do not understand why this
is such a novel suggestion. I keep being pushed to
press amendments to a Division, but I really would
like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
10.11 pm
Division on Amendment 235
Contents 54; Not-Contents 151.
Amendment 235 disagreed.
Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Bannside, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
[Teller]
Beecham, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bilston, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Browne of Ladyton, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Stamford, L.
Deech, B.
Desai, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grantchester, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Kilclooney, L.
Kingsmill, B.
Layard, L.
Liddle, L.
McAvoy, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Maxton, L.
O’Loan, B.
O’Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Paisley of St George’s, B.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rosser, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sawyer, L.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Basildon, B.
Soley, L.
Stevenson of Balmacara, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Thornton, B.
Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller]
Turnberg, L.
Whitty, L.
NOT CONTENTS
Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]
Ashdown of Norton-subHamdon, L.
Astor, V.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Barker, B.
Benjamin, B.
Berridge, B.
Best, L.
Bew, L.
Black of Brentwood, L.
Blackwell, L.
Blencathra, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury,
B.
Boswell of Aynho, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brinton, B.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville,
L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Browning, B.
Burnett, L.
Byford, B.
Cathcart, E.
Chadlington, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cumberlege, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dear, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dobbs, L.
821
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
D’Souza, B.
Dundee, E.
Dykes, L.
Eaton, B.
Eden of Winton, L.
Empey, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Faulks, L.
Feldman of Elstree, L.
Fellowes of West Stafford, L.
Fink, L.
Flight, L.
Fookes, B.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Freud, L.
Garden of Frognal, B.
Gardiner of Kimble, L.
Garel-Jones, L.
Geddes, L.
German, L.
Glenarthur, L.
Gold, L.
Green of Hurstpierpoint, L.
Grey-Thompson, B.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Henley, L.
Heyhoe Flint, B.
Higgins, L.
Hill of Oareford, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts,
L.
Home, E.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howe, E.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Hussein-Ece, B.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jenkin of Kennington, B.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Kramer, B.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lang of Monkton, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lexden, L.
Lingfield, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Loomba, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Macdonald of River Glaven,
L.
MacGregor of Pulham
Market, L.
Maddock, B.
[13 JULY 2011]
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marland, L.
Marlesford, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Northover, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
O’Cathain, B.
Palmer of Childs Hill, L.
Pannick, L.
Parminter, B.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Ramsbotham, L.
Randerson, B.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Rennard, L.
Risby, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
Sassoon, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Shackleton of Belgravia, B.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shipley, L.
Shrewsbury, E.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Spicer, L.
Stedman-Scott, B.
Stewartby, L.
Stoneham of Droxford, L.
Stowell of Beeston, B.
Strasburger, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Tebbit, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Tope, L.
True, L.
Tyler, L.
Tyler of Enfield, B.
Ullswater, V.
Verma, B.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Walmsley, B.
Wasserman, L.
Wheatcroft, B.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Willis of Knaresborough, L.
Wolfson of Aspley Guise, L.
Younger of Leckie, V.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
822
Clearly it is important that the House is able to scrutinise
legislation effectively: we all want to work towards
that end. On the other hand, the House also tries to
work in the most efficient manner to deliver government
business in a better state than it receives it. Even the
late Division that we have just had clearly was intended
to produce that end—and although the noble Baroness,
Lady Henig, may not have got the result she wanted, I
know that she was testing the opinion of the House
from the right motives.
It has been agreed through the usual channels that
we will conclude business tonight at approximately
11 am.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Well, there you are—that
is what I really want to do. One minute’s break between
today and tomorrow would give us enough time for
Prayers. My Lords, in fact it will be 11 pm. We would
like to make further progress on an amendment or two
and conclude as close to 11 pm as possible. The
agreement is that tomorrow morning after Questions
we will start on the Report stage of the police Bill. We
will continue until we have concluded Report and then
go back to consideration of the published business,
which is the Committee stage of the Localism Bill.
This has an implication for consideration of matters
at Third Reading. The Minister has already made it
clear that she is prepared to consider matters at Third
Reading and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt
of Kings Heath, has already signalled that he has at
least one serious matter that he wishes to consider. It is
therefore important that we maintain our normal tradition
of having the usual intervals between stages. That can
be achieved by the Government rearranging their business
next week so that the Third Reading of this Bill will be
taken on Wednesday instead of Tuesday—so we have
the usual intervals—then after the Third Reading of
this Bill on Wednesday we would continue in Committee
on the Localism Bill.
I know that the usual channels will continue to have
discussions tomorrow afternoon, when we are able to
see the progress of business, to work for the best of the
House.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Briefly, I thank the noble
Baroness, Lady Anelay, for the way that she has
approached this and for her gracious manner in putting
something before the House which I am sure the
whole House will feel able to support.
10.23 pm
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes): Amendment 235A
is in the name of Baroness Henig.
Amendment 235A not moved.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I nearly
transgressed by being on my feet when the Deputy Speaker
was on his feet, which would have been an heinous
crime at any time, but particularly at 10.23 pm.
As promised earlier this evening, there have been
discussions in the usual channels, which reached mutual
agreement with regard to the progress of business.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I am much relieved
that I was interrupted, because Amendment 235A is in
the name of Baroness Hamwee.
Amendment 236 is grouped with Amendment 235,
on which we have just had a Division.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: With the greatest respect,
it was pointed out earlier that there is a misprint in the
grouping list. My noble friend made it clear that there
is a group starting Amendments 236, 237 and 238.
The Deputy Speaker: I beg your Lordships’ pardon.
That information had not reached me.
823
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[LORDS]
Clause 85 : Functions of HMIC
Amendment 236
Moved by Baroness Henig
236: Clause 85, page 52, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The inspectors of constabulary may carry out an inspection
of, and report to the Secretary of State on, the performance by a
police and crime commissioner or a police and crime panel of its
functions or of any particular function or functions.”
Baroness Henig: I rise to speak to three amendments,
which, taken together, seek to preserve the checks and
balances and independent assessment of performance
within the current system that the Government have
drawn on so heavily in creating their case for change;
namely, the excellent work of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate
of Constabulary.
Right at the beginning of our work on the Bill, the
Government told us that HMIC unearthed the evidence
for the failings of the present system, which necessitated
the abolition of police authorities as quickly as possible.
Indeed, in the absence of an analysis of the results of
the Home Office’s public consultation on their reform
proposals and the rather limited utility of a Cabinet
Office report now five or six years old, the findings of
HMIC’s inspections of 22 police authorities could be
charitably described as the nearest thing the Government
have for an evidence base on which they can build the
case for change—at least as far as the suggested evidence
for the weaknesses of the old system goes.
When it comes to this clause of the Bill, it very
much surprised me—and may well surprise many of
your Lordships—that, far from the excellent work of
Her Majesty’s inspectorate being valued and taken
forward into the new era of elected accountability, it
has been relegated to the sidelines. In fact, the inspectorate
is no longer going to be called upon to inspect the
whole range of policing accountability but is going to
be focused on forces.
I find this a little odd. We are told that commissioners
and their panels are the necessary drivers of change,
the fulcrums on which the hopes of reforms are going
to be founded. They are going to have the role in
driving efficiency at local level, not the Home Office
from the centre any more. Yet these crucial new
transformative individuals and bodies are not to be
subject to the same level of inspection in the public
interest as police authorities. I find this quite strange.
Surely it cannot be right to limit the scope of inspectors
who could provide valuable, impartial and expert
information to the public on complex areas of policing
and police finance, including the efficiency of those
overseeing that finance. Budgets are going to be tight
in the next few years and the new system is going to be
very costly. I find it hard to believe in the new system,
which many of us think will increase costs. These costs
will add up and may very well eat into the policing
budget. It is therefore not unreasonable that inspections
should be able to oversee how those costs are running
and whether things are operating reasonably.
10.30 pm
I know, because we have already had this argument,
that the Government will be quick to remind me that
the ballot box will be the judge of how commissioners
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
824
oversee and apportion their part of the policing grant
and the precept. However, four years is a long time in
politics and a lot of money could have been spent
before the public place a cross and deliver a verdict.
Who in the mean time, except HMIC, will inform the
public about how effectively or otherwise commissioners
have spent their money? I am reluctant to raise once
again the spectre of corporations sole and, still less,
the frankly frightening sight of not one but two
corporations sole with two auditable bodies and
consequentially opaque arrangements for overseeing
public spending in policing. The only reason I want to
mention them is that I think that because of that
situation there will be a need for more, not less,
accountability. Inspection of the new regime, when
compared to what we have presently, will be more
important because of the arrangements that are being
set up. I believe that these areas need to be opened up
to the public. Expertise should not be excluded. It is
essential for public trust and confidence in the police
that every penny of the policing pound is considered
by those charged with inspecting and fostering
improvement. That is why I think that the Government
should reinsert full rights of inspection for HMIC and
the ability of the local policing body and panel to call
in inspectors on a regular basis.
I shall briefly say something about the idea that the
panel should have to pay the cost of the inspections.
That is a tremendous disincentive to having inspections.
I could not help thinking that if existing police authorities
had to pay for inspections they would have definitely
seized on that as a reason not to be inspected, particularly
when it is those inspections that justify the present
abolition of police authorities. Slightly at a tangent, I
mention that in those last inspections of police
authorities—there have been 22 in the past few months—
not one authority failed an Audit Commission or
HMIC inspection and more than 97 per cent of HMIC’s
110 individual assessment scores for police authorities’
performance were excellent, good or adequate, which I
think is very reasonable. It is certainly a record of
achievement that compares favourably with local
government. In fact, police authorities consistently
and significantly outperform local authorities in Audit
Commission inspections of their use of resources. I do
not feel that inspections should have to be paid for in
this way by those who are being inspected—hence my
Amendment 238 to delete this provision.
In relation to police authorities’ financial management,
the inspectorate’s report stated:
“Over the last ten years, forces and authorities have delivered
efficiency improvements to meet Government targets. Between
2004 and 2008, forces and authorities declared just over £1.5 billion
of efficiency improvements against a target of just over £1 billion”.
I am sure we would want such efficiency improvements
to continue into the new regime. Indeed, the public
would expect commissioners on £120,000 or more a
year to be driving and delivering even greater efficiencies
than their predecessor police authorities. I therefore
feel that the public would want the inspectorate to give
them the relevant comparative information rather than
leave it to the media to report, or not, as they see fit.
For all these reasons, it seems to me that there should
be regular inspections of commissioners and of panels.
I see no reason why there should not be. I beg to move.
825
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[13 JULY 2011]
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I have put
my name to Amendments 236, 237 and 238 which
were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. We
are being asked to support nothing less than a revolution
in policing governance in the absence of any evidence
base on which the benefits of such drastic changes are
set and in the absence of any public clamour for costly
reform—indeed, the opposite. We are being told that
these changes will not be piloted or introduced in
stages since reform is urgent and cannot possibly wait.
I beg to differ on all those counts.
However, if we are to press ahead with such an
untried system, I am absolutely determined that we
should do our duty to ensure that all means possible
are employed to insert safeguards into the Bill. HMIC
inspections seem to me to be a bedrock of any such
safeguards against potential pitfalls and I share the
high regard in which Sir Denis O’Connor, Her Majesty’s
Chief Inspector of Constabulary, is held, together
with his extremely able team.
In short, HMIC inspections are at times a difficult
and challenging process for those undergoing them
and they have repeatedly yielded the improvement
across policing, which is at the heart of HMIC’s
mission. So I am left, frankly, bemused when the
Government propose not to expand but to constrict
the use of this valuable tool for improvement. It makes
no sense at all effectively to exclude these completely
new systems of oversight from an inspection regime
when that regime has already helped the current system
to improve.
Next, I shall draw out the intention of Amendment 238,
which removes the proposed new obligation on the
local policing body to reimburse HMIC for the costs
of its inspection. We have heard what the noble Baroness,
Lady Henig, thinks of that. We have sought to replace
this with a statement that the panel may request that
HMIC conducts an inspection if its concerns warrant
such an intervention. I am unaware of any other
inspection regime in which those delivering a public
service, or who invite in or are made the subject of an
inspection in the interests of public trust and confidence
in their work, are expected directly to cover the costs
of their inspection. Surely, in some cases an inspection
will be called amidst quite serious financial issues or
challenges. This idea that those opening themselves up
to scrutiny in the public interest must pay for the cost
of such transparency seems decidedly odd to me, even
bearing in mind the parlous state of Home Office
finances at the present time.
It also seems to me to be the most bizarre disincentive
to those on the panel or on the commissioner’s staff
who are considering whistleblowing on what might be
significant issues of public interest or concern. A
whistleblower or concerned panel member or local
policing body member would have to gain pre-emptive
approval for the costs of a possible investigation from
someone who might be implicated in the very dubious
activity that necessitates the inspection.
This parcelling of costs on to the petitioner for an
inspection feels wrong to me on a very instinctive, but
also on a very practical, level. Surely the Home Office
should be seeing fit that the costs of HMIC’s absolutely
essential work should be met by a Home Office grant.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
826
It would seem to be neglect approaching a dereliction
of the Government’s duty to do otherwise. We
have proposed that this apparently ill suited new
subsection (2BB) should be replaced by a positive power
for the panel that it should be able at any time to
request that HMIC carry out an inspection of the
PCC.
No one will be more aware of the PCC’s action or
inaction in some areas than the police and crime panel
since it is designed as her or his safeguard and strict
check and balance. However, while the panel will be
equipped to oversee the PCC in most areas, it may feel
that there are issues on which it lacks a professional
operational judgment on a matter of controversy. In
such circumstances, it may not be appropriate to pull
the chief constable into what could amount to a
difference of opinion with the PCC. Who then can the
panel turn to for that necessary professional advice
and impartial opinion?
Finally, there should be a direct and clear ability,
and a responsibility on the panel, to be able to involve
HMIC appropriately. HMIC could, of course, take a
view that it was being asked to get involved in a petty
or irrelevant matter and could decline the invitation.
However, we anticipate that this referral mechanism to
HMIC will provide a helpful bridge to practical
improvement for many forces facing difficulty in the
future, as it so often has in the past.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, all I would
like to say on the amendment is that we have discussed
in previous debates the inconsistency between different
parts of government in relation to inspection. I must
declare my interest again as chair of an NHS foundation
trust and as a consultant trainer in the NHS. NHS
foundation trusts, which the Government support,
were meant to be given much more freedom than
other NHS bodies but they are still subject to the
tender mercies of a regulator called Monitor. For the
life of me, I cannot see why the Government have
taken such a light-rein approach to the construct in
the Bill when we have such an excellent inspectorate in
the form of HMIC. These amendments seem wholly
constructive. By the grace of the usual channels, we
have been given a little extra time—a day—to consider
these matters. Is this not a matter which the Government
might take back and consider?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with regard to fees, I
do not know whether my noble friend is in a position
to give any comparables, but I think that local authorities
have to pay—or have had to pay—for Audit Commission
inspections and that it is the Audit Commission that
has set the rates. There must be comparables. Maybe
there are comparables which go either way; I do not
know.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we recognise
we are proposing a different model for policing
accountability from the previous model. I feel with a
number of the arguments which the noble Baronesses,
Lady Henig and Lady Harris, have made that they feel
the current system is superb and any different system
will be untested, untried, difficult and probably worse.
827
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[LORDS]
[LORD WALLACE OF SALTAIRE]
Therefore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of
Richmond, said, we must insert safeguards; I think
this would insert belt, braces and string as well.
The intention behind Clause 85—and the role of
HMIC—is that HMIC should be there to inspect the
professional forces. That is its job. That is what it does
extremely well. In terms of funding, regular inspections
will be paid for, as now, by the Home Office. The
subsection which relates to police and crime panels
being able to request additional inspections of part of
the functions of those forces is precisely to give them
added flexibility to request such inspections when
needed. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable to
say, as this clause says, that,
“such reasonable costs incurred or to be incurred in connection
with the inspection”,
should be reimbursed by the PCP.
In terms of who inspects the PCC, the whole
relationship between the police and crime panel and
the police and crime commissioner is intended to be
that the checks and balances are provided by the police
and crime panel. The regular check on the police and
crime commissioner is provided by the police and
crime panel. That is the process which we are trying to
build into the new model. To muddy the role of HMIC
by inspecting police and crime commissioners and
police and crime panels does not seem appropriate to
the model we propose. The model we are introducing
through the Bill is that HMIC should continue to
focus on the professional police forces and to report to
the public as well as the Secretary of State on that.
Police and crime commissioners will be held to account,
under scrutiny, on a regular basis by police and crime
panels. Police and crime panels are part of the structure
of local government and local authorities and, I am
sure, will continue to be held to account by their fellow
councillors, particularly if they vote through precepts
which rise rapidly year by year. On that basis, I hope
that I have provided some reassurance to the noble
Baroness, Lady Henig, although I am sure that she is
completely unpersuaded that any new system can possibly
be as good as that which we currently have. Nevertheless,
I hope that I have persuaded her to withdraw her
amendment.
10.45 pm
Baroness Henig: I thank the Minister for that response.
However, I do not think that he fully understood what
I was arguing. I was not arguing that everything is
wonderful in the present system; in fact, until recently,
police authorities were not inspected. It is only quite
recently that they became inspected, which had a
tremendously focusing impact. Police authorities operated
much more effectively once they were inspected, which
has taken place only in the past two or three years if
my memory serves me correctly. If elected councillors
sitting on a police authority can be inspected, I do not
understand why commissioners who have been directly
elected cannot be. I do not understand the difference:
they are both elected, albeit perhaps in different ways.
One reason why I have perhaps less confidence in
the panels than the Minister is that I have yet to
believe—and we are now on Report—that they will
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
828
have any power. We keep talking about checks and
balances. The panels have some rather pathetic veto
powers requiring a two-thirds majority vote, but their
input is not that great. I do not have much confidence
that they will have any great impact on the way in
which a commissioner operates.
My standpoint, funnily enough, has nothing to do
with police authorities working well or not; my standpoint
is the public. The whole point of the system is to serve
the public. One of the strengths of policing in this
country is local accountability to local people. It is
local people that I am thinking of. They should have
the reassurance on some sort of regular basis that
commissioners are operating effectively—I do not see
that there is anything wrong with that. I find it difficult
to accept the repeated suggestion that I am asking for
all sorts of radical and extreme things, when it seems
that very sensible and basic issues are being raised. All
I am suggesting is that it would be sensible for
commissioners to be inspected, because it would give
the public reassurance.
I am sorry that the Minister finds that so difficult to
understand, because it seems to me to be very
straightforward. However, in view of the lateness of
the hour and because I do not want to test the patience
of the House any further, I beg leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment 236 withdrawn.
Amendments 237 and 238 not moved.
Clause 87 : Inspection programmes and frameworks
Amendment 239 not moved.
Schedule 11 : Crime and disorder strategies
Amendment 239A not moved.
Amendments 240 and 241
Moved by Baroness Browning
240: Schedule 11, page 145, line 42, at end insert—
“( ) In subsection (1), after “section 5” insert “, with
subsection (1A),”.
( ) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In exercising functions under subsection (1), apart from
devolved Welsh functions (as defined by section 5(8)), each of the
responsible authorities for a local government area must have
regard to the police and crime objectives set out in the police and
crime plan for the police area which comprises or includes that
local government area.”.”
241: Schedule 11, page 146, line 22, leave out “5(7)” and
insert “5(8)”
Amendments 240 and 241 agreed.
Amendment 242
Moved by Lord Ramsbotham
242: Before Clause 91, insert the following new Clause—
“Status of British Transport Police Force
(1) After section 1(2)(c) of the Police Act 1996 insert—
“(d) the area over which the British Transport Police Force
has jurisdiction.”
829
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[13 JULY 2011]
(2) In section 30 of that Act insert—
“(2A) A member of the British Transport Police Force shall
have all the powers and privileges of a constable throughout
England and Wales and Scotland and the adjacent United Kingdom
waters.”
(3) In section 101 of that Act, in the definition of “chief
officer of police” insert—
“(d) in relation to the British Transport Police Force, the
Chief Constable of that Force;”.
(4) In section 1(2) of the Police (Property) Act 1997, in
inserted section (2B) insert—
“(d) the British Transport Police Authority.”
(5) Omit section 100 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security
Act 2001.”
Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I shall speak also to
Amendments 243, 271, 272, 304, 305 and 306. Since
all the amendments are to do with the British Transport
Police and the British Transport Police Authority, they
have been deliberately grouped together rather than
with specific clauses. They aim, as I said at Second
Reading, to,
“strengthen the Bill by increasing co-operation between the authority
and other police forces, particularly in counterterrorism and in
the run-up to the Olympics”.—[Official Report, 27/4/11; col. 173.]
I shall first outline the context in which the amendments
have been tabled and apologise to the House for being
unable to be here when they were debated in Committee.
Again, as I said at Second Reading, I am an unashamed
proponent of two-tier policing in this country, with a
national police service complemented by a number of
local and specialist forces. Bearing in mind that the
last royal commission on policing was in 1962 and
much has happened since then which suggests the
need for reform of the policing as extant at that time, I
was very disappointed to find that although called the
police reform Bill, there is very little in it about reform,
except about the governance of policing, which is not
the same thing.
However, these amendments are about long-needed
reform; they are an attempt to complete business that
was begun as long ago as October 2001, when the then
Government issued a consultation document entitled
Modernising the British Transport Police, which included
detailed proposals to bring it in line with Home Office
police forces in terms of accountability, status and
powers. It proposed, first, placing the jurisdiction of
British Transport Police constables over the railways
on a statutory basis; that was partly addressed in the
Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, which gave
them the powers and privileges of a Home Office
constable, not only over all railway property, but
throughout Great Britain in relation to railway matters.
It secondly proposed giving British Transport Police
constables jurisdiction outside the railways in certain
circumstances. This, again, was partly addressed in
the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001,
emergency legislation that followed 9/11 and other
terrorist attacks.
However, although welcoming these changes, the
Transport Police and its authority regarded them as
only partial introduction of what had been proposed.
Therefore, they tried to use the opportunity presented
by the August 2008 consultation that preceded the
Policing and Crime Act 2009 to address the identified
anomalies once and for all. They submitted a formal
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
830
request for a number of legislative changes that addressed
the issues of police powers and jurisdiction to which,
reprehensibly, they received no formal feedback from
the Home Office. Instead, there was no consultation
and they were surprised to find that Schedule 7 of the
Act stated that:
“Where a member of the British Transport Police Force is for
the time being under the direction and control of the chief officer
of another police force by virtue of a police force collaboration
agreement … the member shall have all the powers and privileges
of a member of that other force”.
Furthermore, no attempt was made to address an
added complication to co-operation that they had
raised, namely that the powers of jurisdiction of police
officers from Home Office forces were not extended to
match those of a British Transport Police officer,
which include the ability to police in England, Wales
and across the border in Scotland.
Charitably, the British Transport Police assumed
that these continued inequities were not intended, but
resulted from a lack of knowledge about the anomalies
that resulted from gaps in existing legislation. Therefore,
they continued to look for opportunities to obtain
parity of police-officer powers regardless of employing
force, the next opportunity coming in September 2010
with the coalition Government’s consultation before
the Bill, entitled Policing in the 21st Century; Reconnecting
Police and the People.
The Bill envisages annual police plans, covering
areas of the country yet to be determined, drawn up
by elected police and crime commissioners. Assuming
that, in logic, this must include all police forces, the
Transport Police, in its response to the consultation,
pointed out that, as the specialist national force for the
railways, cross-border working was part of its day-to-day
business. It welcomed the fact that, in drawing up their
plans, PCCs would have to look beyond their own
force borders,
“under a strong duty to collaborate, in the interests of value for
money and to tackle cross border, national and international
crimes”.
The British Transport Police also said that it was
keen to ensure that the different governance structures
between it and its authority and their Home Office
colleagues and their authorities did not create difficulties
in the excellent communications and partnership working
that currently existed between them. There must be,
for example, adequate provision for communications
between the authorities and committees of the Transport
Police, the Civil and Nuclear Constabulary, the MoD
Police and police and crime commissioners, if they
subsume the role currently filled by the Association of
Police Authorities.
I mention this not to criticise the Bill so much as to
suggest that these amendments to do with the British
Transport Police ought to be government amendments.
Identified anomalies that inhibit national and local
policing have existed for far too long and have been
drawn to the attention of both the Home Office and
the Department for Transport over a number of years.
Amendments 242, 271 and 272 are designed to rectify
the status anomaly; Amendment 243 is designed to
provide the opportunity for the Transport Police to
protect the travelling public by taking preventive action
against possible sex offenders.
831
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[LORDS]
[LORD RAMSBOTHAM]
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will speak to
Amendments 271, 272 and 304 to 306, covering licensing
and firearms. All are designed to save money and
better protect the public.
I appeal to the Minister to accept the opportunity
created by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility
Bill to complete this unfinished business. I know that
both she and the Transport Police and its authority
have been in contact with the Department for Transport
and I look forward to hearing what may have been
agreed between them. I accept that she will be unable
to promise more than that the issues I have raised will
now be tackled positively and not allowed to drag on
as they have over the past 10 years. In that anticipation,
I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I speak in
favour of the seven amendments. I start by expressing
my appreciation to the Minister for the constructive
approach she has adopted in conversations with both
the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and me about the
role, powers and jurisdictions of the BTP. I know that
she has written to the Transport Minister about these
amendments and I hope that when she answers the
debate she will be able to say that the Government at
least accept the spirit of them, if not accept them tonight.
I know from what the Minister said in Committee
that she is particularly concerned about licensing issues
and the difficulties that the BTP and the travelling
public face with anti-social behaviour on the railway
fuelled by excessive drinking. I shall come to the
amendments which deal with that issue in a moment.
I would like to add a word to what the noble Lord,
Lord Ramsbotham, said about jurisdiction. This is
covered in Amendment 242. The British Transport
Police Authority has sent me a copy of a letter which
was sent on 7 July from the chief constable of the
force, Andrew Trotter, to the Minister of State for
Transport, Theresa Villiers. In a paragraph headed
“Jurisdiction”, he says:
“The current legislative anomalies mean that there are a
number of caveats applied to the powers of BTP officers, these
are provided not through our own Railways and Transport Safety
Act 2003, but the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001
(section 100(2) and (3)) which pre-dated it. The amendment laid
before the House of Lords seeks to remove the ambiguity the
current legislation creates through these caveats. If the amendment
is approved, in the eyes of the public and the rail industry, it will
have no obvious impact on day-to-day policing of the railways
and I can assure you it will have no impact on costs or other
resource implications. It will however put BTP officers on the
same footing as their Home Office colleagues when not physically
on rail property or carrying out duties related to the railways, i.e.
they will be warranted officers not civilians”.
Amendments 271 and 272 deal with the Firearms
Act. I read in the latest issue of Railnews, which is the
monthly newspaper for rail industry staff, that the
Government have approved the creation of an armed
response unit for the BTP. That paper states:
“Transport secretary Philip Hammond said the Home Office
go-ahead was not in response to any specific threat but would
reduce the burden on other police forces which provide armed
support to the BTP”.
That is all well and good and it is what the BTP chief
constable asked for, but it appears that BTP officers,
once selected and through the selection process, will
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
832
have to apply individually for firearms certificates.
This seems ludicrous and flies in the face of the Home
Secretary’s determination to reduce bureaucracy in
the police service—a point made by the chief constable
in his letter to Theresa Villiers. The cost in direct
financial terms and in opportunity costs to the BTP and
Home Office forces to process more than 100 applications
is completely avoidable simply by giving the BTP the
same powers as those expressly quoted in the Act for
the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Serious Organised
Crime Agency. It also creates a delay in trained officers
being fully operational. Our amendments avoid that
and I hope the Minister will feel able to accept them
too.
11 pm
I turn finally to Amendments 304, 305 and 306.
Amendments 304 and 305 seek to name the BTP as a
responsible authority under the Licensing Act so it
can object to a licence application, revoke a licence for
premises located within the jurisdiction of the railway
or object to a temporary licence. Amendment 306
explicitly provides for the BTP to receive the late-night
levy from the licensing authority. Bearing in mind that
so much BTP officer time is spent policing alcohol-related
crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour, it seems
most unfair that the BTP is not able to get some
payment from the levy.
I have a number of statistics relating to offences on
railway stations. The one that apparently has the greatest
difficulty is Leeds station which has 18 venues, including
a nightclub and a hotel. Alcohol-related offences at
Leeds have increased by 122 per cent in the past five
years. I will not go into any more detail at this late
hour, but I am sure the Minister will agree with me
that this is an unacceptable situation. There are few
things more unpleasant or potentially terrifying for
rail passengers to face, particularly women travelling
on their own late at night, than a bunch of drunken
yobbos terrorising a train or a station platform. We
cannot claim that our amendments will solve this
problem but the BTP and we certainly believe it will
help them tackle it.
I hope very much that the Minister can accept the
spirit of these amendments. The previous Government
attempted to do that and were not able to produce
exactly the right solution. She has the opportunity to
produce a lasting solution for the future of the BTP’s
powers and jurisdictions. If she does that, the travelling
public, railway staff and the officers of the British
Transport Police will be greatly in her debt.
Lord Berkeley: I support all these amendments, too.
I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham,
and my noble friend Lord Faulkner have said because
I fully support all their contributions, but it is worth
pointing out that the BTP is pretty unique as a very
specialist police force. I think the statistics are that half
of its officers tend to operate in London, both on the
Underground and on the main line, and the rest are
split between the main line elsewhere in the country
and Network Rail.
When it comes to dealing with incidents—whether
it is some of the bad behaviour that my noble friend
Lord Faulkner was mentioning or cable theft on the
833
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[13 JULY 2011]
railway, which is a very serious issue and delays many
trains—the BTP’s specialist knowledge in working
safely on the lines, where there are sometimes high-speed
trains and which sometimes can be electrified, is probably
unique. When one has been delayed on the railways
and has seen the difference in response professionalism
between the local force that probably has not had
much experience of this and the BTP, it brings into
focus how important it is that the BTP’s expertise is
maintained and enhanced.
It is absolutely essential that the ideas behind these
amendments—that the BTP is put on the same footing
as Home Office forces—are accepted. I hope the noble
Baroness will accept the principle, but I wonder whether
there is a problem because the BTP is the responsibility
of the Department of Transport and other forces are
the responsibility of the Home Office. I sometimes
detect a kind of tension between the two, which the
two previous noble Lords have also alluded to. I hope
that these amendments will help to improve relationships
and—something I see as being thoroughly important—
enable BTP officers to move around, not just on the
railways but in adjacent areas where they need to do
their work without the constraint of having to apply
to go into another force’s territory.
I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness
will say in response and I thoroughly support these
amendments.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, I shall
make only three brief points. Like the others who have
spoken, I should like to hear what the Minister will say
in response to the case that has been put forward.
When I spoke to these amendments in Committee, I
am afraid I got into the history of the BTP but I will
not repeat that. Noble Lords will know that my concern
for and interest in the branch is real.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, gave us an
interesting history and pointed out some of the difficulties
that the BTP has faced in trying to make its case to the
Government. Those are very powerful and persuasive
points. The additional comments from my noble friends
Lord Faulkner and Lord Berkeley have made a pretty
irresistible case. It is time to look at how the geographic
forces interrelate with the BTP and vice versa. The
safety of the travelling public and the interests of all
concerned would benefit from that. I am concerned
that it is perhaps more complex than has been said in
the past few minutes. Therefore, we shall need to look
at that sometime. However, I hope the Minister will
reassure us that she will not leave it to ordinary
processes and that, on this occasion, she will tackle
what is required positively to give us some hope that
the situation will not be allowed to drag on, and so
that we get some resolution to these points.
Baroness Browning: My Lords, I am very grateful to
all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
I shall start by speaking to Amendments 242, 243,
271 and 272. In Committee I was grateful for noble
Lords’ comments about the importance of integrated
policing between the British Transport Police and the
geographic police forces. This is why my honourable
friend the Minister of State for Transport and I fully
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
834
agree that these changes merit closer examination. I
can assure noble Lords that, in taking this matter
forward between us, there is certainly no tension between
the two Ministers involved. I hope we shall meet fairly
soon to set out and discuss what is behind these
amendments and how we might take that forward in a
practical way. I pledge to take a personal interest in
the progress of this.
The proposed amendments cover a range of detailed
and technical changes. These would significantly affect
the status, jurisdiction and powers of the British Transport
Police. It is therefore essential that the intentions of
the amendments proposed are fully understood and
that the consequences of the changes, for both the
British Transport Police and wider policing, are closely
examined. In particular, we need to ensure that the
seemingly simple and straightforward legislative changes
sought do not bring with them any unintended
consequences. For example, Amendment 242 would
change Section 1 of the Police Act 1996 to make,
“the area over which the British Transport Police Force has
jurisdiction”,
into a police area for the purposes of the Act. The
effect of this would be that references to police areas
in any other legislation would apply to the police area
of the British Transport Police, as defined in the
amendment. A quick search has shown that there are
370 occurrences of the phrase “police area” in primary
legislation. The impact of extending them all to the
British Transport Police would be wide-ranging.
I have some detailed illustrations of what that
would mean, including matters to do with the Children
Act 2004, local safeguarding children boards and the
Police (Property) Act. However, given the lateness of
the hour, I hope noble Lords will understand that very
careful and detailed consideration is needed before
putting this into primary legislation. However, I am in
touch with colleagues in the Department for Transport,
with a view to exploring solutions to this to provide
the necessary powers and jurisdiction that the British
Transport Police seeks and which will enable it to
deliver policing of the railways as efficiently and effectively
as possible and without unintended consequences. I
have discussed this with colleagues in the Department
for Transport, and this examination and seeking to
find the right way in which to put this into primary
legislation will be an ongoing exercise for us. I assure
noble Lords that, when appropriate changes are identified,
my department will be prepared to consider making
the necessary changes within suitable primary legislation.
Although I cannot commit to putting the provision at
this very late stage into the tail-end of this legislation,
we will, as these proposals come forward and are
validated, look to put them into primary legislation in
future Bills. I understand that there is quite a bit of
Home Office legislation coming up the track, if noble
Lords will forgive the pun, and I would hope that
there would be opportunities.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and
Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for their amendments
and I thank noble Lords for the support that has been
given to them around the House. However, on the
basis of what I have said, I ask them not to press their
amendments.
835
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[LORDS]
[BARONESS BROWNING]
I turn to Amendments 304 to 306, which address
licensing. These amendments seek to put the British
Transport Police on a par with the 43 territorial police
forces in England and Wales for the purposes of
alcohol licensing. I can see why that might seem a
reasonable proposition at first glance. However, I am
not able to accept the amendments, as I explained in
some detail in Committee last month. However, I shall
briefly reiterate the reasons.
Amendment 304 would make the British Transport
Police a responsible authority under the Licensing
Act 2003, which requires licensing authorities
automatically to notify responsible authorities about
licence reviews. Licence applicants, who will be local
businesses or individuals, must also send copies to
their local responsible authorities. In this Bill, we are
increasing the list of responsible authorities to include
health bodies and licensing authorities in their own
right. We do not think it would be helpful to extend
the list further to include the British Transport Police.
Licensing is administered by local authorities, which
make licensing decisions that reflect the needs of the
local area. For this reason, the chief officer of police
for the geographic area is a responsible authority
under the Act. Likewise, other responsible authorities
have as their focus the geographic area in which the
premises are situated.
The British Transport Police is a broadly nongeographic force, with a specific, non-regional jurisdiction.
It covers the transport network as a whole and so will
not be relevant to some licensing authority areas. We
do not think it would always be obvious in a given
local area to which part of the British Transport
Police licensing applicants should send their licensing
forms. On top of that, the Government are unwilling
to add to the burden of on businesses by adding
responsible authorities unnecessarily.
Of course, the British Transport Police has expert
knowledge on alcohol-related late-night crime and
disorder around transport hubs and on the transport
network. We expect the British Transport Police to
have effective lines of communication with the geographic
constabularies and that it will continue to use them in
future to raise any issues it has relating to alcohol
licensing. In addition, I point out that because under
this Bill we are removing the test of vicinity from the
Licensing Act 2003, it will in future be open for
anyone, including members of the British Transport
Police, to make representations to the licensing authority
in their own right. Applications for new licences do get
advertised, and we taking steps to require licensing
authorities to publicise these online. I hope that would
be of help to the British Transport Police. Making the
British Transport Police a responsible authority would
cause unnecessary bureaucracy for licensing applicants.
Amendment 305 seeks to make the British Transport
Police a relevant person for the purposes of allowing it
to object to temporary events notices. Residents’
organisations told us that, after crime, noise was their
greatest concern in relation to temporary events. We
are extending the right to object to the environmental
health authority and allowing them and the police to
object on the grounds of all four licensing objectives.
We think that provides adequate protection for residents
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
836
while again minimising unnecessary bureaucracy. I am
confident that if the British Transport Police has
concerns about temporary events, it can raise these in
the course of their liaison with their local constabularies.
11.15 pm
Finally, Amendment 306 would make the British
Transport Police a recipient of the late-night levy
funds alongside the geographic police forces. The levy
is a means of raising revenue from licensed premises
that sell alcohol late at night so as to ensure that such
premises contribute to the costs of policing the late-night
economy. I mentioned in Committee that, while I
recognised that the British Transport Police must deal
with late-night crime and disorder, its role is more
limited. Its night-time role is restricted to areas where
there is little or no public use of late-night railway
transport. This applies to many licensing authority
areas.
In any event, the geographic constabularies bear
the overwhelming burden of late-night policing costs.
The levy clauses will allow licensing authorities to
retain up to 30 per cent of the net revenue to fund
services in the late night, such as taxi marshals. Licensing
authorities could decide, at their discretion, to give
some of their retained funds to the British Transport
Police in those areas where the BTP may incur specific
costs of policing alcohol-related crime and disorder in
the night-time economy. In addition, the Government
have retained the power to amend the beneficiaries of
the levy in regulations, should it transpire that it is
desirable specifically to pass some of the levy funds to
bodies such as the British Transport Police.
We have the greatest respect for the BTP, which
carries out the difficult task of tackling crime on our
transport network. However, for the reasons that I
have given, I ask your Lordships to withdraw the
amendments.
Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I thank the Minister
for that very encouraging and positive response. I also
thank her personally for the care that she has taken to
meet with us and take on board the points that we
have made and transfer them to the Department for
Transport as well.
I think we are all encouraged, but I hope that the
Minister will forgive me if I sound a note of caution,
because promises have been made to the British Transport
Police since 2001. I ask the Minister if we could now
have from the Department for Transport and indeed
the Home Office an action plan showing who is to do
what and by when, which will be reported back to this
House so that we can keep in touch with what is
actually happening. We have been here before over the
last 10 years and people have been frightened, I suspect,
by the figures that she might have quoted to us and put
the matter in the “too difficult” file. It is not a “too
difficult” file; it is a file that must be actioned. Therefore,
if I say that I am prepared to withdraw the amendments
tonight but perhaps return to the subject on Third
Reading briefly, I hope that at that stage the Minister
might be able to assure this House that the action plan
that I am calling for will be implemented so that these
things really will happen rather than be allowed to
wither on the vine.
837
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
[13 JULY 2011]
Baroness Browning: I am very grateful to the noble
Lord. I am sure that he is aware that Third Reading is
next week—Tuesday or Wednesday, I believe. It was
not my intention to have met with the Minister of
State in the Department for Transport by then. However,
I can assure him that I am planning to meet with her
before the House returns in September. I think that
she and I need to have an across-the-table discussion
about the sort of thing that the noble Lord has mentioned.
I am in favour of action plans and timelines. I quite
like the concept of project management in this area.
However, I do not want to talk it up too much, given
that the noble Lord has told us that this has been on
the table since 2001.
All I can say is that both my right honourable
friend in the Department for Transport and I are
minded to move this along as fast as we can. We will of
course engage the British Transport Police itself in this
negotiation. I am quite sure that it will relay to the
noble Lord whether it feels we are making progress or
not. However, as we make progress I will endeavour,
on a very informal basis, to ensure that noble Lords
who have expressed an interest in this are kept informed
of the progress being made. I am quite sure that if we
do not make that progress, the noble Lord will call me
back to this Dispatch Box pretty rapidly.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility
that but we of course have the opportunity, when the
Bill goes back to the other place and comes back here,
for progress to be made. It is terribly important, as the
Minister has clearly realised, that we maintain the
momentum rather than let this matter die. I beg leave
to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 242 withdrawn.
Amendment 243 not moved.
Clause 91 : Collaboration agreements
Amendment 244
Moved by Baroness Browning
244: Clause 91, page 59, line 23, at end insert—
“( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under this
section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been
laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of
Parliament.”
Amendment 244 agreed.
Consideration on Report adjourned.
Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I am very grateful
for that. I do not know whether I have the right to say
838
House adjourned at 11.21 pm.
GC 303
Arrangement of Business
[13 JULY 2011]
Grand Committee
Wednesday, 13 July 2011.
Arrangement of Business
Announcement
3.45 pm
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes):
My Lords, as is usual on these occasions, if there is a
Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn
as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after
approximately 10 minutes.
We resume on Amendment 83ZA. I understand
that on the last occasion, Amendment 83ZA had
already been put and that a lot of the debate has
already taken place. If any noble Lord wishes to take
up the cudgels on this amendment before the Minister
responds, he or she should do so now.
Education Bill
Committee (6th Day)
3.46 pm
Relevant document: 15th Report form the Delegated
Powers Committee, 13th Report from the Joint Committee
on Human Rights.
Debate on Amendment 83ZA resumed.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, this amendment is grouped
with Amendment 107C tabled in my name and that of
the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I want to add to what was
said towards the end of the debate on Monday. I
should say that I agree with every word that the noble
Lord, Lord Willis, said. He is correct that technology
is not an add-on, something it would be nice to have or
that we ought to be looking at. Technology in education
today is absolutely fundamental. Here I must declare a
series of important interests. When I worked for the
department for six years between 1997 and 2003, I
became fascinated by the impact of new technology in
education. On leaving the department, I became engaged
with and subsequently joined the board of Promethean,
a company producing interactive whiteboards. I still
sit on that board. I am also chairman of Futurelab,
which is an educational research charity. It is important
to say that the reason I joined the board of Futurelab
was to try and ensure that—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I
may intervene on the noble Lord for a second. Could I
ask our expert in the corner whether the microphones
are switched on because we cannot hear the noble
Lord, Lord Puttnam, awfully well? Perhaps I may also
suggest that noble Lords make sure that their mobile
phones are turned off because it is their phones which
are causing that curious buzzing noise.
Lord Puttnam: Thank you, Lord Chairman. I could
go into detail about why I think this is so important,
but perhaps I should go straight to something I read
the other day which is absolutely factual. It concerns a
teaching assistant and special needs teacher called
Bev Evans at Pembroke Dock Community School in
Education Bill
GC 304
Wales. Bev Evans puts lesson plans up on the web
using the TES Resources website. Over the past few
years she has shared 276 teaching resources on the
web with other teachers. As of last month, her work
has been downloaded 1,345,330 times by 237,364
educators in 169 countries. Teachers save an average of
30 minutes per resource, the equivalent of 672,665
hours of teaching time, which is worth 431 teaching
years. I cite that because it is a fantastic illustration of
the way that technology has the ability to transform
teaching and learning. These figures and indeed the
whole concept would have been unimaginable a decade
ago, so the role that technology now plays in education
is fundamental.
To put it kindly, I am afraid that, at present, the
White Paper is technology-light. I am concerned about
that because the whole purpose is to start a serious
conversation both at the department and with the
Minister. We need the reassurance of knowing that
this subject will not be like discussing the adaptation
to or mitigation of climate change with someone who
does not really accept that climate change is an important
reality. This is a reality. The noble Lord, Lord Willis,
sensibly cited the example of electricity. It is absolutely
true to say that in the early part of the last century, the
difference between the attainments of some children
over others depended on whether there was electricity
in their homes. That would allow them to do homework
in the evenings, whereas those without electricity
could not. Technology is as fundamental as that. That
may sound like a large claim, but it is not an irrelevant
one.
I am also puzzled because two weeks ago the Secretary
of State, Mr Gove, made a really remarkable speech at
the Royal Society. The second half of that absolutely
nailed and eulogised the use of technology. He was
completely clear as to how important the adequate but
intelligent use of technology was to our competitiveness.
He was very clear about the way technology is being
used in other countries successfully and that we had to
get our act together and make a success of it. He could
not have been more crystal clear on that. Yet none of
that speech is contained at the moment anywhere in
the White Paper as I read it. It would be good for the
Government, the country and, I suggest, the Minister
if it were. The purpose of these two amendments is to
try and ensure that that finds its way into the Bill and
the Government prove for good and all that they are
absolutely committed to technology within teaching
and learning.
Lord Peston: Before the Minister speaks, I unfortunately
missed the last meeting of your Lordships’ Committee.
I broadly support what is said here but would like, as
someone who spends a lot of time using this sort of
technology, to offer one or two caveats. First, I know
of no other way of wasting more time than in getting
on to the net. It is not merely ordinary time-wasting
because it is addictive. I am keen for our young people
to get involved in all this but we should not be naïve
about it. When I come into your Lordships’ House, I
am one of the early arrivals at 8.30. By 9.30 I am fed
up to the teeth and immediately log-on. I start typing
into my machine. Some two hours go by and I have
looked at The Wasteland by TS Eliot—you can download
GC 305
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD PESTON]
it for free, which surprises me. I then begin to wonder
if that is a better poem than The Love Song of J Alfred
Prufrock. That is all good for young people except for
the amount of time that it takes. Equally, one should
not be naïve in assuming that they will do as I do and
look for intellectual, aesthetic and scientific things.
They will spend a lot of time mucking around. I am
not saying a word against any of this being the right
path to go down—quite the contrary. We really must
go down this path but I wanted to add those words of
caution.
The other words of caution already emerged in your
Lordships’ earlier deliberations. For a lot of young
people, we are talking about a great deal of money. As
much as I support my noble friend’s Amendment 107C,
it would cost quite a lot of money. Also, one should
not forget how many homes still do not have computers.
That was perfectly clear from the earlier discussion. It
again troubled me a little that—I have forgotten where
I read it now, but it was apropos of what is developing
in California—increasingly if you do not submit your
work via computer it ceases to be acceptable. Are we
absolutely certain that we want to be completely committed
to that path? I am quite certain that, were our successors
to read my speech a generation from now, they would
say, “Well, they really had some old fogies in those
days, didn’t they?”. By then, it will just be the norm but
we should just be a little cautious about the path to
that norm. Nothing of what I have said should be
interpreted as meaning anything other than support
for technology in schools. As I say, the world wide web
is a fantastic treasure trove of valuable things. We
certainly want our young people to use it. I simply add
the caveat that there is a little more to this than just
saying what a wonderful thing that is.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): First, I agree very
much with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord
Puttnam, and with the powerful speech made by my
noble friend Lord Willis on Monday, when we last
discussed this before being rudely interrupted. My
noble friend was absolutely right that the effective use
of technology clearly supports good teaching and
helps raise standards.
As he argues clearly, it is not an either/or between,
for example, Shakespeare and technology. I have had
that conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam,
before. He made the case powerfully to me that technology
can bring Shakespeare within reach of people for
whom the traditional way of books would be much
harder; it can bring it to life in a way that the Arden set
might not.
My noble friend was right to suggest on Monday
that there has been too much emphasis on the technology
itself, the kit, and the idea that we could transform
teaching simply by spending money on computers or
whiteboards. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam,
agrees with that. By the same token, I accept that there
are far more exciting ways of learning than just by
Latin primer.
One point that was not raised about technology is
the fact that we have an extraordinarily successful
market in educational technology in the UK. We are a
Education Bill
GC 306
leader, so there are strong commercial reasons why we
should support it. We want to encourage sharing of
evidence of effective practice in the use of technology
and improved teacher skills in using it. My noble
friend and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, have given
me a useful nudge—I think that that is the word—or
prod about the importance of that.
We are talking to a number of interested parties—
school leaders, professional bodies, educational charities,
industry, academics and other experts—about how the
department should take forward its thinking about
technology. Given the pace of change, we think it
important to allow schools and teachers themselves,
working with industry, to respond to the changes. We
want to give teachers the freedom to choose how to
use it to create lessons that engage their pupils and
enable them to achieve their full potential. The noble
Lord, Lord Puttnam, gave a powerful example of how
that is happening. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam,
and my noble friend talked on Monday about having a
conversation with the department. I would certainly
welcome such a conversation and invite both of them
and any other noble Lords with an interest to help us
develop our thinking.
Access to computers and the internet is an important
point. Clearly, that can have benefits for the whole
family. We know that many schools offer access to
ICT before and after normal school hours to help
pupils without access at home. Other schools are
working with charities such as the e-Learning Foundation
and the commercial sector to provide access. We want
more of that.
On resources, the financial situation is obviously
difficult. We seek to support disadvantaged pupils
directly through the pupil premium. The premium
enables schools to decide for themselves how best to
spend additional resources to support disadvantaged
pupils. On Monday, my noble friend gave the figures
for the extent to which there is a disparity between rich
and poor—unsurprisingly—of access to computers.
The premium may well include providing computers
and broadband connectivity if the schools think that
that is the most effective approach for particular children
in the circumstances that they face.
The Government certainly recognise the important
role that technology can play in supporting education.
We are considering that within government. I ask
my noble friend Lord Willis—and, as I said, any
other noble Lords who would be interested in such
conversation—to help us with our thinking. I certainly
accept the fundamental importance of the subject, as
my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set
out in the recent speech to which the noble Lord, Lord
Puttnam, referred. On that basis, I ask my noble friend
to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough: I warmly thank the
Minister for his thoughtful comments and for the way
in which he wishes to tackle this issue and take it
forward. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Peston and
Lord Puttnam, for their support. I confess that the
comments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, reminded
me of St Bede, who wanted a book out of the Vatican
library and set off walking from St Albans all the way
to get it. You can imagine that when Caxton brought
GC 307
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
the printing press to Britain, people said, “It’s not the
same as having to walk to Rome for it”. We have to be
careful, and I take the comments that he made.
What excites me about the investigation—having
been watching my wife recently, who has just found
Google as well as most shopping sites—is the excitement
of seeing children find new information and new
ideas. That is what learning is about; it is not simply
dealing with what you are taught but finding out
information yourself. Experiments have been done in
Africa where solar-powered computers have just been
left for young children to explore them, and they have
been able to access Google and information across the
world without any further training. Youngsters today
are hardwired into this technology, and to be able to
use it is important.
I looked, as did the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, at
the Secretary of State’s speech and was hugely encouraged
by what he had to say. I mentioned in my earlier
remarks that I do not believe that the Secretary of
State is a Luddite. He sometimes hides his passion for
technology under a bushel or behind volumes of
Shakespeare but it is important to take it out. He talks
about Du Sautoy, the Li Ka-Shing fellowship and
Professor Khan’s work; these are remarkable initiatives
to bring learning to millions of youngsters around the
world. We need to be part of that, but you can do so
only if you have good technology in school that is
being used wisely and effectively and you have access
to that at home as well. As the Government, local
authorities and other statutory bodies move forward
with delivering more and more on the internet—rightly,
in my view—it is children who become the educators
of the future. It is for that reason that I hope that this
will be taken forward.
I thank the Minister for his comments. We will take
up his offer of a meeting with him and his officials.
With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment 83ZA withdrawn.
Clause 20 : Requirement for schools to participate in
international surveys
Amendment 83A not moved.
Clause 20 agreed.
Amendment 84 withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed.
Schedule 7 agreed.
Clause 22 agreed.
Amendment 85
Moved by Baroness Perry of Southwark
85: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to assign point scores
(1) Ofqual shall, on request, assign a point score to each grade
of a qualification that is taken at any independent school as part
of their Key Stage 4 curriculum.
Education Bill
GC 308
(2) The point scores so assigned shall bear an appropriate
relationship to the scores assigned to GCSE qualifications.
(3) Ofqual may make an appropriate charge for this service.
(4) All qualifications to which such point scores have been
assigned shall be recorded, in an appropriate fashion, in school
performance tables.”
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I move this amendment
on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas, who I think
is rowing for the Lords at the moment. As is quite
clear from the wording, the amendment asks the
Government to consider whether it is necessary for
only qualifications that are accredited by Ofqual to be
counted into the points score for individual schools. It
is now not only independent schools but many others
that offer the international baccalaureate, for example,
and other professional and vocational qualifications
may not be accredited by Ofqual but are accredited by
other perfectly respectable and widely acknowledged
bodies. As I understand it, Ofqual has within its remit
only about 15 per cent of all qualifications; the other
85 per cent are variously accredited by other organisations,
many of which, as I say, are themselves well accredited.
The purpose of my noble friend’s amendment is to
ask the Government to consider whether they should
collect data on all qualifications gained, assuming that
they have proper provenance and whether or not they
are within the empire of Ofqual. On his behalf, I beg
to move.
Lord Lingfield: My Lords, I rather support the
amendment because, as my noble friend Lady Perry
said, a large number of schools, not just in the state
sector but in the independent sector, are considering
innovation as regards examinations. A number of very
grand independent schools can consider these and not
worry about any point scoring that comes out in
league tables throughout the country. However, many
other schools cannot afford to take these initiatives in
a way that they might wish to. This is a good idea. I
am not certain what the minutiae of it could be, but I
very much hope that the Minister will take away the
point made by my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lady
Perry and look at it carefully.
While we are on the subject of Ofqual, noble Lords
will remember that huge difficulties were mentioned in
the newspapers during the previous round of examinations
which did not show some of the awarding bodies in a
very good light. I understand that there were nine
incidents overall. I am sure that the Minister will
correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is
that Ofqual can impose two types of sanction on the
awarding bodies—first, a rap over the knuckles, which
may not be very effective; and, secondly, the nuclear
option of striking them off the list, which may not be
in any way suitable and could cause great difficulties.
Therefore, will the Minister and his colleagues consider
a third option that could involve a series of fines for
various circumstances that would add seriously to the
sanctions available to Ofqual? Perhaps some of the
difficulties that arose last year and caused distress to
pupils and schools will not arise in the future?
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I support
the remarks that have just been made. Ofqual is in its
early stages; it has set off on what is essentially a new
GC 309
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD SUTHERLAND OF HOUNDWOOD]
path with new powers given on the Floor of this
House, among other places. It is important that Ofqual
has the powers and flexibility to maintain a reputation
that will be essential if standards are to be properly
observed in this country.
Lord Boswell of Aynho: My Lords, very briefly, this
is my maiden contribution to this consideration in
Committee of the Bill. I am a former Minister, and
perhaps I should formally declare that I am a fellow
of City and Guilds, although I have no operational
responsibilities there.
I also warm to this idea. There was a time—if noble
Lords wish to look it up; as I recall, it was Section 24
of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992—when
it was in the hands of the Minister of the day, who
happened to be me, to exercise a kind of nuclear
option whereby everything that was not authorised
could be extinguished. That is an extreme version and
one that every year we fought off enacting. I am very
glad that we did. The world is a much more protean
place now. I happen recently to have had correspondence
with the Minister’s colleagues in the department about
some very sensible input by the French inspector
general of education, which I had not expected to be
made in quite the tones that it was. It certainly was not
insular.
We should allow Ofqual, as a new institution, the
maximum slack to pursue its interests and duties.
There are concerns about the quality of the examination
system, although I suspect—given the sheer industrial
volume of what is processed through the system, including
the number of entries and scripts—it is perhaps not
surprising that mistakes are made from time to time.
However, at least let us not ask Ofqual to confine its
activities to a narrow schedule in presenting the
achievements of schools and the options that it can
take. My message to the Minister would be to keep as
much flexibility as we reasonably can.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet: My Lords, this is also
my maiden intervention in this Bill. I support the final
comments that were made, for two reasons. First, I
declare an interest: I work with and support EAL, a
bespoke awarding body. Its view is that the extremes
that are currently available are really quite worrying.
Secondly, and importantly for it, if we do not have
those opportunities to bring to a halt and remedy the
situation, it does no good for those awarding bodies
that try very hard to make sure that they work very
well. For those reasons, I support those comments.
Perhaps the Minister will think about whether there is
something in between, but certainly that something
detrimental should happen if things are not working
out well.
Lord Hill of Oareford: My Lords, on the core point
of this amendment, we certainly want to create a
system that encourages all schools to offer high quality
qualifications and gives pupils and parents the clearest
possible information. To achieve this, first, we are
committed to giving everyone access to the underlying
data on all the qualifications taken in schools, in both
the independent and state sectors. We plan to publish
Education Bill
GC 310
all the information the department holds on schools in
a single place in a way that is accessible to everyone.
We have made some steps already in opening up
information on qualifications and we intend to do
more. This puts parents in a stronger position to judge
whether a school is meeting their child’s needs.
However, qualifications reported in performance
tables should first be accredited by Ofqual in order to
secure standards. Ofqual’s scrutiny provides a safeguard
that qualifications are rigorous and challenging. It is
open to all the qualification-awarding organisations to
present the qualifications that they offer for accreditation.
The majority of qualifications taken in the independent
sector and all qualifications taken in the state sector
are accredited.
In recent years, school performance tables have
shown schools’ performances based on a system of
equivalencies, which have ascribed a points value to a
wide range of qualifications, and presented information
about schools’ performance based on those points.
However, sometimes that approach serves to conceal
more information than it reveals, and it treats very
different qualifications as if they are the same. Both
may be excellent, valuable qualifications in their own
right but they are not necessarily the same.
We want to try to give parents detailed and specific
information about qualifications and not lump it all
together. It is also the case that the current system of
equivalencies has created some perverse incentives for
schools to offer courses that score highly in performance
tables but are not necessarily in the best interests of
the children concerned. That is why we have accepted
Professor Wolf’s recommendation that we should replace
the existing performance table measures based on
equivalence points and try to introduce more sophisticated
criteria for deciding which qualifications should count
in performance tables in future.
My noble friend Lord Lucas is extremely experienced
in slicing and dicing data and I would welcome the
chance for him to come in and talk to officials about
whether there are ways that we can benefit from his
experience and put it to the most effective use.
My noble friend Lord Lingfield raised the possibility
of Ofqual taking a more nuanced approach, with a
range of sanctions rather than the current, as he
described it, rap over the knuckle or the nuclear option,
and that perhaps it would be sensible to have something
more graduated, maybe with some kind of fine. It is
clear from the comments that have been made that the
Government ought to think about that and reflect on
it, to see whether it could be made to work in a
sensible way, and to give Ofqual this kind of power as
it develops. I am very happy to take those suggestions
away and see whether that is something we can do and
come back to at a later date.
With that and with the earlier points on the
performance, I hope my noble friend feels able to
withdraw her amendment.
4.15 pm
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I am grateful to the
Minister for that reply and the detail that he offered.
I am particularly pleased that he is prepared to consider
GC 311
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
the possibility of Ofqual not being the only arbiter of
whether a qualification is acceptable. Perhaps I should
have said in introducing my noble friend’s amendment
that there are many good examples, in both state and
independent schools who work closely with their local
industry, of vocational or professional qualifications
given by, for example, some of the large worldwide
computer companies and so on. I would suggest that
those have a rather greater standing internationally
than that of simply Ofqual. It is an inhibitor on those
kinds of relationships between local industries and
schools if the qualifications that could form part of
the collaboration are not recognised in the school’s
league tables. I am sure that my noble friend will wish
to take this further and I would be happy to join in
those discussions. In the meanwhile, I will withdraw
the amendment.
Amendment 85 withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed.
Clause 24 : Abolition of the QCDA: consequential
amendments
Amendment 85A
Moved by Baroness Hughes of Stretford
85A: Clause 24, page 27, line 2, at beginning insert “Subject to
subsection (4),”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: Amendment 85A
and Amendment 86B, in my name and that of my
noble friend, relate to Clause 24. Among other things,
the clause transfers some of the functions of the
Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency
to the Secretary of State—principally, those functions
to do with the approval of attainment targets and the
development of the national curriculum and supporting
materials. Having already debated the demise of a
number of non-departmental public bodies and outside
agencies in the course of the Bill, noble Lords may
think that, among the many important issues concerning
us, it is not a priority to take up this issue with the
Government. This is not simply about saving another
quango. It is important to understand what the process
will be for changing the national curriculum if the
QCDA or some other similar, independent body does
not exist—as will be the case if Clause 24 is approved
unamended.
The argument deployed in the other place in support
of the abolition of the QCDA was that, to quote
Nick Gibb,
“responsibility for the curriculum has always rested with the
Secretary of State, both under the previous Administration and
this, and nothing is changing as far as that is concerned. The
QCDA simply acted on behalf of Government in advising and
helping to design the curriculum and, as such, no functions are
transferring from the QCDA to the Department”.—[Official
Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 24/3/11; col. 642.]
This is a partial and one-sided claim. Most importantly,
it fails to acknowledge the very important element of
independence and transparency, if not to the final
decision which the Secretary of State of the day will
take but to the process of review, and of recommendation
Education Bill
GC 312
and advice to the Secretary of State that ought in my
view to precede any changes to the curriculum. There
has in fact been an unbroken history of statutory
advisory bodies on such matters since the Board of
Education Act 1899. The first specific statutory NDPB
to advise on the curriculum and assessment was established
under the Education Reform Act 1988. Since then,
this role has been continued by one such body or
another—and for good reasons.
In 1988, in the debate on the establishment of that
first statutory non-departmental body, one of the
most respected educationists of the 20th century, Lord
Alexander of Potterhill, drew an analogy with the role
of the national curriculum in Germany in 1935 in
establishing Nazism. This may be an overly dramatic
analogy for the House of Lords in 2011, but the
independence of advice on curriculum and assessment
has always been an important point of principle for
this House in its debates. Current Ministers are prepared
to change or influence the curriculum without the
transparency of that independent advice or evidence.
For example, noble Lords may be aware of the systematic
change that has occurred in the guidance to primary
schools, in which every reference in the text to “phonics”,
introduced by the previous Government, has, without
discussion, been changed to “synthetic phonics”. Also,
the Government’s unilateral introduction of the
prescriptive EBacc shows unusual levels of willingness
to interfere.
This clause opens the door to any future Secretary
of State directly to change the national curriculum in
a way that is either politically motivated or, more
likely, implements the pet theories or hobby horses of
Ministers. Again, there is concern that we are already
beginning to witness that, with views being expressed
that, for example, history should be about the rote
learning of Kings and Queens and their dates, and in
the view of the current Minister for Schools that
education should principally be about core knowledge—
and core knowledge as he defines it. I am not saying
that those are not valid views—they may indeed be
valid—but they are contested by a wide range of views
in the profession. That contest and debate about what
is important ought to be transparent during any process
of review.
Amendments 85A and 85B would try to ensure that
the Secretary of State must demonstrate that the process
of review of the national curriculum is independent of
government. That would provide assurance to parents
and pupils about the content of the curriculum.
Amendment 86 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady
Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who
cannot be here today, would require an advisory board
to ensure some independence. In their amendment,
they are trying to reach the same point.
The department issued a statement which, I suspect,
was meant to allay our fears, but it compounds them.
Although the Secretary of State of the day will make
the final decisions about the national curriculum, what
matters is the process of consultation and review—its
comprehensiveness, impartiality, scope, transparency,
the independence of the analysis of the responses, and
the recommendations then made to the Secretary of
State, who may or may not accept them. Unless the
GC 313
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[BARONESS HUGHES OF STRETFORD]
process of reviewing consultation is independently
conducted so that people can be assured that it is
comprehensive and takes into account all the views,
and that someone independent of government is trying
to make sense of it to formulate an analysis and
recommendation, then following the demise of the
QCA with no other body taking its place, all that I
have mentioned would be under the control of the
Secretary of State and civil servants. They would
decide who to consult, which evidence was reported
publicly and the conclusions to be drawn—and all
potentially supporting the decisions that the Secretary
of State originally wanted to make.
I contend that that cannot be right. Whether it is
the QCDA or another body, surely an independent
body must be in charge of the process of consultation.
The results will then rightly be handed to the Secretary
of State of the day, who will make the decision and be
accountable for them. It is important that everyone—all
of us and the parents and public— can see the basis on
which those important decisions are made.
I will draw another analogy. It occurred to me
whether we would ever think about doing this as
regards health. I wonder whether, if there were a
review of the best and most effective treatments for
cancer, we would contemplate giving the whole process
to the Secretary of State and to officials in the department,
rather than to a representative body of professionals
and others to form an independent evaluation of the
efficacy of treatments and make recommendations to
the Secretary of State. We so easily seem to slip into
the assumption that with education we can do things
that we would not dream of doing with other professional
bodies. This point has been raised before. I ask the
Minister to comment in his summing up on the points
I have made, but also to explain how the Government
can justify this degree of control over this process by
an elected politician. I beg to move Amendment 85A.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I have been asked by
my noble friend Lady Walmsley to speak in support of
Amendment 86, which is in her name and that of the
noble Earl, Lord Listowel. By laying this amendment,
we wish to reiterate the importance of the Secretary of
State having the benefit of independent advice on
changes in the national curriculum. This picks up the
points which have just been made by the noble Baroness,
Lady Hughes.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley is very grateful
indeed to the Bill team who have briefed her about the
processes taking place, and above all about the
transparency that currently exists between the Secretary
of State and the QCDA, and the fact that these will
remain under the new proposals. However, the note
that the team provided says:
“Following the passage of the Education Bill, the Secretary of
State will remain responsible for making proposals to change the
national curriculum and will still be able to ask another body to
advise him if he wishes to do so”.
It is the phrase “if he wishes to do so” that bothers
us from the Liberal Democrat stance. We would like to
ensure that the Secretary of State always takes advice
from experts on these matters. As we heard last Monday,
the curriculum is vital, and other countries are not as
Education Bill
GC 314
fixated as we are on what exactly is taught. The high
level of prescription in this country goes somewhat
counter to the claims that teachers are trusted as
professionals. In other countries, the design of the
curriculum is very different from the one that seems to
be emerging in this country when we look at the remit
for the expert panel which are to advise the Secretary
of State.
In Singapore, for example, core values are emphasised.
These are self-awareness, self-management, social
awareness, relationship management, and responsible
decision-taking. One cannot imagine all of this being
delivered without the compulsory teaching of life
skills, and indeed if we look in detail, this is exactly
what we find: at the core are things like health education,
PSHE, citizenship, global awareness and physical
education. Surrounding these are knowledge skills—which
include languages—maths and science, and, lastly,
humanities and the arts.
In New Zealand, the key competencies are critical
thinking and problem solving, using languages, symbols
and texts, managing self and relating to others. In
Australia, there are three core interrelated strands
which include heath and physical education, personal
and interpersonal development and citizenship interwoven
with subject knowledge and cross-curricular skills.
Indeed, thinking processes are included in nearly all
these curriculums, and these are three very successful
education systems which I think we can learn from.
However, none of these issues seems to emerge in
the remit for the expert review panel; it mainly talks
about knowledge and facts. We would like to know
how the panel’s remit has been arrived at. The note
from the Bill team says that the remit is always very
important, and we can well believe that. But looking
at it, we rather doubt whether what comes out will be
anything like the curriculum of those very successful
countries. This is one reason why this particular
amendment has been put forward.
4.30 pm
Lord Peston: My Lords, I rise to support my noble
friend Lady Hughes and to echo the words of my old
friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I suppose I
reveal every time I speak in your Lordships’ Committee
what a dinosaur I am, but deep down, I do not believe
there should be a national curriculum. Equally, I do
not believe in banging my head against a wall, when I
will be on the losing side. I believe in education, and I
have great difficulty in seeing any connection between
education and a national curriculum.
I was prompted to think about that when my noble
friend Lady Hughes mentioned that the Secretary of
State is keen for all children to learn the dates of the
monarchs of our country. We just debated an amendment
on technology and all that. To prove that my Alzheimer’s
is not as bad as it is, I start with Her Majesty the
Queen and work back to as many Kings and Queens
as I can think of, but for the life of me, these days, I
cannot remember the dates at all. I cannot think of
any reason why that is a problem for me, because I go
to Google, I type in William IV and Mary, and up
come their dates.
GC 315
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
Lord Hill of Oareford: William III.
Lord Peston: My Alzheimer’s is worse than I thought
it was. The Secretary of State must be aware of that
technology. Other things are in the national curriculum
that, when I was at school, I found inimical to education.
Geography was the most extreme example. We were
made to do geography. I was not persuaded then and I
am not persuaded now that geography should be part
of anybody’s education. If I want to know where
somewhere is, again, I go to my computer. These days,
I have to type in the name of countries that did not
exist in my day, but I can find out where they are.
I believe that education is about finding things out
and appreciating them—all that my noble friend and
the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said. If we all reflect
on what was the best part of our education and
schooling, it was things that were not merely part of
the curriculum but, in my case, not something I was
ever examined on. I was in the economic sixth at
Hackney Downs School and the headmaster decided
that economics was clearly not part of education. He
told the English master to see the five of us who had
taken that option in the sixth form. The English
master, Mr Brierley, who was the great discoverer of
Harold Pinter, introduced us to things that we had
never heard of, one of which has become a total
obsession of mine—philosophy.
To return to my earlier remarks, I have wasted more
time reading about analytical philosophy than I care
to remember, but that was part of my education.
Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me, but I do not
believe that those responsible for our national curriculum
have ever said that rational argument and logical
reasoning are what education should be about. All
that tells me that the last people—having worked at
the Department of Education as its first ever special
adviser, I include in my admonitions officials as well as
the Minister—who should be deciding these things
once and for all are Ministers and their officials. We
need outside comment.
I partly address my next remark to my noble friend
Lady Hughes. The one thing that gives me hope is
that, although I entirely support her amendment, the
department should know that many of the rest of us
still have our views. Therefore, if something comes up
that we think is totally crackers, the department will
still hear from us on this subject, whether we are
officially consulted or not.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough: I shall take us back
to the amendment. I do not have any great love for the
QCDA. It was not a perfect organisation; in fact, none
of these organisations is perfect. The Government’s
aim in terms of the drift of the Academies Bill is that
by the end of this Parliament every secondary school
will be an academy. That is the reality. One of the
powers of an academy is that they are able to have
control over their curriculum. Will the Minister give
an assurance relating to schools that become academies
and this small core of national curriculum subjects?
Where will they get their guidance from regarding
decisions on the appropriateness of those subjects?
That is an important consideration and an important
function that the QCDA had.
Education Bill
GC 316
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am also one
of those who think it pretty important that the curriculum
is seen to be independent of Government. I am thinking
about the future of what is planned. It is said that the
QCDA may well not have been the most successful of
bodies, but it did a pretty adequate job nevertheless.
We do not have any clear idea where it is going, but
one is told and one hopes that some of the bodies will
be transferred to other organisations. If the advisory
body that will be giving advice to the Government as
and when required—this is important—it should be
much more available on an independent basis to the
emerging range of academies. There will be a need for
good independent advice. I am inclined to support all
these amendments, but will bear in mind what the
Minister says in his reply about plans that will be seen
to be more satisfactory to the Committee.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I am
happy to reassure my noble friend Lord Peston that
philosophy occasionally plays a part in schools. I
could take him to a couple of primary schools not six
miles from here where it is argued by the head teachers
that it improves behaviour in the playground. However,
that is a separate matter.
On the amendments before us, it is important that
we get this matter right one way or the other. I do not
accept the connection to 1935, and nor does my noble
colleague who proposed the amendment, but if you
look at the argument and the tussle going on in
Scotland at the moment over the history curriculum
then you will pause and have thoughts about where
decisions are finally made and on what basis. There is
an issue here.
Two things are clear. First, in the end the Secretary
of State has the responsibility to make the decision.
That is the current decision and I rest content with
that. Secondly, though, the Secretary of State, however
clever, will need advice. That advice is of great interest
to Members here and elsewhere. I would not propose
going backwards and effectively reconstituting the
QCDA. We have been there and done that, and there
were problems; let us think new thoughts. My own
inclination as a time-served academic is that when the
Secretary of State publishes changes to the curriculum,
he or she publishes, as a good academic would, a series
of footnotes and references to the advice sought, who
gave it, to whom it was given, what the advice was and
whether it was well evidenced. That would give me
much greater confidence than setting up a board.
There is no final expert opinion on what should be
in a curriculum. The risk for the QCDA and any
successor would be an assumption that there was a
right answer. There is not; there are nuances and
leanings in different directions. In the end, that should
be a matter for the Secretary of State to take a view
on, but we need to know what the advice was so that
we can protest if necessary.
Baroness Benjamin: My Lords, I agree that philosophy
is very helpful to young children. It helps them understand
who they are and how they fit into this great big world.
I hope the Minister can assure us that when we take
advice about what should be in the curriculum, there
GC 317
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[BARONESS BENJAMIN]
will be representation of our diverse society in the
approach that it takes. I believe that will go a long way
to helping people from diverse backgrounds understand
who they are and how they fit into our society.
Lord Hill of Oareford: My Lords, in abolishing the
QCDA we are not seeking to give the Secretary of
State greater control over the curriculum, nor do we
wish to reduce the external expertise that can be
brought to bear on qualifications or curriculum policy.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, and
others have acknowledged, the formal accountability
to Parliament for the curriculum, qualifications and
national curriculum assessment will remain as it is
now, with Ministers. I note that no one has fought for
the QCDA to be maintained in its current form. By
removing it, we will bring the delivery of those essential
functions, which are continuing, back into the department.
This will improve clarity and transparency, simplify
the system and save money.
As has been pointed out, under the existing legislation,
the Secretary of State already makes decisions in
respect of the national curriculum. What will change
is that the Secretary of State will become directly
responsible for taking forward the statutory consultation
process whenever the national curriculum needs to be
amended. In future, the Secretary of State will have to
have more direct responsibility than has arguably been
the case previously, for changes to the curriculum, for
justifying how the decisions to make those changes
have been arrived at, and their implications.
I hope I can give some reassurance to noble Lords
on the issue that I think lies at the heart of this.
Consultation on changes to the national curriculum
will continue to be a requirement. The Secretary of
State will have to conduct a formal consultation with
interested parties, including local authorities, schools,
teachers and others—the kind of people that my noble
friend Lady Benjamin mentions. The precise groups
with which he will need to consult are, as now: associations
of local authorities, bodies representing the interests
of governing bodies, organisations representing school
teachers and other persons with an interest in the
proposals, which is a fairly broad group. Everyone
would have to have a reasonable opportunity to make
representations, there would have to be a consultation,
and the Cabinet Office advice, as now, is that that
should be for at least 12 weeks. After the consultation
has ended, the Secretary of State has to consider the
responses and must publish a summary of the views
expressed—which relates to the point raised by the
noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. The
summary published by the Secretary of State will
deliver the degree of openness and transparency for
which noble Lords have argued. Then, as now, final
decisions would remain with the Secretary of State.
The Government are certainly committed to ensuring
that everyone with an interest in the national curriculum
is given an opportunity to offer their views. The current
review of the national curriculum, launched in January,
is being conducted in an open manner and we are
looking for views from a wide range of interested
parties. Once we have published our proposals for a
Education Bill
GC 318
new national curriculum early next year there will be
further wide-scale public consultation before final decisions
are made.
My noble friend Lady Sharp asked about international
evidence. The expert panel to the current curriculum
review is looking at the curricula used in the most
successful education jurisdictions, including Singapore,
Australia and New Zealand, but if I can find more
detail I will send that to her. My noble friend Lord
Willis asked about academies. As he knows, academies
are required to provide a broad and balanced curriculum
and we think that that has been successful to date.
Although they will not be required to teach the national
curriculum, we hope that by slimming it down and
making it less prescriptive academies will want to use
it as a benchmark. All the material previously available
to schools from the QCDA will be accessible to all
those schools that want to use it. Finally on the
national curriculum, so regards the current review, we
intend to publish all the evidence we have considered
when we bring forward proposals.
We think that the arrangements are in place to draw
on appropriate advice as policies are developed. We do
not believe that the abolition of the QCDA will lead to
increased government power or control over what I
accept are critical elements of our education system.
There will be safeguards to ensure transparency and
hold the Secretary of State to account.
4.45 pm
Lord Willis of Knaresborough: I am grateful to the
Minister for giving way. An academy will have total
control over its curriculum and will not have to consult
anyone about the subjects it teaches. While I take his
point that most will want to follow the national curriculum,
if an academy wanted to substitute creationism for
Darwinism in its science curriculum, will it be able to
do that without having to ask permission of the Secretary
of State or to consult with anyone else? Is that correct?
Lord Hill of Oareford: It is not the case that the
teaching of creationism in science, for example, is
possible in academies because I believe that there are
safeguards in place to prevent it. Further, there are
various ways through the funding agreement by which
one can exercise control. The basic point about freedom
over the curriculum is that, through the funding agreement,
academies need to provide a broad and balanced
curriculum that includes English, maths and science.
That is the degree of specificity over the governance.
Baroness Morris of Yardley: The Minister’s answer
to his noble friend’s question is substantially right in
that if a school tried to teach creationism, something
would happen to prevent that. I accept that. But I
thought his comments on how that would happen
were interesting. He said that something in the funding
agreement would stop it. I cannot imagine that a
funding agreement would be drawn up merely to prevent
creationism being taught in a school, which leads me
to believe that the agreement also gives the Secretary
of State further influence and powers over the curriculum
in academies. Can he explain what those powers are
and how they might be used?
GC 319
Education Bill
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
Lord Hill of Oareford: The point on the funding
agreement is the one that I mentioned to my noble
friend Lord Willis, which is that the agreement specifies
that academies will provide a broad and balanced
curriculum that includes English, maths and science. I
will need to follow up on the point about creationism
and write to the noble Baroness explaining what the
mechanism is to prevent that happening. It is prevented
and I will make that clear in a letter.
On that point, I would now ask the noble Baroness,
Lady Hughes, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: Could we all have a copy
of the letter explaining how creationism is prevented
being taught?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: I thank the Minister
for his response and all noble Lords for their contributions
to this important issue. The point raised by the noble
Lord, Lord Willis, is extremely important and reflects
one of the constant challenges in the Bill. We are
debating proposals for change, many of which will not
apply if the brave new world in which every school is
an academy comes into being. It is an issue that I want
to raise later in relation to admissions. In response to
the Minister’s offer to provide a letter specifically in
relation to creationism, perhaps it could be sent to all
noble Lords so as to address the broader question
raised by my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley.
Precisely what control does the Secretary of State or
anyone else have over other potentially unwanted
developments in the curriculum at an academy? It
might be some other obscure and unusual development,
so it would be good to know what controls are in
place.
The Minister acknowledged the point that decision
and accountability rests with the Secretary of State,
and I perfectly accept that. The point at issue here is
the process that leads up to that. The Minister has said
that the Secretary of State, not the QCDA or some
replacement for it—none of us is defending any particular
body; we are talking about the process in principle—would
have responsibility not only for the final decision but
for the process of consultation. While the Minister has
given some assurances that the Secretary of State will
consult with the three groups that the QCDA now has
to consult—the local authorities, governing bodies
and teachers—beyond that, the parameters of the
review will be determined by the Secretary of State
and not by an independent body. Therefore, any academics
which the Secretary of State chooses to include in the
process of review beyond those three groups can simply
be those academics which support the view that the
Secretary of State starts off with. While it may be of
some assurance that the written submissions may be
published at the end of the process, it will be too late
for someone with alternative views to be consulted.
Officials sent round a note on how the new process
would work. I do not know if every Member received
it, but my noble friend and I did. It states that beyond
those three groups which have to be consulted on a
statutory basis, the Secretary of State will,
“need to give notice of the proposal to any other persons with
whom he thinks it would be desirable to consult”.
GC 320
The difference that we can all recognise is that at the
moment the range of additional people is decided by
an independent body, not the Secretary of State who
has to make the final decision. That is a crucial difference.
There is another crucial difference at the end of
that process. Whereas the QCDA at present must
arrange for a full report to be published, the advice
that we are given by officials is that,
“After the consultation has ended, the Secretary of State will
consider the responses and publish a summary of the views
expressed and a draft of the regulations”
that he wants to bring forward. In other words, it is
again in the gift of the Secretary of State to decide
what to publish and what to reveal about what was
said during the consultation process. That is not an
acceptable process in this day and age, and there needs
to be some division in terms of the independence of
the consultation, the analysis, the recommendations
and the final decision of the Secretary of State. We
may return to this matter on Report but, for now, I beg
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 85A withdrawn.
Amendment 85B not moved.
Clause 24 agreed.
Schedule 8 agreed.
Clause 25 agreed.
Amendment 86 not moved.
Schedule 9 agreed.
Clause 26 : Education and training support services in
England
Amendment 86A
Moved by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
86A: Clause 26, page 27, line 13, at beginning insert “Subject
to subsection (7),”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, I shall
speak also to Amendments 86B, 86C, 86D, 86E and
86F. These relate to concerns about the future of
schools careers advice and to the increasing concern of
professionals and employers that the Bill is failing to
meet the real challenges facing this sector.
Before I continue, I acknowledge with thanks the
letter of 8 July that I received from the Minister, which
set out in more detail what is envisaged in the new
career guidance service. I shall paraphrase it, although
I am sure that the Minister has his own version. It
says, first, that Connexions was not providing a
consistently high-quality service to all young people
and that it had to change. To a certain extent, I would
agree with that. Secondly, the letter also goes on to
argue that schools should be left to organise their own
careers provision and be held to account only through
what is described as a “destination measure” of where
GC 321
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[BARONESS JONES OF WHITCHURCH]
young people go when they leave school. We very
much disagree with this approach and I shall explain
why shortly.
First, I will deal with the end of the ring-fenced
funding for Connexions and the transition to the
all-age careers service, which is covered in our amendments
to Clause 26. All the evidence shows that Connexions
careers services around the country are closing as we
speak. A desperately worrying scenario is developing
of a cohort of young people being left with no careers
advice at all, as one service ends and nothing substantial
is yet in place to replace it. The department appears to
have passed the buck on to individual schools rather
than have a coherent transitional plan. As the ASCL
has said:
“More than 2 million young people aged 16 to 19 could lose
out on valuable careers services while the Government overhauls
the national careers advice service at a time when young people’s
unemployment is reaching record highs”.
Meanwhile, we are all still awaiting the detail of the
design of the new all-age careers service: its duties, the
services it will provide, where it will be located and
how it can be accessed. In the Commons debate, the
Minister said that the new service would be ready to
go this September, with the full service in place from
April 2012. In the meantime, the Secretary of State
has stated that in 2011-12 school budgets will not rise
to take account of their new legal responsibility to
provide careers guidance for young people, as set out
in this Bill. This lack of ring-fencing means that
schools will be forced to find funds from existing
budgets, leading to the inevitable conclusion that the
Government intend to provide careers services on the
cheap. Perhaps the Minister could explain what interim
provision is being made for those young people awaiting
a full careers service next year. I am sure that he will
acknowledge that this is particularly fraught given the
current high levels of youth unemployment. Our first
set of amendments would achieve the simple but
important aim of delivering continuity by requiring
the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the
details of a transition plan before the new careers
service can take effect.
We move on to the next set of amendments in this
group, which define and improve the package of careers
advice young people should be able to access in the
future. Our amendments are set against a backdrop of
increasingly complex careers choices being faced by
young people and evidence that lack of information is
seen by young people as one of the main barriers to
their participation in education or training post-16.
We do not accept that the quality careers guidance that
we all know is necessary can be delivered simply by the
publication of data on pupils’ post-school destinations.
For example, there will be a terrible temptation for
providers to push young people into destinations which
score more highly rather than those that play to their
individual strengths and interests. At the same time,
there will be a real challenge to keep accurate statistics
and track the longer-term destinations of young people.
There may be statistics on their destinations immediately
after school but surely what we are interested in is the
longer-term careers choices they make as a result of
the careers guidance that they get.
Education Bill
GC 322
The Government have indicated that going forward
the duty to provide careers advice may be satisfied by
phone or online services. While we recognise that this
may have a role, we absolutely do not accept that this
is enough to ensure that young people get tailored
guidance in tune with their talents, abilities and aspirations.
Young people are happy to talk on the phone to their
friends for hours, but when it comes to talking to
someone older or someone in authority, all too often
they pass the phone to their parents and ask them to
make that phone call for them. I genuinely do not
think that young people will be confident enough to
deal with quite complicated issues on the phone. In the
same way as they require a face-to-face environment
for mentoring or indeed teaching, this type of contact
is just as necessary when young people are discussing
their future job plans and their future life. Therefore
our amendments would require schools to provide
high quality, face-to-face careers advice.
This advice is particularly important to children
from backgrounds where they do not have access to a
social network of people in a variety of jobs, and even
more so when the parents do not work or where there
is intergenerational unemployment. Good careers advice
can make a big difference in driving social mobility,
expanding pupils’ horizons and helping them to see
themselves working in different environments. We believe
that these matters are too important to be left to
schools’ discretion. We also foresee the possibility of a
postcode lottery developing, with careers services around
the country varying considerably depending on the
resources available, thus mirroring some of the problems
we have already identified with the Connexions service.
Our amendments also address the age range when
young people should be able to access advice and the
frequency at which it should be provided. The Bill
limits careers advice to those aged between 14 and 16.
That is not good enough. EngineeringUK, for example,
has identified the need for much earlier advice through
what it calls the “Year 8 dip”, which is when the
appetite for tough science and maths decreases in
young people. The organisation goes on to say:
“We believe that at this point, and at other critical points
along the academic pathway, we need well informed careers
advisers in schools able to inspire and inform young people about
careers in engineering and other science, technology, engineering
and maths areas”.
We agree with that analysis, and it could equally apply
to other subject areas. One careers advice session held
during the term when a student leaves school is too
late. It should be provided at regular intervals before
key milestones in a pupil’s academic life, and our
amendments would provide for that.
Finally, the amendments also seek to ensure that
only those trained in careers guidance can provide the
formal careers advice to which pupils are entitled.
Without these amendments, there is no guarantee that
advice would be provided by a trained professional or
that it would cover the full range of options, including
academic and vocational options. I accept that in the
guidance the noble Lord may well refer to that it is
seen as something that is “desirable”, but our amendments
would make it an explicit requirement.
GC 323
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
5 pm
In a memorandum submitted to the Public Bill
Committee, Careers England and the Institute of Career
Guidance called for a national quality standard. It
was also part of the recommendation of the Careers
Profession Task Force, and we agree with this. The
world of work is changing rapidly and careers guidance
cannot be left to individuals whose experience of
entering the job market could, in some cases, date
back to 30 or 40 years ago. We all understand the need
to tackle disadvantage, which all too often is exacerbated
by poor education and career choices. In the Commons,
the Minister referred to a report which stated that:
“State school pupils are more than four times as likely to be given
bad careers advice as private school students”.
We believe that the package of measures we are proposing
will go some way towards redressing this failure and
give all pupils the right to high quality, individualised,
face-to-face advice at critical times in their education
journey. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to
support these measures. I beg to move.
Lord Boswell of Aynho: My Lords, I shall speak to
Amendment 86G which is tabled in my name and I
shall touch on some of the wider issues that have been
raised by Opposition Members in introducing this
debate. Perhaps I should say at the outset that I am a
member of the independent Skills Commission, although
it is not a formal interest. It has members from different
parties as well as a large number of professionals.
Some years ago the commission was involved in drawing
up a report on independent advice and guidance in
which, interestingly, we placed quite a lot of emphasis
on reporting the growth in social media and online
resources as well as the conventional role of the careers
service. I shall come back to that in a moment. I, too,
have a strong engagement with apprenticeships. The
work preparation for, or the option of, opening up
young people’s eyes to the world of work is critical
and, as I have already adverted to the Committee, I
had previous responsibility as a Minister for progression
from schools and FE.
First, I acknowledge the huge amount of good
done by individual careers teachers and in guidance.
That is an important distinction in the Minister’s
proposals set out in his helpful letter to Members of
the Committee, which draw a distinction that is often
blurred between education and guidance. While I
acknowledge how much has been done in the past—and
it is 20 years since I had ministerial responsibility—there
have, in my experience, always been patchiness, failures
in the system, and a system that is less ideal than the
one we would wish for now. In particular, there have
always been two problems in schools. The first is the
moral hazard of schools seeking to keep hold of
pupils who might be much more properly referred to,
and have much more successful opportunities within,
further education or the private training provider route.
Secondly, there is a simple cultural difficulty, which is
that some of those schools—particularly if they are
teaching conventional and general academic subjects—are
not aware of the whole complexity of the issue. That
very much centres on, for example, the offer that is
now made in apprenticeship frameworks, which are
qualitatively different from what was available some
years ago.
Education Bill
GC 324
We have been tentatively trying to get this right for
a number of years. As a result of some of the concerns
that I expressed at the time, we moved towards a
system of contractorisation in the 1990s. We then
came back to a measure of centralisation, or at least
standardisation, through the Connexions service—
although that also varied very much in its salience to
the target audience—and locally, in my view. Now, my
noble friend the Minister, whose initiative I welcome,
is providing in this clause a new duty on schools to
secure independent guidance.
We were talking in the previous group of amendments
about philosophy. Probably the only lesson that I
remember from my moral philosophy days—although
it is important—is that there is a distinction between
saying that something ought to happen and saying
that there ought to be a law to ensure that something
happens. In this place, we should all be mindful that it
is not absolutely necessary to ring-fence and litigate to
achieve everything, and that there is an important
duty on schools to say, “We need to think about this,
obtain independent advice, and make sure that that
advice is perceptibly independent”.
It is therefore important that in drawing the distinction
we are not subverting the need for schools to provide
good-quality careers education or work experience.
They should open up the eyes of young people to the
opportunities before they make critical decisions. I
was once caricatured as saying at the margins of the
Skills Commission, “Oh, you are in favour of work
experience for five year-olds”. It is not quite like that
but there is a point at which we need to keep the two
worlds of education and of work at least in touch with
one another through the whole school career. I am
delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is nodding.
I think we understand that we need to do that, and it is
something on which schools need to continue to focus.
We then reach the point of gateway—the moment
of serious consideration of the next stage. It is terribly
important, for the reasons of moral hazard that I
mentioned, that we make it clear that schools are
expected to take independent advice and guidance at
that point, in the interests of their pupils. That can be
supplemented by the electronic media and all the rest
of it, but it is a necessary stage.
The spirit of my amendment and my concern is that
we are feeling our way in trying to provide a better
service in the interests of young people—one that
enables them to express their choices. The Government
are right in doing that. There have been concerns from
the Institute of Career Guidance and other professionals.
I can understand why many of them feel very strongly
about it, but I would say that the status quo has not
been entirely successful and we need to look at a better
way of doing this that respects the different roles in
education and guidance, and mentoring and development,
and moves on to the adult careers service whose
introduction is to be welcomed. We need to make
sure that there are no wrong doors or closed doors,
and that people are given good signposting through
the process. In that connection, the substance of my
Amendment 86G would be to say, “Do not subvert the
Government’s proposals now, but do leave it open and
make it a requirement on the Government to report
GC 325
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD BOSWELL OF AYNHO]
back within three years”. I do not quite accept the
tone of the noble Baroness which suggests that everything
is falling apart now, although of course I understand
her concerns. I do not believe that that need necessarily
be the case at all. If I am wrong about that, I would at
least like to feel that Ministers are monitoring this
within a finite period of time, so that we may ensure
–and I hope this time to achieve—the best possible
experience and support for our young people.
Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I rise to speak to
Amendments 86AA, 86CZA and 86DB in my name
and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford.
I want to start by commenting on the last point made
by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho. There is a
real crisis currently in career advisers’ roles as local
authorities face some very difficult decisions, and a
review even in a year’s time will be too late. I therefore
support the proposal made earlier by the noble Baroness,
Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that there be a transition
plan to make sure that we do not miss it.
Our amendments focus on very specific issues arising
out of the new proposals for the careers service. The
first is a slightly technical one regarding schools being
the responsible body for careers advice. In theory this
makes sense. However, the draft legislation removes
the right of local authorities to enter the school and to
ensure that careers advice is appropriate. This is particular
bizarre since local authorities are specifically charged
with ensuring that children with special needs and
those in PRUs get the advice and support that they
require. The same is also true for the National Careers
Service, which has no right to check on the quality of
careers advice and guidance. I suppose it could do so
from a distance, but, frankly, there may be occasions
when it would want to look at a specific school. I
therefore hope that the Minister will look at this
matter again, and will make sure that the bodies
charged with responsibility for careers advice nationally,
but also those locally with very specific responsibility
for the most vulnerable pupils, actually have an
opportunity to check what is going on in schools.
I fully support the proposal that advice and guidance
must be independent. I am grateful to the Minister for
his helpful letter and detailed attachment which has
already been referred to. Ambitions for the new careers
service are set out well therein. However, the Bill is
silent on some key issues which would provide reassurance
and guarantee independence and the excellence quality.
First, there are no plans for quality assurance to assess
whether schools secure that independent, impartial
careers advice and guidance. In response to the question
on how the Government will monitor the new duty,
the note from the Minister says:
“Schools should be accountable to the pupils, parents and
communities they serve in respect of this duty”.
I suspect that most pupils, parents and communities
would find the very onerous duty of monitoring quality
control somewhat beyond them. I am not sure that it
fulfils what we seek to cover in our amendment.
Much has been said about the importance of
technology in an earlier amendment. But we are really
concerned about face-to-face advice and guidance
disappearing from the Bill. Young people often do not
Education Bill
GC 326
know the breadth of what is on offer, despite the fact
that some excellent web careers advice is available: for
example, Careers Box, with little video snips on YouTube
and young people talking about their experiences of
apprenticeships or their first time in work. The difficulty
is that young people often do not know what is out
there, and starting to look is very difficult. I can give
you an anecdote from the time when I was chair of the
Cambridgeshire Learning and Skills Council, where
we had a very severe shortage in the construction
industry of both plumbers and electricians. If you ask
most 12 and 13 year-olds who know they probably
want to do something with their hands whether they
want to go into construction, the chances are that they
will say no, and I am not sure that many school
teachers would automatically guide them in that direction.
The LSA and FE colleges worked with careers
advisers and Connexions to really give young people
an opportunity. I am pleased to say that within one
year both plumbing and electrical courses were
oversubscribed and continued to be because word
went back to these young people’s peers. If we remove
from the loop the very specialist knowledge that careers
advisers have, we might well have a problem if advice
is not independent and certainly if it is restricted to
just the experience that schools have.
5.15 pm
Thirdly, as others have said, we have to ensure that
the advice is truly impartial and independent. I am
sorry to say that some schools still pressure young
people to stay on to continue with AS-levels even if it
is not in their best interests. Again, the Minister’s note
is helpful in reinforcing the key point about independent
advice and guidance but this is so important that
we want to see advisers having to be qualified. That
would provide two benefits. First, we will have an
assurance about the knowledge and skill base of advisers
—they, too, will recognise that—and, as importantly,
it will give careers advisers the professional status that
they deserve.
Starting careers advice at the age of 14 is too late,
once options for Year 11 have been chosen—whether
it be the EBacc or other courses. As already commented
on, the Year 8 dip is a well-known phenomenon. This
country desperately needs more engineers, scientists
and mathematicians but, if we look at the subjects
chosen at AS-level and A2, those are consistently
going down. That needs to be remedied. Starting
guidance earlier is important, whether at 13 or even 12
as another amendment suggests.
Again, an illustration of this from my local area is a
web advice tool about pathways—which was mentioned
before. A 13 or 14 year-old can actually see how
choosing a course that they do at 16 might lead on to
either an apprenticeship, a vocational or even academic
qualification, which might lead them into a profession.
I suspect that the point about expecting outcomes
from 16 to 18 year-olds to tell us whether a careers
service’s advice is working well is far too short-sighted.
We need something significant earlier on.
Finally, I will speak briefly in support of the
amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, on information,
advice and guidance for special needs pupils. City
GC 327
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
College Norwich has a special unit for pupils with
autism spectrum disorders which has transformed their
experience. The guidance is very wide-ranging. It has
to be different from the standard one size fits all that
we even had under the Connexions service. I met a
young man whose experience was that, as he started at
16 at the college, he and his family thought that he
would never get a job because of his Asperger’s. He
was offered some work experience in the college library—
simple, repetitive work that absolutely fitted in with
his needs. Two years on, he is working full-time there.
That is a significant success story. I know that other
pupils at City College Norwich have had similar success.
We have to accept that we need special provision for
pupils with SEN. Thank you.
Lord Peston: In supporting my noble friend, I start
by placing this whole problem in a proper context. A
five year-old going for the first time to school this
autumn has a life expectancy of 85 or maybe 95 years.
The thought that you can really tell them about the
world in which they will pursue their working lives is
rather difficult. In my younger days as an economist in
the economics of education, I wrote a number of
papers about relating education and what should be in
education to the needs of the economy. I did not
realise that they were rubbish at the time that I published
them but it was obvious that they were rubbish not
many years afterwards. Those days have somewhat
gone, although they did not hold me back in my
career.
The central point about what careers advice will
have to focus on is this long period—most of which,
from the point of view of the economy, is difficult or
even impossible to forecast. The advice given must
really concentrate on that aspect of the matter. That
means that it must overwhelmingly be professional.
If I may move into anecdote mode, after I had left
the LSE as a lecturer to become a professor, one of my
old friends who was still a lecturer said to me, “One of
the students has just been to see me. He is thinking of
dropping out of his degree because he has a pop
group. What advice would you have given him?”. I
said, “Get your degree first and then possibly think
about the pop group”. He said, “I gave him the same
advice and he more or less told me to drop dead”. The
student’s name was Mick Jagger. That is a very good
example of why giving casual, off-the-cuff careers
advice to people is not the path to go down. That does
not mean that the professionals can get it exactly
right, but I am certain that my noble friend is right to
emphasise that careers advice requires a very subtle
expertise, because it is not easy to get over to people
how complicated their whole lives and choice of careers
will be.
Another aspect of this has always troubled me. Our
young people are marvellous and lots of them are
incredibly talented— particularly in the arts. We produce
marvellous young actors, musicians, and so on. Our
problem is that the demand for such people is—and, I
guess, always will be—less than the available supply.
One reason why we require not merely experts in our
careers service but people with a human touch is that
they must explain to people, “If you insist on going
down that path—and I do not want to stop you—I
Education Bill
GC 328
ought to tell you that you will be competing against
other people with enormous talent. Are you sure that
that is the risky option that you want to take”. That
only reinforces my noble friend’s view that we cannot
let amateurs take over the service. Among amateurs,
we must include teachers. That includes university
teachers, although we are not talking about them at
the moment. Essentially, my noble friend is pressing
the Minister on the point that we need a commitment
to a fully professional careers advice service covering a
great range of areas. We must find funds to support
that service; we cannot leave it to the school itself.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I am certainly in sympathy
with everything that has been said on this subject. It
takes me back quite a long way to the Sex Discrimination
and Equal Pay Acts, in which education was one of
the areas covered. We spent quite a lot of time encouraging
teachers in girls’ schools to take a more proactive role
in opening up ideas of different careers for the girls
than was the tradition. I am sad to say that there is still
quite a gap there. On the comment made about teachers
not being adequate to do that job, it would not be a
bad idea as part of their training if, periodically, they
had to take a job for a while in the real world to see
what are the practices here and now.
In engineering, all these years later, there is a dearth
of girls prepared to take on that career. It depends to
some extent on the people they see out there in the real
world. If not many have made it to the top of their
career, are running things and are looked up to by the
rest of the engineering world, they are not as likely to
go down that route. I hope that we will address that
aspect.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Low will soon
speak to his amendment. On the responsibility for
special educational needs, I entirely agree with him
that there is an enormous need to start that process
early—incidentally, that is true for practically all girls.
It is interesting to note that the Equality and Human
Rights Commission makes the point by stating that a
quarter of children in primary school want to go on to
higher education. Among girls, more than 80 per cent
have that aspiration. If they have it already, at least it
should be kept going by giving them examples of the
many areas where their skills would be needed. There
is clearly a role for governors here. They have a role to
play in this already, so this is not providing a new one
because it is all part of what needs to be made available
to pupils. I am certain that parents in the local area
would take that view.
One other area I want to stress is that of the role of
the universities themselves. Many of them already
send their students, voluntarily of course, particularly
into schools where the aspiration among pupils to go
on to higher education is not high. I am sure that the
Government will be pleased to know that that sort of
advice does not cost very much, but it is very good
practice for the students themselves and helpful to the
aspirations of the pupils.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet: I support most of the
amendments in the group and I want to focus in
particular on careers advice, on which many other
GC 329
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[BARONESS WALL OF NEW BARNET]
noble Lords have already led. I agree totally with
everyone who has spoken that unless careers advice is
independent, it is very worrying. I hope that the Minister
will consider whether Ofsted should include as part of
its assessment of the effectiveness of a school how well
it provides careers advice. It would not be an unusual
process for Ofsted to get involved in. Although I agree
with my noble friend Lord Peston that at the age of
five you do not know what you are going to do, in this
day and age people start taking an interest at a much
younger age.
An area of concern has been raised by a number of
employers who I have been talking to, along with a
number of colleges. Recently I visited Newcastle College
and North Lindsey College in Scunthorpe for Training
2000. What those colleges said was music to my ears.
Although some careers advice is okay, a lot is obviously
inadequate. But the principal at Newcastle College
said that when she was a young girl—it was probably a
while ago—no one had ever talked to her at school
what it would mean if she went down a certain career
path: how much would she earn and what would be
her prospects going forward? Perhaps we have stayed
away from those questions as well. For me, she made a
telling point because, whether we like it or not, they
are keen to know if they will have money to spend.
Through Semta I have been working with a careers
adviser at BAE Systems, which has a programme in
place in which representatives talk to young people
about what it means to be an engineer and explain that
it is not the dirty job that everyone thinks it is. There is
a slide presentation to describe the earning potential
at each stage of someone’s career progression. Some
people might flinch at that, but in the real world of
2011-12, it is absolutely where young people are. It is
the kind of information that is not always readily
available. You can follow a pathway through looking
at sector skills councils, but what is not often linked to
it is the thought that, “If I work really hard and
progress from this level to that level, what will that
mean for me going forward in the sense of my future
career?”.
5.30 pm
I emphasise, as others have, the funding of this
careers advice. A number of people who have supported
me in these contributions have given me information.
The previous Government put money into careers
advice—now, obviously, two departments are dealing
with this, with BIS and the Department for Education—
but the DfE’s financial involvement is down to £7 million.
Before, when we were working with Connexions,
£200 million was put into this. The current figure will
get us some computer-aided stuff and some advice.
We can complain like crazy about young people not
understanding where they are going and what the
advice to them might be, but that does not come
cheap. We need to ensure that we have a sound resource
underneath all that. For me, having an Ofsted appraisal
of this included in how well a school was doing would
mean that we had something substantial to measure.
I agree with the amendment of the noble Lord,
Lord Boswell, that says, “Let’s look at this every three
years”. When the previous Government introduced
Education Bill
GC 330
the Apprenticeship Act, we had a lot of this advice in
there but maybe it was just not robust enough in terms
of coming back and checking how this was doing,
because it is still a major problem.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, I preface
my remarks by asking for some agreement on definitions.
It is the word “school” that interests me. In its broadest
sense, and I think that we would all concur with this, it
is a community of people focused on the well-being
and the best interests of children and pupils. It has
been used in a different way in this debate, though,
and it is in that different way that I would like to use it,
while remaining conscious of the base meaning that
lies behind it.
We have been using the word “school” to mean
those who govern our schools. Schools are expected to
take independent advice, and new legislation is placing
a duty on schools to achieve two objectives—just two
examples from this very debate. I am interested in that
definition of “school”, which I think amounts to
“governing body and head teacher”, who are expected,
in the way that things are developing, to achieve more
and more than has been done elsewhere until now.
I do not flinch at that. I am a governor and chair of
a foundation that runs two schools in the inner city
here in London. We try our hardest as governors and
head teachers in the area of career development,
particularly because we see increasingly that, if we
want to achieve excellence in the provision that we
offer, partnership with other schools is increasingly
going to be the way forward. I do not know how every
school can produce an adequate and rich service in
this area. In the Borough of Islington, for example,
our school operates with others and we try to pool our
best efforts and to make careers advice available in a
richer and broader way.
In another initiative that perhaps I might report
because it is of some interest, our inner city school
co-operates with a school in the independent sector,
the Leys School in Cambridge, and we cross-fertilise
and attend each other’s careers festivals. I have to say
that the independent sector provides a somewhat narrower
focus for the range of careers that it seeks to interest
people in, but, for all that, it is richly provided for by
those who come and help people in conversation and
all the rest of it.
We have not quite got reciprocity to the point where
I would like to see it, with people from the independent
sector coming to us for careers advice. We are situated
on the edge of the City of London, and some quite
extraordinary people come to us from City institutions
to offer that kind of advice, which people from Cambridge
could well benefit from. If we are envisaging that
schools, in the way that I am defining them, will
provide an adequate service across the land, with
every school expected to provide excellence all the
time in careers advice, we are just baying for the moon.
Those are two initiatives that I can report now.
Throughout my contribution to the discussions of
the Bill, I am afraid that I will drone on about the
extra expectations that are coming the way of schools—
that is, governing bodies and head teachers. During
this afternoon’s debate alone, the responsibility for
GC 331
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
shaping and focusing the curriculum has fallen to
governors and head teachers. I am not saying that they
should not do that, but more and more expectations of
schools as independent and freestanding bodies are
coming our way. There is the curriculum, now there is
careers advice. Before we finish our discussion on the
Bill, what else will be expected of governors? I am
a governor. I attend, as regularly as I can, refresher
courses offered by my local authority. I try to be
up-to-date with seminars and other things that stretch
your mind about new possibilities offered for all of us.
I look around the table. I see some absent places where
some very busy people are feeling increasingly deskilled
and disempowered to do the tasks expected of them—all
voluntarily, without a single penny coming our way.
As we go down this path and pass more and more
responsibility to the school, under the definition I
have offered, we must bear in mind that implementation
of these grand ideas will be left to people who will be
under greater and greater burdens.
Baroness Benjamin: My Lords—
Baroness Garden of Frognal: If my noble friend will
forgive me, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Low to speak
to his amendment in the group.
Lord Low of Dalston: I am very happy to oblige the
Committee. As my amendment has already been referred
to several times and spoken to very eloquently by the
noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, there is not really a lot
for to me to say, but it is obviously correct that I
should speak to it.
Before I do that, I want to make a few comments on
some of the other amendments in this large group.
Some work is required on the section of the Bill
dealing with careers guidance to ensure that it is
effectively disability-proofed. I know that the Minister
is very sympathetic on that matter, so I hope that he
will be able to give me reassurances on one or two
points.
First, in supporting the amendment moved by the
noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I seek clarification.
When the amendment refers to “professionally qualified”
careers practitioners, is it clear that the new professional
quality standards include comprehensive training for
all careers guidance practitioners on working with
disabled young people and adults? It is very important
that those working in the field should know about the
barriers which disabled people experience, the perceptual
barriers that often restrict their career choices.
I also want to be sure that the triennial report for
which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, calls in his
amendment would include the effect of the provisions
in this section of the Bill on disadvantaged groups of
young people, specifically including young people with
a learning difficulty and/or disability.
I should like to say a little more about Amendments
86E and 86F in the name of the noble Baronesses,
Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, because they deal with
a very important issue: the age range during which
careers guidance should be provided. Those two
amendments would extend the age range through which
schools must provide careers guidance from 14 to 16
Education Bill
GC 332
to 12 to 18. That is particularly necessary for disabled
young people, as many will stay in school up to the age
of 19, and their most critical decisions usually take
place between the ages of 16 and 19.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is
concerned that the age range for careers guidance
provided for in the Bill is too narrow. It is particularly
concerned that starting careers guidance at 14 is too
late adequately to address equality issues associated
with subjects or career choices. It is also concerned
that the new duty requiring careers guidance to be
delivered at key stage 4 only, from 14 to 16, will mean a
regression from the current statutory provision that
requires a programme of careers education to be delivered
for key stages 3 and 4, from 11 to 16.
Young people begin to develop ideas about careers
at an early age, and the commission’s evidence suggests
that starting careers guidance at 14 will present a
major barrier to raising aspirations and equipping
young people to make future decisions free from
stereotyped ideas. Evidence-based reviews and research
have consistently called for career-related learning to
begin in primary school—as it currently does in Scotland,
which is usually ahead of England in educational
matters—so that high aspirations and achievement
can be encouraged early. A new report from the
commission indicates that primary school pupils’
aspirations are formed and are higher at a relatively
young age. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote,
has already referred to the evidence from that report
which shows that three-quarters of children at primary
school want to go into higher education—among girls,
this figure is more than 80 per cent. Gender influences
begin very early, with boys in primary school interested
in sport and girls in performance, hairdressing and
nursing. Evidence from the EHRC’s triennial review
reveals the extent to which particular groups continue
to experience a higher level of occupational segregation,
particularly related to gender, ethnicity and disability.
The commission believes that school careers services
have a key role in providing clear, impartial guidance
to help inform young people’s choices for long-term
career-related experiences and progression, free from
career-limiting stereotyped ideas.
Before I sit down, I clearly need to refer to my
amendment, which would place a duty on the governing
bodies and head teachers of schools to provide unlimited
face-to-face careers guidance for all young people with
a learning difficulty and/or disability, whether or not
they have a statement of special educational needs and
in both mainstream and specialist settings. The
amendment more or less speaks for itself. It is a good
idea that the Secretary of State should prescribe standards
for careers guidance, in the manner provided for in the
new clause tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes
and Lady Jones. It is obviously right that we should
place on governing bodies and head teachers of schools
a duty to comply with the standards set out by the
Secretary of State.
I want to underline two particular points in my new
clause. First, on “face-to-face”, we know that the
careers service will offer web-based and telephone
helpline advice for all students, but disabled learners,
in particular, require face-to-face support. Secondly,
GC 333
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD LOW OF DALSTON]
I have put “unlimited” in the new clause simply to
ensure that the duty is to provide as much guidance as
is required and that it is not arbitrarily limited to a set
amount or quota. I hope very much that this new
clause will commend itself to the Minister, as it seeks
to impose duties at the local level, where they can most
effectively be implemented.
5.45 pm
Baroness Benjamin: My Lords, I rise to support the
amendment and to tell noble Lords a little story. Back
in 1965, my mother and sister went to see the careers
officer and my sister said that she wanted to work at a
leading pharmaceutical company. The careers officer
said: “I am sorry, Sandra. They don’t take coloured
people there”. My mother said, “I brought my children
to England to learn and to be educated, and they have
worked hard to do so. Surely that is not possible”. The
careers officer said, “I am terribly sorry. I can get her a
job as a nursery nurse, but not one in a pharmaceutical
company”. My mother proved her wrong. She got my
sister to write for an interview. She got the job and she
worked there for 30 years. But sadly, the myth still
applies today, and there are many young people who
do not believe that they will be accepted in certain
places.
It is for that reason that I have set up an initiative
called Touching Success. I get successful people to
visit young people in schools and invite them into their
organisations. This helps to help to inspire these young
people to believe in themselves and understand that
they can work and will be accepted outside their
postcode. This is important because many of them do
not often see role models they can identify with. That
is why I believe we need experts to engage with young
people, especially those from diverse, disadvantaged
and lower-income backgrounds who do not believe in
themselves. They do not see that they can succeed.
Careers advice is essential to helping them understand
that they will be accepted and can go beyond where
they see themselves. We need experts to help them,
as my mother did with that careers officer way back
in 1965. Believe in yourself and the world is your
oyster. Anything is possible. That is why I support this
amendment.
Lord Elton: I shall speak, if I may, to Amendments 86E
and 86F, about the age at which careers advice is made
available. When teaching in a secondary school myself,
I remember the agonies associated with seeing how
early children had to choose which subjects to specialise
in. All I would ask is that the Minister should bear in
mind the advisability of having careers advice available
early in the year when the first choice of specialism is
forced on children.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I want to intervene
briefly on this. I should declare an interest as, like the
noble Lord, Lord Boswell, a member of the Skills
Commission which recommended the development of
an all-age careers service. I welcome the fact that the
Government have moved in that direction. Currently,
two problems arise. One is the rundown of the current
Education Bill
GC 334
service, particularly in light of the squeeze on local
government finances and, as the noble Baroness, Lady
Wall, pointed out, the reduction of money devoted to
this service by the Department for Education; £7 million
is a miserable sum and far too little. There is also the
problem of transition, mentioned by the noble Baroness,
Lady Jones.
Another problem is the shortage of professionals in
this area. Not only have people trained to deliver
careers guidance left the profession, but not enough
people have been properly trained to provide the new
service. One thing that the Government might do to
show their earnest in setting up the new service would
be to establish a crash course in training careers advisers.
They are graduates who do a one-year master’s course
to qualify and they are desperately needed. As I said,
we have the transition problem from 2011-12; let us
grab this opportunity and invest in the service as
required. That would show the Government’s willingness
to support it; they would be putting their money
where their mouth is, so to speak. I realise that the
question of money is very difficult.
Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, I, too,
support the group of amendments so ably moved by
the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I support them because
as a group they correct a number of the anomalies
inherent in Clause 27. The amendments are consistent
with good learning and with the frequency of provision.
Face-to-face opportunity to discuss career needs is of
very high value, and the Bill is deficient in this area.
We recognise the important contribution that trained
and qualified professionals can make.
Of course, when a person chooses to have career
advice, it is because they are uncertain of their direction
of travel. The whole purpose of it is to examine the
options and alternatives available with professionals
who are honest, who test one’s capability and who
advise. There are many people who start out wanting
to take an academic route, and who finish up taking
the vocational option, or vice versa: that is the benefit
of career advice. I fail to see how you will get that
interaction and that positive two-way challenge—because
it can be a challenge—under what is proposed. What
is being proposed is an all-age careers service. I have
no difficulty with that as a principle. Indeed, I believe
that the Careers Service should and can extend throughout
one’s working life. That happens in industry, where
managers and senior professionals are supported with
personal trainers from time-to-time, who provide career
advice on whether to continue or change direction.
This is why the online provision is deficient, because it
does not provide the opportunity for challenge and
interaction. As with so many of the education proposals
which are emerging, we get a lot of promises but some
degree of under-delivery. I see this career provision of
the Bill as fitting that area of concern: much is promised,
but little substance is delivered when it is tested.
The fact is that the people who will be denied the
opportunity for face-to-face career advice are actually
the people who may need it most. Not every child has
access to the internet; indeed, in some parts of the
country, that is for technical reasons, not just real
poverty. That is adding to the reality of digital poverty
from which some communities suffer disadvantage.
GC 335
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
Careers advice is vital. You must get advice, you
must challenge the provider and the provider must
interact with your good self. What is so worrying
about this aspect of the Bill is that, to the best of my
knowledge, no one has seen the careers service as
broken, deficient or not meeting the needs of students.
All my experience is that career advisers care about
what they offer and deliver.
The Secretary of State is taking away the duty to
provide and replacing it with a duty to provide access.
That is a fundamental shift in the culture, the duty and
responsibility of the service. There is no way at this or
any point that anyone can be certain that what is
proposed will lead to better advice. Local authorities,
who have that duty, will not be in the driving seat in
procuring professionals to provide better advice but
merely carrying through what is decreed by governing
boards and the school. The bond between school,
local authority and governing bodies will be broken
when the all-age career advice service online becomes
the norm.
Lord Elton: I know that the Committee is anxious
to get to the point. The noble Lord has spent some
time demolishing the Government’s position, but we
are discussing amendments to change that position. I
wonder which of those amendments he is supporting.
Lord Morris of Handsworth: I indicated at the
outset that I support the group of amendments moved
by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. That was my start
point. Within the context of those amendments, the
points I have made refer to issues that coincide clearly
with the face-to-face provisions and the provisions
about experience, and so on. I am clearly satisfied in
that respect.
My point here concerns the shift from the duty to
provide to the duty merely to give access. There is an
opportunity in the amendments for real change to
improve the Bill. I support the group of amendments
moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
Lord Hill of Oareford: My Lords, we know that the
most important determinant of success post-16 is
attainment pre-16. I start with a simple point to explain
why the Government have been focusing on investment
in the early years, why we have been seeking to improve
the quality of new teachers, why we are bringing in
reforms to the curriculum and why we have introduced
the pupil premium to help to address the gap in
attainment between more affluent and more disadvantaged
backgrounds, which is of concern to everyone in the
Committee.
6pm
Noble Lords know that, across the Bill, we are keen
to give schools more freedom to take decisions in the
best interests of the pupils, to have less central prescription
and focus on inputs and to provide more information
about actual results. Our approach to careers guidance
is based on the same principles. It draws on the
recommendation of the Panel on Fair Access to the
Professions, led by the right honourable Alan Milburn,
that responsibility for careers guidance should be given
Education Bill
GC 336
to schools, who know their pupils best. That is why in
the core of this clause we are seeking to move responsibility
to schools.
I agree with the point made by my noble friend
Lord Boswell that young people should know about
the full range of academic and vocational options
available to them. I know there are concerns that
schools might want to steer children towards staying
on in the sixth form, for example. That is why we are
clear in the clause that careers guidance provided
under the duty must include information on all 16-to-18
education training options, including apprenticeships.
A number of noble Lords have raised points about
age, which I will now address. Clause 27 places a duty
on schools in relation to young people from the start
of the academic year in which they turn 14 to the end
of the academic year in which they turn 16—year 11.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised
the point, as did my noble friend Lady Brinton and
the noble Lord, Lord Low. The case has been put for
extending this age range, both downwards to cover
younger pupils and upwards to reach students in
school sixth forms and colleges. We are going to
consult formally on the question of extending the duty
down to year 8 and up to young people aged 18
studying in schools and FE institutions. That
acknowledges a number of points raised here and
during the debate in the other place. We have discussed
these plans with the Association of School and College
Leaders, the Association of Colleges and the Sixth
Form Colleges’ Forum, all of which have warmly
welcomed the commitment to consult. Subject to the
consultation the duty could be extended by regulations
from September 2012. However, I sense the mood of
the Committee about this point and I will therefore
discuss it further with my honourable friend John
Hayes, the relevant Minister.
There have been a number of important contributions
about the importance of quality. There is a clear
difference between the approach of this Government
and that of the previous Government. Noble Lords
opposite have put the case for retaining statutory
safeguards on the way in which schools fulfil their
duty to ensure that pupils receive independent guidance.
The Government’s approach is not to require schools
to work with a particular provider of careers guidance
but to make sure that they can commission any specialist
support that they need from a strong market in which
there is choice and diversity, backed up by quality
standards. That was one of the concerns of the noble
Lord, Lord Peston.
The National Careers Service will be subject to a
quality standard for publicly funded careers guidance
that other providers of careers services will be able to
hold, to assure schools and colleges that they are
delivering a high quality service. The Careers Profession
Alliance is bringing together the main professional
bodies for careers for the first time to establish common
professional standards, so that everyone signs up to
the same code of ethics and to the same standards of
practice. The Careers Profession Alliance is committed
to a register of careers professionals, and wishes to
achieve chartered status for careers professionals over
the next three years.
GC 337
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[LORD HILL OF OAREFORD]
The noble Lord, Lord Low, asked whether standards
would cover working with disabled people. I will of
course raise that matter with the responsible Minister,
Mr Hayes.
As has been mentioned, evidence shows that young
people receive advice on their futures from many
different sources: parents, teachers and obviously careers
advisers. Some may prefer to get their support from a
helpline or by researching online. A YouGov poll this
year showed that nine in 10 young people were comfortable
with using the internet to access that kind of advice.
However, none of that detracts from the point that
qualified professionals have a very important role to
play in offering support to pupils that raises their
aspirations and guides them on to a successful path.
Clearly, many schools will choose to bring in support
from qualified advisers at particular stages or to give
advice to specific groups of pupils
The Government’s position is that we should trust
the professionals to deal appropriately with matters
such as access to careers guidance or other support
services, including the sorts of partnerships referred to
by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port,
without recourse to legislation. We should trust them
to make sensible decisions about how pupils receive
careers guidance. Noble Lords know that the
Government’s general position is to try to reduce the
burden of guidance from the centre. However, listening
to this debate, I recognise that it would be sensible to
allow the scope for some short, focused guidance to be
issued to schools to support them in fulfilling their
new duty. We are retaining the provision in Section 45A
of the Education Act 1997 to require schools to have
regard to statutory guidance issued in respect of the
new careers duty, and we will consider what guidance
might be helpful in advance of the new duty being
commenced.
Transition is clearly an important point and was
raised by a number of noble Lords. The Government
have set out their expectations of schools and local
authorities and have issued statutory guidance to the
latter under Section 68 of the Education and Skills
Act 2008. We are keen to encourage the exchange of
good practice between local authorities and will shortly
be hosting, with the Local Government Association, a
summit on shared good practice. Following that summit,
we will set out clear milestones to help local authorities
plan their own transition arrangements—a point raised
by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
We have also had important contributions about
monitoring the impact of the Government’s proposals.
We should ensure that we do that when making these
changes. My noble friend Lord Boswell will know that
a post-legislative review will be conducted in three to
five years following enactment. He suggested that we
should do it in three years—I think we should aim to
do it in three rather than five. The evidence of whether
schools are succeeding will be demonstrated through
pupil achievement and, crucially, through the data on
progression to further learning or employment provided
by the destinations measures that we plan to publish
and that we are working up.
Education Bill
GC 338
Noble Lords will know that we want school inspections
to focus on overall results rather than specific inputs,
but we should look closely at how schools are fulfilling
this duty. We intend to ask Ofsted to carry out a
thematic review of careers guidance, as recommended
to us by the Careers Profession Task Force. If this
shows that there are serious issues, I would expect the
Government to review the position in the way that my
noble friend Lord Boswell suggested. That review
should also look at the issues raised by the noble Lord,
Lord Low.
Overall, the arrangements for careers guidance that
the Government propose are based on trusting
professionals and freeing schools from bureaucracy,
trying to give them the opportunity to secure the
specialist support they need from the market, which is
characterised by choice and diversity of provision.
Points have been raised about age, which we will
reflect upon, about reporting and about quality. I
hope that noble Lords will recognise that we are
taking those steps and that the underlying point of
moving responsibility to schools, originally recommended
to the Government in reports and which has been
widely welcomed, will help take that forward. On the
basis of that further information, I hope that the
noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will feel able to withdraw
her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, we have
had a very good debate on this issue. If anyone was in
any doubt before we started about the complexities of
children’s lives and the choices that confront them,
some of the examples that we have heard from around
the Room will certainly have helped to open our eyes
to just how difficult it is to be a child in school today,
facing, as my noble friend rightly said, 85 years of
career choices that they have to make. People say—this
is a well known statistic these days—that you can now
face three different careers in your lifetime. It used to
be that you went into one job and that was your job
for life, but now people often change careers two or
three times during the course of their life.
The choices for young people facing their life ahead
are complicated and require specialist knowledge. To
give a quick example of that in terms of giving careers
advice, wearing one of my other hats, young people
who qualify with a degree in film studies think that
they are all going to go off to be film directors, but
fewer than 1 per cent of people with a degree in film
studies ever get a job in that sector. A statistic said that
about 34 per cent of those young people end up
working in the retail sector. All the factors that have
been mentioned today underline how important it is
that we get this right.
The Minister has said that there will be a professional
service. We understand that we may have a professional
service, but the people who are providing the actual
advice, online or face-to-face, would not have to be
qualified under the Government’s scheme. Our point
is that young people’s future lives are so important
that these people should have some sort of qualification.
I underline that again. My noble friend Lord Layard
has not commented on this—I am sure that he does
not like people constantly making reference to him as
being the happiness tsar—but if people at this age get
GC 339
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
this wrong then it is not just about them making the
wrong career choice; it has an effect on their health
and their mental health. The consequences of their
making wrong choices are real and serious, and that
underlines the need for people to be qualified before
they are let loose on children in schools.
At the heart of our dilemma here is that the
Government want to be enabling and we want to lay
down duties on schools and rights for pupils. There is
not so much of a difference between us, though; the
Government have already said that there are some
duties on schools regarding what they will provide.
The Bill says that there will be duties for the service to
be independent, which I think we would all agree with;
to be based in schools, which I think is the right place
to focus careers guidance; and to have a mix of academic
and vocational provision, and a number of voices
around the Committee have echoed the importance of
both academic and vocational choices.
All we are attempting to do is add a few more
duties, and the principle that we have already established
is a way of going forward. Those duties include specifying
the frequency of the careers advice, looking at a wider
age range at which children can access careers advice
and the whole issue of people being professionally
qualified. We have established that there will be some
duties, and we want more. I hope that the Minister will
see that we are not so far apart in all this.
I am pleased that the Minister said that he will take
the issue of the age range away and look at it further.
We look forward to hearing about the outcome of that
in more detail. I think that I understood him to say
that he would be bringing forward some more short-notice
guidance. Perhaps he could specify whether that will
be available to us before Report, at least in draft form,
so that we might know where we stand on that.
I like to feel that we are moving closer together on
these issues, but there remains the issue of what happens
in the transition. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said
that he was not convinced there was a crisis, but I hope
that he has heard some of the voices around the table
saying that it is perhaps more of a crisis than he might
have identified. Our understanding is that hundreds, if
not thousands, of people who currently have training
qualifications in careers advice are being made redundant
around the country, so we are losing those skills and
that expertise. It seems pretty strange to set up a new
structure that starts from scratch when everyone has
been scattered to the four winds, so to speak, with all
the knowledge and experience that they retained
beforehand. We need to look again at the transition
and what else we can do to make it a smooth and well
resourced one.
We have had a good debate. We would welcome
some further discussions on this, but in the mean time
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 86A withdrawn.
Amendment 86AA not moved.
Amendments 86B and 86C not moved.
Clause 26 agreed.
Education Bill
GC 340
Clause 27 : Careers guidance in schools in England
Amendments 86CZA to 86G not moved.
Clause 27 agreed.
Amendments 87 to 87B not moved.
6.15 pm
Sitting suspended.
6.26 pm
Clause 28 : Repeal of diploma entitlement for 16 to 18
year olds
Debate on whether Clause 28 should stand part of the
Bill.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet: My Lords, I will
speak to the debate on whether this clause should
stand part of the Bill on behalf of my noble friend
Lord Knight, who regrettably has been detained outside
London. He sends his apologies. I shall be brief. First,
I shall explain the background of diplomas from
the point of view of my personal experience with the
engineering diploma. No one would dispute that it has
been exceedingly successful. The drive for diplomas
came from employers who, certainly in the engineering
industry, were keen to have the option that the diploma
provided. When we talked about careers advice earlier,
we touched on the fact that teachers tend to steer
pupils down the academic rather than the vocational
route. The diploma provided an answer to that because
it offered the option to go either way and cross over at
various different stages.
My question is this: why do the Government feel
the need to repeal the entitlement to these diplomas? It
would be disingenuous not to say that, so far as the
engineering diploma was concerned, we ran into some
issues around what it might mean for other areas of
the curriculum, in particular for A-levels. However,
employer demand overall—I think it is the right word
to use—was very encouraging, and certainly the sector
skills councils, which were heavily involved in the
diplomas, approached them with great enthusiasm.
Why are they being withdrawn when they were proving
to be hugely beneficial and provided one of the answers
to the many questions raised in the debate on the
provisions of Clause 27?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: I rise briefly to support
my noble friend. We have heard a lot from the Minister
and his noble friend about burdens and requirements
on schools, but as I am sure he knows, the entitlement
was not designed so that every school had to provide
the whole range of diplomas. Within an area, however,
a young individual was able to access all of them. I am
looking at this from the other end of the kaleidoscope,
if you like; it was not a burden on schools but an
entitlement for a young person. They could study for a
diploma somewhere accessible in their local area. Therefore
I agree with my noble friend that it seems perverse and
unnecessary of the Government to repeal this entitlement.
GC 341
Education Bill
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[BARONESS HUGHES OF STRETFORD]
If there is a genuine urge to achieve parity of esteem
between vocational courses and academic subjects, it
is hard to understand why this clause has been included
in the Bill in the light of everyone’s desire to achieve
parity.
Baroness Garden of Frognal: Clause 28 is the first of
two clauses related to the diploma entitlement. This
clause removes the duty on local authorities in England
to secure the diploma entitlement for 16 to 18 year-olds.
The provisions being amended are not yet in force.
High-quality vocational education, just as much as
academic education, is crucial to improving England’s
educational performance. In that, I am in total agreement
with the noble Baronesses, Lady Wall and Lady Hughes.
That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary
of State asked Professor Alison Wolf to carry out her
review of vocational qualifications. Professor Wolf
published her report on 3 March. In it, she found
some areas of great strength. Places on the best
apprenticeships, such as those provided by Network
Rail or Rolls-Royce, are highly regarded by employers
and more oversubscribed than the most desirable course
at the best university. There are excellent qualifications
available, providing clear routes for progression into
full-time employment or further study in higher education.
However, these examples of excellence do not add up
to an excellent system and are too often provided in
spite of rather than because of the structures that
Government have created. The diploma entitlement is
one such example where a focus on structure and
process has been taken too far.
As I have said, the provisions being amended here
are not yet in force. Were they to be implemented as
originally intended, they would place a duty on every
local authority to secure access for 16 to 18 year-olds
to all 14 diploma subjects at all levels, regardless of
local needs or any other educational priorities. I reassure
noble Lords that this clause does not remove diplomas
or any of their constituent qualifications. Nor does it
prevent providers of education to 16 to 18 year-olds
from offering diplomas if they so wish. I entirely agree
with the noble Baroness, Lady Wall, that the diploma
in engineering has been the outstanding success of this
particular qualification. We cannot say the same about
the rest of the range of diplomas that were on offer.
The Government believe that schools and colleges
should not be obliged to offer every diploma. They
should be free to decide which qualifications to teach,
according to the needs and aspirations of their students.
Indeed, the Association of Colleges has said that it
has always been uncertain about the diploma entitlement
and that it has,
“always wanted greater freedom for colleges to offer courses and
qualifications which best meet the needs of young people”.
The Association of School and College Leaders has
welcomed the removal of the diploma entitlement,
saying that,
“it was not practical to offer all lines to all students”.
Edge, which has done so much to promote vocational
education, has said that,
“it was always going to be difficult to deliver the entitlement,
especially in rural areas”.
GC 342
Following Professor Wolf’s review of vocational
education, we are embarking on a substantial programme
of reforms. We have already confirmed that some
valued vocational qualifications will be funded for
teaching in September 2011. We have announced that
industry professionals and FE lecturers will be allowed
to teach in schools. We have clarified that schools and
colleges are free to offer any vocational qualification
offered by a regulated awarding organisation. By removing
the diploma entitlement, we are ensuring that schools
and colleges are free to consider which qualifications—
academic or vocational—meet the real needs of their
students, enabling them to progress into further study
or a job. I repeat: this clause does not remove any
diplomas or other vocational option for young people.
It removes a bureaucratic and burdensome requirement
on local authorities, schools and colleges.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet: I thank the Minister
for her response, and some of the things which she has
shared with us are really quite encouraging. Nevertheless,
I think a concern remains that the opportunity will be
removed if it is not widespread. Regarding the comments
of Professor Wolf, she made those at the very early
stages. After looking at the evidence she has in fact
since said that diplomas do provide opportunities for
young people to take either the academic or vocational
route without feeling discriminated against in any way,
and that they give equality of credence to each.
Clause 28 agreed.
Clause 29 agreed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness
Pitkeathley): Regarding Amendment 88, I must tell
your Lordships that if it is agreed to, I cannot call
Amendment 98 for reasons of pre-emption.
Amendment 88
Moved by Baroness Walmsley
88: After Clause 29, insert the following new Clause—
“Personal, social, health and economic education in maintained
schools
(1) In section 84 of EA 2002 (curriculum requirement for first,
second and third key stages), in subsection (3), at the end insert “,
and
(i) personal, social, health and economic education.”
(2) In section 85 of EA 2002 (curriculum requirements for the
fourth key stage), in subsection (4), at the end insert “, and
(d) personal, social, health and economic education.”
(3) In section 74(1) of EIA 2006 (curriculum requirements for
the fourth key stage) in subsection (4) of the new section 85 to EA
2002, at the end insert “, and
(d) personal, social, health and economic education.”
(4) Before section 86 of EA 2002 (power to alter or remove
requirements for fourth key stage) insert—
“85B Personal, social, health and economic education
(1) For the purposes of this Part, personal, social, health and
economic education (“PSHE”) shall comprise—
(a) education about alcohol, tobacco and other drugs,
(b) education about emotional health and well-being,
GC 343
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
(c) sex and relationships education,
(d) education about nutrition and physical activity,
(e) education about personal finance,
(f) education about individual safety, and
(g) careers, business and economic education.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1).
(3) The National Curriculum for England is not required to
specify attainment targets or assessment arrangements for PSHE
(and section 84(1) has effect accordingly).
(4) It is the duty of the governing body and head teacher of
any school in which PSHE is provided in pursuance of this Part
to secure that the principles set out in subsections (5) to (7) are
complied with.
(5) The first principle is that information presented in the
course of providing PSHE should be accurate and balanced.
(6) The second principle is that PSHE should be taught in a
way that—
(a) is appropriate to the ages of the pupils concerned and to
their religious and cultural backgrounds, and
(b) reflects a reasonable range of religious, cultural and
other perspectives.
(7) The third principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way
that—
(a) endeavours to promote equality,
(b) encourages acceptance of diversity, and
(c) emphasises the importance of both rights and
responsibilities.
(8) Subsections (4) to (7) are not to be read as preventing the
governing body or head teacher of a school within subsection (9)
from causing or allowing PSHE to be taught in a way that reflects
the school’s religious character.
(9) A school is within this subsection if it is designated as a
school having a religious character by an order made by the
Secretary of State under section 69(3) of the School Standards
and Framework Act 1998 (duty to secure due provision of religious
education).
(10) This section is not to be read as requiring the PSHE
curriculum for pupils in the first key stage to include paragraphs
(a), (c), (e) and (g) of subsection (1).
(11) In exercising their functions under this Part so far as
relating to PSHE, a local authority, governing body or head
teacher shall have regard to any guidance issued from time to time
by the Secretary of State.”
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to move
Amendment 88 and to speak to Amendments 89 and
90 in my name. They are copied, with some small
changes, from three clauses in the Children Schools
and Families Bill 2010, which were dropped from the
Bill before it became an Act. As I said when the
deletion was debated on the 7 April 2010, these clauses
would have,
“given children the high quality PSHE for which they have long
asked, which they deserve and to which they have a right under
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”.—[Official
Report, 7/4/10; col. 1578.]
Noble Lords may recall the great distress of many
of us when these provisions were dropped. They had
been well thought out, had been consulted upon widely
and had broad support. After they had been deleted
from the Bill, a number of organisations, including the
Youth Parliament, signed a statement making it clear
that they would not give up the fight. Many of your
Lordships, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould
and Lady Massey, vowed to do the same on behalf of
young people. This is not a party matter. It is a matter
of strong principle and belief and I approach it in that
spirit.
Education Bill
GC 344
These amendments make PSHE part of the foundation
curriculum in all schools receiving funding from the
state, including the rapidly increasing number of
academies, for children throughout the age range. The
courses must adhere to certain important principles;
that is, the information must be accurate and balanced,
appropriate to the age, religion and cultural background
of the children, promote equality, accept diversity and
emphasise the importance of rights and responsibilities.
Who could argue with that? These matters can be
taught in a way that reflects the school’s religious
character. Guidance will secure that children learn
about the nature of various adult relationships and
their role in the bringing up of children, where we
know that stable relationships are important.
In these amendments I have made two changes
from the original, which I hope will have the effect of
attracting wider support for the measure in this revised
form. I have removed the clause that would have
removed the parent’s right to withdraw their child.
Frankly, not many parents use it and I do not see why
that should get in the way of the majority of children
getting better PSHE education. The other thing I have
done is to take four elements of the curriculum and
make them voluntary for children at Key Stage 1.
They are drugs, alcohol and tobacco education, sex
and relationship education, personal finance education
and careers and business education. Many schools will
feel they want to include these elements, in an ageappropriate way, for younger children, and they are
free to do that. However, I feel we can leave that to
their judgment.
The reason I wish to make PSHE compulsory in all
schools is to ensure that all children receive it and to
give parents more confidence in it by improving the
quality of delivery. This would be done by improving
teacher training, assessment and inspection if the subject
was taken more seriously by schools and by Ofsted.
Many children tell us that the quality of the PSHE
they receive is poor and that it does not equip them for
their future lives. A survey of 800 young people carried
out by the National Children’s Bureau found that
nearly half felt they had not learnt all they needed to
know about HIV. This can be life saving knowledge
and must be taught in a social context, not just teaching
the bare scientific facts in a biology lesson. I understand
that the report on this matter by the committee of the
noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on this matter, to be published
shortly, will strongly support my position on this.
I strongly believe that the job of schools is to help
young people become life-ready, not just job-ready or
higher education-ready. Children may not go on to get
first-class degrees but they will all have families,
relationships, friends, personal finances, responsibility
for their own health and safety, personal money and
jobs. Good PSHE supports all these things. Just as
importantly, PSHE also supports academic learning
and develops the capabilities that young people need
to flourish in life and in work. Once they leave school,
no one else will do this, so it is vital.
There are other reasons. Children, young people
and their parents want PSHE; many surveys have
shown that. It promotes their health, well-being and
personal safety. Goodness knows, they live in a world
where safety is often threatened and there are many
GC 345
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[BARONESS WALMSLEY]
threats to good health. PSHE also helps the school to
promote the social, moral, cultural and spiritual
development of its pupils and links up well with RE,
as well as with arts and cultural education.
I see that the amendment in the name of the noble
Baroness, Lady Massey, tries to achieve much the
same thing, and I congratulate her on her tenacity in
this regard. The amendment of the noble Baroness,
Lady Finlay, also has merit but the matters about
which she is concerned could easily be taught in the
health part of PSHE.
The White Paper that preceded the Bill recognised
that children can benefit enormously from high-quality
PSHE. That was a most welcome statement. Since
then, the Government have announced an independent
review of the curriculum where PSHE is not included
in the remit of the expert panel. I would like to ask the
Minister how the Secretary of State would respond if
the expert panel reported that they felt that PSHE
should be part of the national curriculum. Would he
accept its recommendation? It is a widely held view
among teachers that all children should receive this
education, and many members of the expert panel are
teachers.
At the same time, the Government have announced
an internal review of PSHE—or at least I believe they
will soon. Why have these two reviews been separated?
Have decisions already been made about the fate of
PSHE? In the light of the enormous body of opinion
that PSHE is a vital element of the education of every
child, why have the Government not seen fit to include
it in the remit of their independent advisers? When the
internal review concludes, as it most certainly will,
that the quality of PSHE is terribly patchy and many
children are being let down, what do the Government
plan to do about it? Will they grasp the nettle and put
this subject where it belongs, in the core compulsory
part of the curriculum, and fulfil the right of every
child? I beg to move.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I congratulate
the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on her rowing
exploits today—even though I understand that we
lost—and on her speech, as well as on providing more
or less a whole PSHE syllabus in her amendment. I
agree that this is not a single-party, but an all-party,
issue and always has been. All parties have spoken on
this, including from the Bishops’ Bench, with some
support for her amendment. My Amendment 98, as
the noble Baroness says, is fairly similar, but I want to
tweak it a bit. I will say why in a minute.
Like the noble Baroness, I ask the Minister yet
again about the details of the internal review. With the
delay of the review we are sending the message to
teachers, parents and pupils that this is not important.
The review was announced eight months ago yet we
still do not know what is happening with it. We ought
to know.
We know enough about the subject area of PSHE
to be able to do a quick review of it. We should not be
denying young people access to the information and
skills that they need to be human beings and to have
knowledge about their own bodies. Supported by
information and skills, they will learn about this.
Education Bill
GC 346
We know that young people want PSHE on the
curriculum and that parents support it. Only something
like 0.2 per cent of parents ever withdraw their children
from anything related to it. We know from surveys
that many young people learn about, for example—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am sorry,
my Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: Do I have to start
again then?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I leave that
up to the noble Baroness.
6.45 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
6.56 pm
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before we
continue, we have been given notice that some noble
Lords are having difficulty in hearing the proceedings.
It seems that a mobile phone is interfering not only
with the loop in here but also with other equipment. I
would ask noble Lords not just to put their mobile
phones on silent, but to turn them off. Thank you.
We shall resume with the noble Baroness, Lady
Massey, on Amendment 88.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: I will refrain from
testing noble Lords on what I said before the Division.
I was merely agreeing with my noble friend—she is my
friend, but not in that sense—the noble Baroness,
Lady Walmsley, in her amendments. I will say simply
that parents and pupils support PSHE and that it is
for the benefit of young people.
Sometimes schools provide the only source of
information for young people on these issues. Parents
may feel that they cannot provide it and, indeed,
welcome the fact that someone else is giving their
children this information. There will be more on that
in a minute. Times change and the world has become
increasingly complex. Years ago, who could have predicted
a pandemic on the scale of HIV infection? I salute
the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on his courage and
determination in raising awareness of the issue—in
the face of much opposition at the time—and on his
continued support through his committee. I see that
awareness of HIV has now dropped and that young
people between the ages of 16 and 24 make up 12 per
cent of all new diagnoses. That is worrying.
We should also be concerned about other health
issues such as teenage pregnancy, obesity, drugs, smoking,
alcohol use and so on. I have read that we are in
danger of facing an obesity pandemic, largely due to
inappropriate diet. But these health issues are only
part of the story. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley,
said, PSHE aims to foster good relationships with
friends, parents and others. It aims to increase selfawareness and self-respect through an exploration of
values and aspirations. It is known that young people
who have good relationships along with a strong set of
GC 347
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
values and aspirations tend to be those who do not get
pregnant or take drugs, and have a more confident
body image.
Teaching has come a long way. I will not regale the
Minister again with the full story of my own sex
education when we—the girls, that is—had to knit a
uterus. I would say only that it put me off knitting. I
remember—
Lord Hill of Oareford: I hope the noble Baroness
will forgive me. I just wanted to say that the noble
Baroness did tell me the story about the knitted uterus
when we completed the Academies Bill. The Bill team
then kindly presented me with a knitted uterus in
honour of the noble Baroness.
7 pm
Baroness Massey of Darwen: It was not as good as
mine. I remember a story told by a very humorous
Roman Catholic nun. She was on a health education
course with me some years ago. She said that she had
been told to say that a girl should, when she danced
with a boy, have the width of a telephone directory
between them and that, if she got into difficulty, she
should yell, “Stop it! I am a young Ursuline”. Incidentally,
some excellent PSHE education takes place in Catholic
schools, to which I shall come in a minute.
So I say yes to the amendments, but I want some
modification. The notion of what I call the spiral
curriculum gets lost in the amendments. By spiral
curriculum, I mean teaching an issue very simply
when a child is young and going into more detail as
the child matures. Young children are able to grasp
what foods are good for them and which are not
without going into detail of nutritional bases and
chemical formulae. Young children can explore the
notion of friendships and good, respectful relationships
without details of sex—they would not grasp them
anyway, and that would be inappropriate teaching.
I remember the story of a little boy asking his
mother where he came from. She thought, “Right, this
is the teaching moment”, and went into stories about
daddy’s seeds and mummy’s seeds meeting. After a
while, the little boy said, “Yes, but did I come from
Birmingham or Luton?”. When I was teaching my two
year-old grandson to play cricket, I did not toss a
Michael Holding fast ball at him first thing: they were
gentle lobs. Then they got faster. My point is that I
would not exclude any stage of education from certain
teaching; I would make the teaching suitable to the
child and then build on what had been learnt. That is
why a curriculum of PSHE is necessary—just like in
maths or English—which builds on knowledge and
skills that children learn gradually.
The other area where I have some difficulty with the
amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is
in paragraphs (7) to (11) concerning faith schools and
SRE. Although faith schools will still be required to
teach SRE, they are exempted from teaching it in a
balanced way which promotes equity and diversity.
The amendment would give faith schools the right to
allow the tenets of religion to override the principles
that must guide the teaching of SRE in other maintained
schools. That could lead to narrower teaching. The
Education Bill
GC 348
amendment tabled by me and my noble friends Lord
Knight and Lady Gould would not prevent faith
schools teaching SRE in ways that reflect their religious
character, but it would guarantee pupils a right to
teaching about all aspects of PSHE.
To return to Roman Catholic nuns, I have talked to
many of them on courses. They say, “We can be very
clear about our boundaries in what we teach in personal,
social and health education. It does not mean that we
cannot talk about contraception, abortion, homosexuality
and what they mean. It means that we must give the
perspective of our faith on those issues”. How sensible.
That is all I am looking for.
We all have a particular perspective on all sorts of
issues. We can make that perspective clear to young
people. However, they should be given full and
comprehensive education. I am a humanist, but I
believe that young people should be taught about
different faiths and cultures. Otherwise, we are in the
dangerous territory of indoctrination—a word disliked
by my noble friend Lord McAvoy. Indoctrination is
not education. Education seeks to bring out the best in
young people.
I say to the Minister: please say yes to the principle
of having PSHE as a statutory right for all pupils of
whatever age or faith. Let us get the appropriate
curriculum and teaching sorted out.
Lord McAvoy: Can my noble friend give us a definition
of what she considers to be education and what she
considers to be indoctrination?
Baroness Massey of Darwen: I certainly can. If the
noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, were here, she would
give the example of a particular school where they
learned the Koran for about 80 per cent of the curriculum,
and very little else. I think that is indoctrination.
Education should consider all aspects of a particular
faith, of other faiths, of personal, social and health
education, without restriction. Trying to persuade young
people to adhere to a particular thing, which they may
not be ready to adhere to anyway, may influence them
in unfortunate ways.
Lord McAvoy: I am grateful to my noble friend for
that clarification. I am sure she is fed up with me, but
perhaps I could test her patience further. She considers
indoctrination to be a set percentage of the curriculum
by a Catholic school, for instance. Does she not accept
that parents choose to send their children to Catholic
schools or a particular faith school? I cannot grasp
why people making legislation should restrict people’s
choices. People are not dragged into these faith schools.
People choose to send their children to these faith
schools.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, with all
due respect, I think my noble friend is misunderstanding
me. I am not saying that parents should not send their
children to the school of their choice. All I am saying
is that, as a parent, I would not wish my child to have
his or her education limited to a particular doctrine or
creed or particular way of teaching or particular aspects
of teaching. I would want my child to have a very
GC 349
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[BARONESS MASSEY OF DARWEN]
broad education. Earlier I gave the example of a
Roman Catholic school where the nuns say they will
teach in a broad sense but within the ethos of their
own faith. That is fine by me.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support
wholeheartedly what my noble friend Lady Massey
has just said, particularly in relation to children learning
about different faiths and so on and that being part of
general education. Amendment 85B is very good and
extremely well intentioned. The only problem I have is
with its wording. Subsection (7) outlines the principles
of PSHE, which of course are absolutely admirable,
that it “endeavours to promote equality”, of course;
“encourages acceptance of diversity”, of course; and,
“emphasises the importance of both rights and responsibilities”.
Of course we all agree with that; it is absolutely right.
However, subsection (8) says:
“Subsections (4) to (7) are not to be read as preventing the
governing body or head teacher of a school within subsection (9)”—
that is, schools with a religious character,
“from causing or allowing PSHE to be taught in a way that
reflects the school’s religious character”.
That gives me a problem because subsection (7)
could lead us into difficulty when it says, “endeavours
to promote equality”. We are all aware that there are
religions that, if you look at their precepts, are in
dispute with the equality law that we have, and we
want all citizens of this country to accept the rights
that the equality law gives them. That sort of wording
might lead us into some difficulty.
I do not have the same problem with Amendment 98,
which has just been spoken to by my noble friend
Lady Massey. Frankly, I would prefer that wording
and that amendment to the wording in the amendment
that is presently before us. However, I support the
feeling behind both amendments, I think that it is
right, and I congratulate both noble Baronesses for
their commitment to these ideas, which I wholeheartedly
support.
Lord Layard: My Lords, I congratulate the proposers
of these amendments because they deal with one of
the central purposes of education. In surveys, when
parents are asked what they most want for their children
in school, they say they most want children to be
happy and to learn how to live. Secondly, they say they
want them to learn their subjects. The tragic situation
is that many people, including some senior politicians,
think that these two objectives are in contradiction to
and competition with each other. Of course, the opposite
is true. These objectives are mutually reinforcing and
this is really the essence of the point that needs to be
made today. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley,
referred to it and I want to give you a bit of evidence
that by the teaching of PSHE we serve two objectives:
teaching children how to manage their lives but also
enabling them, through being happier and more balanced,
to learn their subjects better.
Here is one piece of interesting evidence. Some 207
programmes in imparting life skills that were developed
mainly in the United States were surveyed in terms of
their effects on young people. Each programme covered
Education Bill
GC 350
a part of the PSHE curriculum that has been outlined
in the amendment and was rigorously evaluated in
comparison with a control group. From the so-called
meta-analysis, one obtains the average effect of all
these programmes on the well-being of the pupils and
their academic achievements. Here is the effect on
the emotional well-being and balance of the child: the
average programme lifted the average child by 11 percentile
points—11 places in the ranking in which children are
ranked from 0 to 100—and that represents a substantial
effect. Guess what the effect on academic performance
was. It was also 11 percentile points. So it is not a
question of either life skills or academic attainment, it
is both. If noble Lords are interested in these programmes,
information on them can be found on a wonderful
website, casel.org. The other point that emerges from
these surveys is that the better of the 207 programmes
have much larger effects.
The future of PSHE, particularly in secondary
schools, has to involve a much greater use of such
programmes because it is an extraordinarily difficult
subject to teach. We have not talked about that very
much but most people, if thrown in at the deep end,
would have a lot of difficulty in teaching most of these
subjects. We need much more serious teacher training
in these areas and much better materials. There is
some progress in this country in this area, but very
little. To achieve progress in the quality of the teaching,
these subjects must be firmly established in the curriculum.
That is what these amendments are about. I welcome
them and hope that the Government will take them
seriously.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield: My Lords, I should like
to speak in support of these amendments and to talk
briefly about the critical importance of relationship
education within the PSHE curriculum and its links to
pupils’ wider emotional health and well-being, which
we have just heard about. Before doing so, I should
declare an interest as chief executive of the charity
Relate, which delivers relationship education to children
in all four key stages in about 50 primary and secondary
schools across the country.
I often feel that I am on a personal mission to try to
change the terminology in this debate to “relationships”
—in capitals—and sex education, rather than the other
way around, which very much puts the cart before the
horse in a rather unhelpful way. That is because when
sex education and relationships education are coupled
together in that order, the debate too often gets bogged
down and polarised, and focuses almost solely on
parents’ right to withdraw their children from sex
education. We should be focusing on children’s emotional
health and well-being.
Relationships education, when delivered appropriately
by experts in the field—classroom teachers are the
first to admit that this is not often their specialism and
can feel uncomfortable in this role—has many benefits,
not least when it focuses on the quality of relationships
whereby young people learn how to distinguish a good
relationship from a bad one. This is crucial because,
sadly, too many children see few examples of good
relationships in their home life and, without help, are
likely to repeat these patterns in their own relationships.
It is also critical that young people understand, for
GC 351
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
example, how to manage conflict and cope with family
breakdown, how to recognise and understand abusive
behaviour in relationships and what they need to do to
seek help in those situations.
As we have heard today, survey evidence shows that
young people want opportunities to discuss things
that feel relevant to their lives, like their emotions,
relationships and their sex lives or sexual health. In
addition, research from the Sex Education Forum
showed that 84 per cent of parents see both school and
home as the main source of sex and relationships
education and that both should be involved. To me,
this is the nub of the matter. With regard to school or
the home it is never a question of either/or but very
much both/and.
7.15 pm
I wish I had time to tell the Committee about the
various projects that we are involved with across the
country, working with boys, girls, teachers and parents,
trying to provide high quality information about both
relationships and sex. We are helping to support young
people in making important personal choices within a
framework that emphasises their values. At the end of
these projects, the feedback that we get from young
people is often that they feel much more confident and
less embarrassed talking about relationships and sex.
We also get positive feedback from parents and teachers.
There are wider reasons for supporting the universal
teaching of relationships education in schools, which
is related to the duty on schools to promote children’s
well-being, and I am delighted to see that that remains
firmly in place. As we have heard, there is a growing
body of evidence that good emotional well-being is
strongly associated with good educational attainment
and improved employment prospects; indeed, there is
some evidence that it can increase earnings potential.
The reverse is true as well. From our work at Relate
providing one-to-one counselling to around 15,000
children in some 650 schools across the country, we
see at first hand how problems with relationships at
home mean that children are often unable to learn.
We have not heard much in today’s debate about
teenage pregnancy rates. Although they are slowly
declining, we still have the highest rates in Europe—a
matter of profound concern to us all. I remind the
committee that the final report of the Teenage Pregnancy
Independent Advisory Group warned that teenage
pregnancy will rise again unless there is better provision
of sex and relationships education. It put a particular
emphasis on giving young people the knowledge and
life skills to resist peer, partner and media pressures,
and that is very important. My lasting memory in this
area is of talking to one of our expert trainers delivering
sex and relationships education to young people in
school who told me, and I quote this word for word:
“The problem is that they know everything about sex and
nothing about relationships”.
We have a chance through this amendment to ensure
that all young people learn about the importance of
relationships now and in the future.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I shall
speak to my amendment in this group.
Education Bill
GC 352
First, though, I shall address a small point just
raised about relationships. In new Section 85B(1)(b),
perhaps we should also insert, “bereavement reactions
in grief and loss”. There are some fantastic programmes
that help children prepare for the inevitability of
experiencing bereavement, grief and loss, which are
tailored for different ages. We know that by the time
children leave school, 10 per cent of them are going to
be seriously bereaved, but we are just ignoring that
when we talk about other aspects of development.
Those children do very badly if they do not understand
their emotions.
My amendment is focused on community resuscitation.
In the UK we have over 30,000 out-of-hospital cardiac
arrests a year, and currently fewer than 10 per cent of
victims survive to leave hospital. That means that we
have 27,000 sudden deaths in the community. To put
that in perspective, about 12,000 women a year die of
breast cancer, 3,000 people die on the roads and 270
people die from knife crime. The number of sudden
cardiac arrest deaths out there is huge. It takes around
five to 10 minutes for an emergency ambulance to
reach someone and for every minute that passes in
cardiac arrest the chance of successful defibrillation
decreases by 10 per cent, so time is of the essence.
Immediately administrated cardiopulmonary resuscitation,
which I am now going to call CPR because it is much
shorter, will prolong the time that the patient remains
shockable and therefore can be put back into a normal
rhythm. It increases the chance of survival by a factor
of around three. If there is a defibrillator nearby,
survival rates of up to 50 per cent from a baseline of
under 10 per cent have been reported.
Other parts of the world have already addressed
this. It is part of the curriculum in Norway, Denmark
and France. The American Heart Association has
advised that no pupil should graduate from secondary
school without being proficient in CPR, not just learning
it. In Seattle, schools have taught CPR in PE lessons
for over 30 years, so now half of the population of
Seattle and the surrounding area are trained. In 2009
the survival rate for witnessed cardiac arrests was
46 per cent, while ours is under 10 per cent. The
difference is dramatic.
Here in the UK, the British Heart Foundation has
put Heartstart into over 2,700 schools, 700 of which
are secondary schools or colleges. It trains thousands
of children every year. British Red Cross and St John
Ambulance also run training schemes, but the trouble
is that the provision is patchy. There are 3.6 million
children in secondary education in England, but only
around 14 per cent have any training in CPR provided
by one of these organisations. It is estimated that
around 3 million secondary school pupils are not
trained, even though the voluntary organisations are
very ready to offer this training. By contrast, a poll
taken by the British Heart Foundation at the beginning
of this year found that 86 per cent of teachers, 70 per
cent of parents and 78 per cent of children want to be
trained. There is no resistance anywhere; it is a question
of making the link. The campaign has wide medical,
nursing and teaching support, as well as from the
charities that deal with bereavement following cardiac
death.
GC 353
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[BARONESS FINLAY OF LLANDAFF]
Training and support for teachers would enable
them to deliver emergency life support. Currently, the
British Heart Foundation spends around £800,000 a
year on teaching resources, including mannequins,
school packs, teacher supply cover and so on. It is
estimated that it will be necessary to increase the
provision of community resuscitation development
officers, who are linked with the 12 ambulance trusts
in England, by around five people to ensure that every
child in every school is taught. With additional resources,
the models could be successfully applied across all
schools. There are over 3,000 local authority maintained
secondary schools in England. The amendment aims
to amend Section 84 of the Education Act 2002 so
that this training becomes a community requirement
at the first, second and third key stages.
I know that the Government can be much more
prescriptive with the curriculum for maintained schools
and I hope that they might consider adopting this
training because that will influence the academies to
take it up. However, I am well aware that the Government
cannot be prescriptive for academies. Sadly, this is not
part of PSHE at the moment. First aid training in the
curriculum covers some parts of emergency life support
but not emergency CPR, which is what can save lives.
We could go from 27,000 sudden deaths in the community
to approximately half that number if we spent a few
hours on training all children in CPR. It has been
estimated that the training takes only around four
hours. It would mean that when they come across
someone who has collapsed and is effectively dead on
the street, they will know what to do.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I know that there are quite a
number of people who, like me, should declare an
interest in this, having been identified as a potential
victim. I shall just tell my noble friend that he will have
to argue very strongly against this amendment to stop
me supporting it at a later stage.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I do
not have an amendment and I do not have a speech,
but I have a question: how do we come to be where we
are in this debate at all? The Government have made it
absolutely clear that they have an agenda about well-being,
particularly about well-being for children. They have
also made it clear that, when findings show that children
in our country are less happy than in other parts of
Europe, they want to do something about improving
that position. They, like the previous Government,
have also undertaken that elements of PSHE are very
important in the curriculum. With due humility, the
Minister might do well to go away with those people
who have long lists of amendments and talk them
through. I do not think that the noble Baronesses,
Lady Walmsley and Lady Massey, are likely to give up.
We will get somewhere that way.
Many of the arguments I would have made have
now already have been made but I intervened to put
one argument particularly for a group of children
who, without this education, will not have any benefit
in these areas—that is, very poor and vulnerable children
who come from some of the deepest, darkest estates in
our country and with whom I spend quite a lot of
Education Bill
GC 354
time. These children are subject to relationship breakdown
or find themselves in care. They do not get this kind of
education in their homes. People will try and give it in
residential care—foster carers will give it—but they
will have interrupted relationships and care. They will
not have that kind of secure relationship and
understanding that many other children will have. It is
for this group of children that I plead. They are
children who are in conflict.
As the chair of the Children and Family Court
Advisory and Support Service, I work with a young
people’s board. I do not give many anecdotes when
speaking in Committee but those children often talk
about teachers in school giving them some of the
elements that help them hold themselves together through
extraordinarily conflicted experiences in their homes.
Teachers are at this moment attempting to give this
kind of education. It needs space, skill and structure. I
cannot understand why we are at this point in the
debate because this is what the Government want
as well.
Baroness O’Cathain: I support the Education Bill
and particularly the determination to have a slimmeddown national curriculum. In the fascinating debate
on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of
Houndwood, was right to advocate,
“a balanced education with a minimum core”,—[Official Report,
11/7/11; col. GC 224.]
which allows room for the professionalism of teachers.
I strongly approach that approach.
In the same debate on Amendment 83, the noble
Lord, Lord Knight, who unfortunately is not in his
place and we know why, expressed the wish that children
would get up in the morning wanting to go to school.
The aim should be good teaching on core subjects that
encourages all pupils to feel involved and indeed excited
by a love of learning and increasing their knowledge.
Maths would even bring alive the dreary subject of
economics—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord
Peston, is no longer with us. History could be expanded
to show how social structures evolve, informing pupils
on how to react to differing situations. What better
way to develop good communication skills than to
learn lessons from the best communicators of the past
by studying works of the great poets, authors and
orators?
However, Amendments 88, 89, 90 and 98 would
take us in a completely different direction. As we have
heard, their effect would be to expand the curriculum
to introduce statutory personal, social, health and
economic education for all maintained schools. As we
have already heard this evening from the noble Lord,
Lord Layard, PSHE is extremely difficult to teach.
Now we have a situation: how can we have a slimmeddown curriculum and yet put in it more and more
issues that are extremely difficult to teach?
Baroness Massey of Darwen: PSHE is a subject
which, given the ethos and support for it in school, can
run across all subjects in the curriculum. That is the
focus for it. The noble Baroness is of course perfectly
right about communication. However, it needs a core,
even if it is a small one, of personal social and health
education so that that core can expand into other
GC 355
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
subjects and be beneficial for the child. There is no
denying that if we want good academic results in our
schools we have to give a focus to relationships education
and young people feeling comfortable with themselves
and their own learning abilities.
7.30 pm
Baroness O’Cathain: I am grateful for that intervention
and the noble Baroness is absolutely right that all of
that can be taught through the other ways. However,
why are we going to duplicate and have a special core
subject called personal, social and health education as
well as insisting that it is part of the maths curriculum,
the English curriculum, the history curriculum and
whatever?
My greatest objection is to Amendment 98. If agreed,
Amendment 98 would extend sex education to all
children from five years of age upwards. I find this
deeply concerning and even abhorrent. Many of us
were very thankful that the previous Government ran
out of time for similar plans before last year’s election.
Among other measures, detailed sex education lessons
for children as young as five were proposed.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: I am sorry to interrupt
the noble Baroness again. The noble Baroness, Lady
Walmsley, is saying they were not and I will leave her
to deal with that. What I would like to say—and I did
say earlier—is that the curriculum should be appropriate
to the age and stage of the child. I gave the example of
not lobbing cricket balls fast at my two year-old grandson,
but to start slowly. I should not mention the press but
this popular newspaper thing about sex education at
five is quite inaccurate. Teachers do not do this. Teachers
talk about relationships and friendships at five, they
do not talk about HIV/AIDS and all the rest of that.
It is simply not true.
Baroness O’Cathain: That is a marvellous statement
that is simply not true, because it is actually said that
you want to repeal the statutory requirement that sex
education is not taught between the ages of five and
seven. This amendment would repeal that statutory
requirement. In other words, if you are saying that you
want sex education for five to seven year-olds to stay
exactly as it is, I have no problem.
Baroness Whitaker: I support Amendment 98, in
particular new subsections (6) and (7). We live in a
nation of many cultures and several faiths. I declare an
interest as a vice president of the British Humanist
Association. These many cultures and several faiths
are a huge asset for our culture, understanding of the
world, trade, regeneration and enterprise—lots of
things—but to realise these assets we need to be at ease
with our fellow citizens, to understand their culture
and their faith, especially when we do not share it. If
we do not have this opportunity in school, we risk
losing out culturally and economically but, almost
more importantly, we risk increasing bigotry and prejudice.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I have been mentioned.
I have not resiled from the position I took on Monday
and I continue to have concerns about the overcrowding
Education Bill
GC 356
of the required curriculum, as I am bound to say in
talking about these amendments. None the less, I
accept that PSHE is a very important part of education
for many young people and that it will continue in
schools, and rightly so. However, it seems that we are
trying to impose the shape of education through
legislation, whereas the shape of education is a matter
of balance and balance is never formulated in a set of
clauses in a Bill. The real issue is how well this is done
and whether a balance of attitude is preserved. This
applies to PSHE and to the teaching of religion and
about other faiths in faith schools.
I have reservations. First, I do not think that we do
PSHE very well. We have already had mention of the
fact that teenage pregnancy numbers may be falling
but we are still the worst in Europe. STD admissions
are rising among young people. Whatever we are doing,
and we have done a lot more of it the last two years,
we are not doing it well. I am not sure that legislating
in this way will change that. Secondly, it is very much a
delicate balance. Thirdly, one of the ways in which you
try to deal with delicate balances in schools is by
having an adequate inspection system. I am not saying
that the one we have is good enough yet, but if there
were an adequate inspection system one of the things
it would ask is, “Is the balance of sex education in this
school, in this community and in this culture right?”.
That is what you would expect from a good school
inspection. It looks as if, in this Bill, many schools will
be exempted from that kind of inspection and that is
where I see the gap. I would be reassured about all this
being written down in an Act if there were some way
of ensuring that it were well done in schools. It is a
delicate issue. How this is taught varies from one
school and one community to the next and that can
only be properly assessed by trained and qualified
inspectors.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely agree what with
the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, just said. I would
have said it myself if I could have said it as well. It is
crucial that children learn these things at school. It is
daffy to prescribe that individual items should be
learnt. One should look at the outcome. The only
sensible way of looking at the outcome is inspection.
This Bill is setting out to destroy that aspect of inspection
rather than building on it, so I am entirely with the
noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in my concerns. The
only other thing I would like to say is that this is a
great subject to be debating in this room, under a
picture of a PSHE lesson.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: This whole business of
PSHE is almost written on one’s brain because the
argument for it has come up again and again in all the
education Bills. Relationships are so crucial in everything
that we do. I am very much of the view that it certainly
does not need to be prescribed and in the Bill. I go
along with the approach of my noble friend Lord
Sutherland on this. Nevertheless, the whole area is
crucially important.
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was here
because when the previous Government introduced
citizenship lessons, there was at last great hope that
children would be introduced to the business of
GC 357
Education Bill
[LORDS]
[BARONESS HOWE OF IDLICOTE]
parenting—not just getting on and understanding their
difficult relationships with their parents but actually
what a child needs: love, support and caring. That
never happened; it got shunted around to different
lessons, if it ever took place at all. I would not at all
mind having an inspection with that written into it:
how is it doing and is it increasing the happiness and
the general well-being of our children?
Returning briefly to the business of teaching religion,
and what was said just now, it is crucial for all of us to
know about the different religions in the world—and
none. It is essential that we accept and know and are
tolerant about this. One of the horrors in the rest of
the world is that that form of tolerance does not exist.
So we must do whatever we can in that direction.
However, I hope that in the process we are not going
to end up with ways that actually restrict the excellent
work that many of our religious schools are doing. I
am not thinking of these amendments but perhaps
some that will come subsequently.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, in response
to the query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland,
about inspections, as I understand it, Ofsted will continue
to conduct inspections in academies and other schools
as part of national surveys of particular aspects of
education. I rise simply to say to our two Ministers
that surely the issue of PSHE would be top of the list
of priorities for Ofsted in terms of a national survey
of what is actually happening. Its report would tell us
what is really going on in our schools across the
country.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I should
like to make three brief points. First, I join in the
general applause for the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland,
on the application of the law of diminishing returns in
this area: the more you specify, the more you tend to
lose. My second point may also relate to later debates.
As far as possible in education, we should try to
maintain one framework that covers all schools. There
may be some adaptation in schools of different character,
but it is in the spirit of our educational system to aim
for a framework that brings a Church of England
school, a Roman Catholic school, a Jewish school and
a local authority maintained school under the same
umbrella. We are one society, and it is important to
make that point in our education system.
Finally, and perhaps more significantly, I suppose
that a Bishop would have to comment on sex and
relationships, but sometimes I think that people get
obsessed with this area. Generally, the debate has been
skewed too much towards it. I also think that linking
sex and relationships, while I understand entirely why
we do it—we do not want to disentangle sexual
relationships from relationships—we do not want to
get into the way of thinking that all relationships are
therefore fundamentally sexualised as an outcome. I
read Frank Field’s report to the Government on children
in our society, which is a serious issue. Surveys show
that one of the things that children most want to learn
is how to be good parents. There is something of a
lacuna in these proposals in the area of what I would
call parenthood, quite apart from the issues of sexualised
Education Bill
GC 358
or sexually related relationships. I rather agree with
the right honourable gentleman down the corridor
that what is key to our society is how we hand on
civilisation to the next generation. There is some wisdom
in the observation in his report that children want
more than anything else to learn to be good parents.
However, I do not see that coming through, and I
certainly do not want to see this education reduced to
sex and relationships.
Lord McAvoy: My Lords, all the contributions have
reflected positive attitudes and have contained many
positive words. The danger is that if someone like
myself dissents from what I consider to be the main
thrust of the amendment of my noble friend Lady
Massey, they are portrayed as dinosaurs, male chauvinists
and all the litany of abusive terms that suggest
discrimination against women. However, let me declare
my credentials from when I served in another place
because they will totally contradict that kind of attitude
towards me. I voted for the equal age of consent. I
voted for civil partnerships. Even when there was a
free vote, I voted for every single equality measure. It
was not a case of being whipped to vote for something
because the Government said so. I hope that if that
attitude has been inculcated, it will have been quickly
dispelled by my record. Perhaps I would carry more
credibility with my noble friend Lady Massey if she
took into account the fact that the Roman Catholic
church attacked me for those votes, but as far as I am
concerned, it establishes my independence.
I would like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley,
to turn to page 6 of the Marshalled List, which sets
out the proposed new section. Subsection (6) states:
“The second principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way
that”—
as outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the
amendment. Subsection (7) also has three paragraphs.
However, I worry about the practicality of that. The
practicality is that new Section 85B(8) says,
“Subsections (4) to (7) are not to be read as preventing the
governing body or head teacher of a school within subsection (9)
from causing or allowing PSHE to be taught in a way that reflects
the school’s religious character”.
Who decides? Who judges? Who makes a judgment if
someone objects to the way in which that has been
done at a school?
7.45 pm
Baroness Walmsley: I think the answer is that a
school does; and it would be held to account for that
by Ofsted and by individual parents. If individual
parents did not like what was going on, they would
retain the right to withdraw their child. Of course, in
all the best schools parents are involved anyway in the
design of the curriculum covering sensitive issues like
this.
Lord McAvoy: I am delighted to hear the noble
Baroness say that she supports the rights of parents. If
parents send their children to a particular school, she
will obviously support them in that, and she will also
support them in ensuring that the ethos of that school
is maintained, especially one of a religious nature.
GC 359
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
When it comes to the new section in Amendment 90,
the difficulty is that I maintain—I will no doubt
encourage further contributions with this—that the
common threads of the amendments are designed to
minimise, damage and gradually remove the religious
element of faith schools.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: I am so sorry to
interrupt the noble Lord again but I think that he has
misunderstood a great deal of what I was saying. I am
not trying to damage the ethos of faith schools. I am
saying that the ethos of faith schools may well exist
but children have the right to know about other faiths.
I was talking today to a friend from Northern Ireland
who said, “Look at what damage has been done in
Northern Ireland by people not learning about other
faiths”. I say no more.
Lord McAvoy: That is the second time that my
noble friend has accused me of misunderstanding her.
I fully confess that I have a very limited formal education
but I do not have limited intelligence, and it is my
responsibility to make a judgment that I see a thread
in maybe one or two contributions from my noble
friend, seeing as how she has introduced this subject.
It is my opinion that there is a common thread to the
amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley,
and my noble friend that are designed to—I withdraw
the word “damage”—minimise or devalue the existence
and practice of faith schools.
Baroness Walmsley: I am sorry to interrupt the
noble Lord again, but could he please be specific
about what it is in my amendments that seeks to
devalue faith schools?
Lord McAvoy: I said there was a thread running
through the amendments.
Baroness Garden of Frognal: I apologise for intervening
on the noble Lord, but we have a group coming later
that is all to do with faith and religious worship. I
think the comments that he is making might possibly
be more appropriate when we come to the next group.
Given the lateness of the hour, we might perhaps let
the Opposition and the Minister wind up this particular
debate, but focusing on PSHE rather than the broader
issues of faith.
Lord McAvoy: Very briefly, in response to the Minister,
I have not said much different from my noble friend
Lady Massey, so it seems to me a strange distinction
that she is making. But if it is the will of the Committee
that I shut up and sit down, tell me. It is? That is fine.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: I am not going to
sum up on what has been a wide-ranging debate; I just
want to make a quick comment. First, I want to put
on record my support and that of my noble friend for
the amendment on PSHE in the name of my noble
friend Lady Massey, and those in the name of the
noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Secondly, I was
disappointed that such provisions disappeared from
our legislation in the wash-up before the general election,
because we were proceeding with this. Thirdly, these
amendments appeared in our legislation following a
Education Bill
GC 360
wide-ranging review that my noble friend Lord Knight
conducted over a long period and which involved all
the faith schools, other schools and lots of interested
parties. It reached a remarkable consensus on the way
forward. Provisions similar to these amendments appeared
in our legislation. I should like to ask the Minister:
given the progress that was made, what else could the
review that this Government are now carrying out
possibly be looking at? Could they not move a little
quicker to get these provisions into legislation, given
that that work was already completed?
Baroness Benjamin: I totally agree with my noble
friend Lady Walmsley and I support her amendment
and the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady
Massey. We need to teach our children to develop
social and interpersonal skills and, most of all, to help
them to understand what unconditional love is. We
have talked about sex, relationships and family life,
but lots of children do not know what true unconditional
love is. They also need to develop a kind of strategy
whereby they can think for themselves. Helping them
to develop interpersonal and social skills will go a long
way towards achieving that. That is what the amendment
is all about.
Lord Hill of Oareford: My Lords, I will not be quite
as brief as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, but I
shall do my best. As she said, it has in many ways been
an extremely interesting and engaging debate. At its
heart, apart from a few outliers, it boils down to a
judgment that one has to reach as to whether the best
way forward on addressing these important issues
around PSHE, which we all agree need to be addressed,
is through the statutory prescriptive route or through
a different approach by trying to slim down the statutory
provisions and the national curriculum, and leaving
more space and opportunity for more skill—words
used by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth—for teachers
to give children and young people the support that
they need. Almost my first debates in this House just
over a year ago were about PSHE and faith. Whoever
said how tenacious my noble friend Lady Walmsley
and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey—with whom I
have had many discussions—have been on this subject
was absolutely right.
We know that in a recent report on the subject,
Ofsted found that PSHE education was good or
outstanding in three-quarters of the schools visited
and that pupils’ personal development was good in
most schools visited and was outstanding in about
one-third of the schools. However, that same report
also found that there were weaknesses, particularly
around sex and relationships education, and in some
other areas that we need to find ways of addressing.
At heart, therefore, is a generally broad agreement on
the ends to which we are working but disagreement
about the means.
The Government’s aim is to shrink the curriculum
and to leave schools and teachers more time to decide
for themselves what to teach—a point of view that
received a fair amount of support from a number of
noble Lords. Teachers have said that they feel that
their professionalism is undermined by the overall
degree of prescription to which they have been subjected.
GC 361
Education Bill
[LORDS]
Education Bill
GC 362
[LORD HILL OF OAREFORD]
By stripping the curriculum back we want to give
schools the space they need to offer a rounded education,
including of course PSHE.
We know that PSHE covers a range of important
areas and schools teach it in a variety of ways. It seems
to me right that schools should have the discretion to
teach it. They know their children. Different schools
have different circumstances, and different kinds of
children will need different support from their school.
Ofsted has said that the most effective curriculum
model seen was one in which discrete, regularly taught
PSHE lessons were supplemented with cross-curricular
activities. That point has also been raised. We are keen
to see good practice being shared with the minority of
schools that are not teaching the subject as well. Our
priority should be to support schools in their efforts to
do better by their pupils. That is why we are carrying
out the internal review which we have heard about,
which has two main objectives: to consider what should
be taught; and to look at how schools can be supported
to improve the quality of all PSHE teaching. That
may be a new element, different from the work previously
carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Knight.
I completely understand the impatience of the noble
Baroness, Lady Massey, and my noble friend to hear
from the Government when this fabled review will
heave into view. I have been saying for some time to
the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that it will be soon
or shortly; I think it is very soon or very shortly, and as
soon as we are there, I will of course circulate that to
all Members of the Committee.
enable many more schools to get involved in things
such as the British Heart Foundation’s Heartstart
programme.
We know that there are many things—and my
noble friend Lady Walmsley spoke about them with
great experience and passion—that pupils need to
learn about and can benefit from. We heard from the
noble Lord, Lord Layard, who sadly is not in his
place, about the link between well-being and the ability
to learn. Of course that is true, but attempting to
define those things from the centre, and be prescriptive
about what schools must teach, removes teachers’ and
school leaders’ ability to use their professional judgment.
We had an interesting exchange about inspections.
Of course the new school inspection framework will
cover the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development
of pupils. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland,
was making a point echoed by my noble friend Lord
Lucas about the frequency of inspection—we will
come on to talk about that under later groups. We will
also come back to discuss thematic reviews and the
risk assessment process, issues mentioned by my noble
friend Lady Perry of Southwark. We know that the
majority of schools already deliver good PSHE education,
which is not currently a statutory part of the curriculum.
I agree that we need to look at how the quality of
PSHE teaching can be improved and what its content
should be; that is what our review will look into. I
know that I will disappoint my noble friend Lady
Walmsley who has clear and strong views on this, but
with these comments I ask her to withdraw her
amendments.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: Does the noble Lord
mean that it will be finished soon, or that it will be
started start soon?
8 pm
Lord Hill of Oareford: I know that the noble Baroness
is keen that the review should be as short as possible
and that she thinks that much of what it covers has
already been covered—we have had that discussion
before. I hope that it will start soon, and then aim to
conclude by the end of the year.
On the points made about sex and relationships
education, as part of our review we will determine
how we can support schools to improve the quality of
their teaching in this area. As I mentioned, Ofsted’s
report on the matter says that sex education is one of
the weaker aspects of PSHE. This is perhaps a sign
that legislation of itself is not a necessarily a guarantee
of good quality teaching, since that is the part that is
statutory.
On as emergency life support skills are concerned, I
agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that
equipping young people to be able to step in where
lives are at stake is extremely important. I know that
many schools, and organisations such as the British
Heart Foundation and St John Ambulance, do absolutely
brilliant work. My own wife is a trained first-aider,
something which she needs for the work she does for
Riding for the Disabled; so I know how important it is.
That is one reason why we are so keen to review the
national curriculum: so that the statutory content will
take up less of the timetable, which in turn will
Baroness Walmsley: I thank all noble Lords who
have taken part in the debate, especially my noble
friend the Minister. He may have disappointed me, but
he has not surprised me. Perhaps I may make a few
points to follow up on what noble Lords have said.
First, I turn to the Minister’s response. The noble
Lord, Lord Knight, achieved a very wide consensus,
and that is why I took the three clauses from the Bill
that was lost before the general election. The reason I
took them as the basis for my amendments is the wide
consensus that they had achieved among people who
run schools of all faiths. I felt that those clauses struck
the right balance.
My noble friend says that he does not want to be
prescriptive about what should be taught. I do not
think that my amendments are prescriptive. They talk
about areas that should be taught, but they certainly
do not set out programmes of work which, personally,
I think should be quite spare and leave a great deal to
the discretion and professionalism of teachers. However,
we are prescriptive in other subjects. Before long,
when the review of the national curriculum reaches its
conclusions, there will be prescription about what
children should be taught in physics, English, geography
and all the rest. We are going to get that, so why not
PSHE, too, which is so fundamentally important?
I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of
Camden, that I understand where she is coming from
in her comments but, as I have just said, these amendments
came from her own Government’s Bill which, before
GC 363
Education Bill
[13 JULY 2011]
the general election, she supported. What we have to
do is get the balance right between the principles I
have laid down in my amendments—I think most
people would agree with them—and the rights of
parents to send their children to schools in the faith
that they themselves uphold, and for those schools to
teach PSHE in the light of their own faith. I do not see
anything wrong with that.
I was quite disappointed that the noble Baroness,
Lady O’Cathain, could not support me. In order to
address the issues that she and others of her opinion
expressed when we discussed this matter before the
general election, I made modifications to the clauses. I
absolutely deny that five year-olds are taught the
details of human sex. They are not. But it was in order
to take account of some people’s fear that they might
be taught in that way that I made that area and one or
two other areas of the curriculum I am proposing
voluntary. Schools can do this in an age-appropriate
way, as set out in the amendments, but if they do not
want to do it, they do not have to.
Baroness O’Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness for
giving way. The point I am making—I am finding it
hard to speak because I am not very well—is that at
the moment there is legislation which states that sex
education cannot be provided for five to seven year-olds,
but these amendments would repeal that. That is what
I have been informed. If I am wrong, I apologise, but
that is the basis of my objection.
Baroness Walmsley: I accept what the noble Baroness
has heard, but it is not my understanding that that is
the case. However, I am sure that we can look at it
outside the Committee.
What I am really saying is that we want children to
be learning-ready. PSHE is not an extra subject that I
am trying to put into the curriculum. I agree absolutely
with the Minister that we need to slim the curriculum
down. However, PSHE is not any old subject; it is a
fundamental underpinning. None of us ladies would
go around without foundation garments because they
make our fashions look better on the outside. It is
really important that children have the skills and
understanding that enable them to benefit from all the
Education Bill
GC 364
other subjects that we decide that they must learn—the
core ones they must learn or the additional ones that
they may take.
I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland,
is coming from. I would not want to load the curriculum
with a lot of extra subjects, but he did make the point
that we do not do this very well. That is exactly why I
would like to make PSHE statutory. People would
then train as specialists. As the noble Lord rightly
said, without training, some of these areas are difficult
to teach. I myself was thrown in at the deep end—many
teachers are. I would certainly have benefited from
training but, if that were a statutory part of the
national curriculum, Ofsted would have to inspect it at
every school level.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the
Bishop of Chester for raising the subject of parenthood.
As far as I am concerned, that would come into the
relationships and sex part of PSHE. Parents have
relationships between each other and with their children.
It is particularly their relationship with their children
that would be important there. I absolutely agree with
the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and his passion
for getting young people taught some parenting skills.
That is very important.
Finally, on the voting record of the noble Lord,
Lord McAvoy, I am quite sure that he would want to
support my amendments. I reassure him that what he
seeks would not be precluded by my three amendments
in any way whatever.
Lord McAvoy: I accept the noble Baroness’s point
of view.
Baroness Walmsley: I am most grateful to the noble
Lord. That is a good point on which to beg leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 88 withdrawn.
Lord Hill of Oareford: This may be a convenient
point for the Committee to adjourn until Monday at
3.30 pm.
Committee adjourned at 8.06 pm.
WS 59
Written Statements
[13 JULY 2011]
Written Statements
Wednesday 13 July 2011
Afghanistan: Roulement
Statement
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry
of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): My right honourable
friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Liam Fox)
has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
The next roulement of UK forces in Afghanistan is
due to take place in October 2011. The UK’s current
framework Brigade in Helmand, 3 Commando Brigade,
will be replaced by 20th Armoured Brigade. The forces
deploying include:
20th Armoured Brigade Headquarters and Signal
Squadron (200)
Elements of 19th Light Brigade Headquarters and
Signal Squadron (209)
Headquarters 101 Logistic Brigade
Elements of 845 Naval Air Squadron including
members of the Maritime Reserve
Elements of 846 Naval Air Squadron
857 Naval Air Squadron
1st The Queen’s Dragoon Guards
The Queen’s Royal Hussars (The Queen’s Own and
Royal Irish)
Elements of 5th Regiment Royal Artillery
Elements of 16th Regiment Royal Artillery
Elements of 26th Regiment Royal Artillery
Elements of 39th Regiment Royal Artillery
Elements of 40th Regiment Royal Artillery
Elements of 47th Regiment Royal Artillery
Elements of 25 Engineer Regiment
35 Engineer Regiment
Elements of 38 Engineer Regiment
Elements of 71 Engineer Regiment (Volunteers)
Elements of 12 (Air Support) Engineer Group
Elements of 170 (Infrastructure Support) Engineer
Group
Elements of 1st (United Kingdom) Armoured Division
Headquarters and Signal Regiment
Elements of 10th Signal Regiment
Elements of 14th Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare)
Elements of 21st Signal Regiment (Air Support)
Elements of 22nd Signal Regiment
3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland (The
Black Watch)
1st Battalion The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment
(Queen’s and Royal Hampshires)
1st Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (Prince of
Wales’s Own)
2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Worcesters
and Foresters)
2nd Battalion The Rifles
Written Statements
WS 60
5th Battalion The Rifles
Elements of 1 Regiment Army Air Corps
Elements of 3 Regiment Army Air Corps
Elements of 4 Regiment Army Air Corps
Elements of 9 Regiment Army Air Corps
Elements of Joint Helicopter Support Squadron
Elements of Allied Rapid Reaction Corps Support
Battalion
1 Logistic Support Regiment The Royal Logistic
Corps
Elements of 6 Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 7 Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 8 Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 9 Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment
The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 17 Port and Maritime Regiment The
Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 23 Pioneer Regiment The Royal Logistic
Corps
Elements of 29 Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps
1 Medical Regiment
Elements of 201 Field Hospital (Volunteers)
Elements of 208 Field Hospital (Volunteers)
3 Close Support Battalion Royal Electrical and
Mechanical Engineers
Elements of 19 Light Brigade Combat Service Support
Battalion
Elements of 101 Force Support Battalion Royal
Electrical and Mechanical Engineers
Elements of 104 Force Support Battalion Royal
Electrical and Mechanical Engineers
110 Provost Company Royal Military Police
Elements of 173 Provost Company Royal Military
Police
Elements of Special Investigation Branch United
Kingdom
Elements of 1 Military Working Dogs Regiment
Elements of 1 Military Intelligence Brigade
Elements of 15 Psychological Operations Group
Elements of 88 Postal and Courier Regiment
(Volunteers), The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 148 Expeditionary Force Institute
Squadron (Volunteers), The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 156 Transport Regiment (Volunteers),
The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 159 Supply Regiment (Volunteers),
The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 162 Postal Courier and Movement
Regiment (Volunteers), The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 166 Supply Regiment (Volunteers),
The Royal Logistic Corps
602 Tactical Air Control Party
603 Tactical Air Control Party
606 Tactical Air Control Party
618 Tactical Air Control Party
WS 61
Written Statements
[LORDS]
Number 3 Royal Air Force, Force Protection Wing
Headquarters
Elements of Number 2 Royal Air Force Police
Wing
Elements of Number 3 Royal Air Force Police
Wing
2 Squadron, Royal Air Force Regiment
Elements of 101 Squadron Royal Air Force
Elements of 39 Squadron Royal Air Force
31 Squadron, Royal Air Force
IX(B) Squadron, Royal Air Force
2 (Army Co-Operation) Squadron, Royal Air Force
Elements of 5 (Army Co-Operation) Squadron,
Royal Air Force
Elements of 18 Squadron, Royal Air Force
Elements of 24 Squadron, Royal Air Force
Elements of 27 Squadron, Royal Air Force
Elements of 28 Squadron, Royal Air Force
Elements of 30 Squadron, Royal Air Force
Elements of 78 Squadron, Royal Air Force
Elements of the Tactical Supply Wing, Royal Air
Force
Elements of 1 Air Mobility Wing, Royal Air Force
Elements of 1 Air Control Centre, Royal Air Force
Elements of 90 Signals Unit, Royal Air Force
Elements of 2 (Mechanical Transport) Squadron,
Royal Air Force
Elements of 5001 Squadron, Royal Air Force
Elements of 3 Mobile Catering Squadron
Elements of Tactical Medical Wing
Elements of 1 (Expeditionary Logistics) Squadron
Elements of 93 (Expeditionary Armaments) Squadron
Elements of Tactical Imagery Wing
Elements of 5131(BD) Sqn
Volunteer and ex-regular members of the Reserve
Forces will continue to deploy to Afghanistan as part
of this integrated force package, and we expect to issue
around 530 call-out notices. On completion of their
mobilisation procedures the reservists will undertake a
period of training and, where applicable, integration
with their respective receiving units. The majority will
serve on operations for around six months. As part of
this commitment we expect up to 24 members of the
sponsored reserves to be in theatre at any one time.
The UK’s conventional force level will remain at
9,500 for the duration of the deployment.
I shall make a further Statement on the units we
expect to serve under 20th Armoured Brigade’s planned
replacement formation, 12 Mechanized Brigade, nearer
the time of their deployment.
Written Statements
WS 62
The Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living
Animals—Great Britain—2010 (HC 1263), was laid
before the House today. Copies will be available in the
Vote Office.
This annual statistical report meets the requirement
in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to
inform Parliament about the licensed use of animals
for experimental or other scientific purposes. It also
forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting
requirements at EU level. Supplementary information
with additional tables is also available on the Home
Office website.
The 2010 statistical report shows that the number
of licensed procedures started in 2010 increased slightly
over 2009 to just over 3.7 million scientific procedures
and constituted a rise of 105,000 (3 per cent). This rise
follows a slight fall in the 2009 statistical report. A
number of factors, such as investment in research and
development and strategic funding priorities, determine
the overall level of scientific procedures.
The Home Office, as regulatory authority under the
1986 Act, ensures that its provisions are rigorously
applied and only authorises work that is scientifically
justified and minimises the numbers of animals used
and the animal suffering that may be caused.
The statistical report and supplementary information
can be found at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/scienceresearch/research-statistics/.
I am pleased to inform the House that I have also
today placed in the Library the annual report of the
Home Office Animals Scientific Procedures Division
and Inspectorate for the year 2010.
Publication of the report honours a commitment
given in response to a recommendation of the House
of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific
Procedures in July 2002 that more information should
be made available about the implementation of the
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
As in previous years, the report explains what Home
Office inspectors do and how they do it and the
inspectorate’s role in assessing and advising on applications
for personal and project licences and certificates of
designation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures)
Act 1986 and reporting non-compliance.
The report also contains information on the work
of the ASPD policy and licensing teams; it explains
how, in partnership with ASPI, ASPD have continued
to work towards delivering our better regulation
programme and new IT system; includes a section
setting out the reporting of cases of non-compliance
and infringements of ASPA and the outcomes of
these cases (see Annexe D), and records progress with
the adoption of European Directive 2010/63/EU on
the protection of animals used for scientific purposes,
which came into force on 9 November 2010.
Animals in Scientific Procedures: Statistics
Statement
Armed Forces: Allowances
Statement
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness
Browning): My right honourable friend the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Equalities and Criminal
Information (Lynne Featherstone) has today made
the following Written Ministerial Statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry
of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): My right honourable
friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Liam Fox)
has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
WS 63
Written Statements
[13 JULY 2011]
Our forces currently on operations in Libya are
performing brilliantly and at considerable risk to
themselves. We regularly review the payment of the
operational allowance (OA) that recognises the risk
and hardships faced by our forces on operations.
We have recently completed such a review, and have
decided it is only appropriate to extend the OA to all
those serving this country on operations in Libya.
This will result in the payment of OA to anyone
operating within the landmass, airspace and territorial
waters of Libya, including all aircrew operating over
the Libyan landmass and to ships and submarines
within 12 nautical miles of the coast. Payment is based
on the number of days within the specified areas, and
will be backdated until 18 March 2011 with funding
coming from the reserve.
In accordance with the agreed policy, those engaged
in operations for which they are in receipt of OA on
the day that individuals are notified—1 September
2011 for the Army and the RAF, 30 September 2011
for the Royal Navy—will be excluded from the redundancy
programme. Similarly, those on a dedicated operational
work up package, of up to six months, or post operational
tour leave on the day of notifications will also be
excluded.
Written Statements
WS 64
The Government commend Professor Munro’s
thorough analysis of the issues and accept her fundamental
argument that the child protection system has lost its
focus on the thing that matters most: the views and
experience of children themselves. We believe we need
to move towards a child protection system with less
central prescription and interference, where we place
greater trust and responsibility in skilled professionals
at the front line.
The Government’s response is not a one-off set of
recommended solutions to be imposed from the centre.
Rather it is the start of a shift in mindset and relationship
between central government, local agencies and frontline
professionals, working in partnership. Change will
evolve and best practice will develop based on experience,
innovation and evidence. Our aim will be to create the
conditions for sustained, long-term reform which enables
and inspires professionals to do their best for vulnerable
children and their families.
Professor Munro will continue to advise the
Government and will undertake an interim assessment
of progress in spring 2012. I have placed copies of the
Government’s response in the House Libraries.
Elections: Registration
Child Protection
Statement
Statement
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): My honourable friend
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children
and Families (Tim Loughton) has made the following
Written Ministerial Statement.
On 10 June 2010, I informed the house that the
Government were commissioning the Munro review
of child protection. This was the very first review
established in the Department for Education, underlining
the enormous priority this Government place on getting
child protection right.
From the start, we wanted the Munro review of
child protection to be different. That is why, unlike its
predecessors, it was not commissioned as an immediate
response to a specific crisis. That is why Professor
Munro’s final report—published in May—recommended
that regulation and prescription are reduced rather
than increased. And—most importantly of all—that
is why it focused on the child, rather than the system.
I am extremely grateful to Professor Munro for
undertaking a wide-ranging and in-depth review. I am
also grateful to all the organisations in the sector, the
child protection workforce and the wider public, including
children and young people themselves, who contributed
to the review. Their experience, insights and expertise
have helped make her final report so well informed,
and so widely welcomed.
Just as Professor Munro conducted her review openly
and collaboratively, the Government have worked with
the sector to develop the Government’s response. An
implementation working group, drawing on expertise
from local authority children’s services, the social work
profession, the police and, in particular, education
and the health service, advised on the Government’s
response to Professor Munro’s recommendations.
Baroness Northover: My honourable friend the Minister
for Political and Constitutional Reform (Mark Harper)
has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
I am announcing today the publication of draft
legislation on three electoral administration provisions
for pre-legislative scrutiny.
The draft legislation is intended to form part of a
larger package of measures that will also include draft
legislation on individual electoral registration (IER),
which has been published separately for pre-legislative
scrutiny.
The draft legislation addresses particular issues that
have been raised by MPs and peers, and by electoral
stakeholders, and proposes practical and sensible changes
that will help to deliver more effective electoral
administration.
The draft legislation includes provisions that extend
the timetable for UK parliamentary elections from 17
to 25 days and similarly extends the timetable for UK
parliamentary by-elections. The existing timetable for
UK parliamentary elections and by-elections is
considerably shorter than the electoral timetable for
all other UK polls. The very limited time available for
the postal vote process compromises effective participation
in elections by certain types of voter, particularly
overseas and service voters. Moreover, the existing
timetable puts considerable pressure on administrative
processes by compressing a large number of tasks into
a short period, which represents significant risks to the
effective conduct of elections.
Extending the timetable for UK parliamentary elections
and by-elections will bring benefits for voters and
administrators, as well as adding to the robustness and
integrity of the electoral process. The Government
propose that, within this extended timetable:
WS 65
Written Statements
[LORDS]
the deadline for parties to nominate candidates
should continue to be six days after the start of the
timetable, so parties will have the same time as now
to put forward candidates to stand for election. In
practice this will now be 19, rather than 11, days
before the date of poll, which will allow administrators
to begin printing ballot papers further in advance of
polling day; and
provision should be made for updated versions of
the electoral register to be created at an earlier
point in the timetable to allow postal votes to be
distributed to new registration applicants earlier
than is currently possible.
We also propose to address an oversight in existing
legislation passed during the previous Government’s
time in office that allows a candidate standing for a
single party in a UK parliamentary election to use an
emblem on their ballot paper but does not allow
jointly-nominated candidates to do so. This issue has
primarily affected candidates standing on behalf of
the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party. The
proposal will ensure that electoral law is consistent on
this issue.
The draft legislation also makes changes to the
existing system for reviews of polling districts and
places in Great Britain for UK parliamentary elections
to bring them in line with the five-year cycle for UK
parliamentary boundary reviews implemented by the
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act
2011 and the proposed cycle of parliamentary terms
under the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.
I am today sending the draft legislation to the
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for
pre-legislative scrutiny.
A Command Paper setting out the draft legislation
and associated explanatory notes will be laid before
the House.
Housing: Squatters
Statement
Baroness Northover: My honourable friend the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of
Justice (Crispin Blunt) has made the following Written
Ministerial Statement.
The Government have become increasingly concerned
about the distress and misery that squatters can cause.
Law-abiding property owners or occupiers who work
hard for a living can spend thousands of pounds
evicting squatters from their properties, repairing damage
and clearing up the debris they have left behind.
I have met honourable Members and corresponded
with members of the public who have expressed concern
about the appalling impact squatting has had on their
properties or local neighbourhoods.
The Government do not accept the claim that is
sometimes made that squatting is a reasonable recourse
of the homeless resulting from social deprivation.
There are options open to those who are genuinely
destitute and who need shelter that do not involve
occupying somebody else’s property without authority.
No matter how compelling or difficult the squatter’s
own circumstances are claimed to be, it is wrong that
legitimate occupants should be deprived of the use of
their property.
Written Statements
WS 66
There should be no doubt about the seriousness
with which the Government treats this problem or our
determination to tackle it. The Housing Minister and
I have already published new guidance on the DirectGov
website for property owners on evicting squatters under
existing legislation.
The consultation paper we are publishing today
invites views on whether more should be done to
strengthen the criminal law or its enforcement. We
could do this, for example, by introducing a new
offence of squatting; by strengthening existing offences
that currently apply to squatters; or by working with
the enforcement authorities to identify and overcome
barriers to enforcement of existing offences that may
be committed by squatters.
The Government acknowledge that some of the
options they are proposing may have an impact on the
enforcement authorities, local authorities, homelessness
charities and other organisations. Any option we decide
to pursue as a result of this consultation will need to
be workable and affordable, taking account of the
current economic climate and reduction in government
expenditure.
Of course, we must also tackle problems affecting
the wider housing market and bring more empty homes
back into productive use. The Government intend to
publish an empty homes strategy over the summer and
a wider housing strategy in the autumn, setting out the
overall approach to housing policy, including how we
are supporting an increase in the supply and quality of
new private and social housing, helping those seeking
a home of their own, whether to rent or buy. The
Government have already made available £4.5 billion
to help deliver new affordable housing through the
Affordable Homes Programme and as part of that
£100 million to bring empty homes back into use.
I am placing copies of the consultation paper in the
Libraries of both Houses, but it can also be viewed on
the Ministry of Justice website: www.justice.gov.uk.
Copies have also been placed in the Vote Office and
Printed Paper Office.
Identity and Passport Service: Annual
Report and Accounts
Statement
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness
Browning): My honourable friend the Minister of State
for Immigration (Damian Green) has today made the
following Written Ministerial Statement.
The Identity and Passport Service annual report
and accounts 2010-11 have been laid before the House
today and copies will be available in the Vote Office.
Independent Safeguarding Authority:
Annual Report and Accounts
Statement
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness
Browning): My honourable friend the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Equalities and Criminal
Information (Lynne Featherstone) has today made
the following Written Ministerial Statement.
WS 67
Written Statements
[13 JULY 2011]
I am pleased to announce that the annual report
2010-11 and accounts of the Independent Safeguarding
Authority (ISA) will be laid before Parliament and
published today.
Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
Intelligence and Security Committee:
Annual Report
Statement
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord
Strathclyde): My right honourable friend the Prime
Minister has made the following Statement.
I am grateful to the Intelligence and Security
Committee for its valuable work and its latest annual
report (Cm. 8114). Following consultation with the
committee over matters that could not be published
without prejudicing the work of the intelligence and
security agencies, I have today laid the report before
the House.
The Government’s response to this report will be
laid before the House after the Summer Recess.
Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries
of both Houses.
Migration
Statement
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness
Browning): My honourable friend the Minister of State
for Immigration (Damian Green) has today made the
following Written Ministerial Statement.
Today, I am publishing a consultation on family
migration. Immigration has enriched our culture and
strengthened our economy, but uncontrolled immigration
places pressure on our public services and on community
cohesion. The Government have already introduced a
limit on non-European Economic Area economic
migrants entering the UK; has reshaped tiers 1 and 2
of the points-based system to increase selectivity and
skills requirements; has started implementing changes
to tier 4, the student visa system; and are currently
consulting on breaking the link between economic
migration and settlement, and on other temporary
work routes. These policies will reduce net migration,
but we need to take action across all routes to ensure
this returns to sustainable levels and we bring a sense
of fairness back to our immigration system.
This consultation on family migration is the next in
our programme of immigration reforms. In the year to
September 2010, family migration accounted for around
17 per cent of all non-EU immigration to the UK.
The proposals included in the family consultation
are aimed at tackling abuse, promoting integration
and reducing burdens on the taxpayer. A contribution
to reduced net migration would be welcome but is not
the primary goal. The focus is on delivering better
family migration: better for migrants, for communities
and for the UK as a whole.
The consultation concentrates on the family route:
those non-EEA nationals entering, remaining in or
settling in the UK on the basis of a relationship with a
British citizen or person settled in the UK. This includes
fiancé(e)s, proposed civil partners, spouses, civil partners,
Written Statements
WS 68
unmarried or same-sex partners, dependent children
and adult and elderly dependent relatives. In 2010,
48,900 visas were granted to people on the family
route, of which 40,500 were issued to people on the
basis of marriage or civil or other partnership, and
8,400 were issued to dependants.
We set out firm proposals for reform of the family
route. The key elements are: a minimum income threshold
for sponsors to provide appropriate maintenance, on
which we have asked the Migration Advisory Committee
to advise; in line with other routes, extending the
probationary period from two years to five years before
a spouse or partner can apply for settlement (and
before which non-contributory benefits may not be
claimed. Access to the labour market, to the NHS and
to schooling will be unaffected by this change); and a
requirement to understand everyday English before
settlement is granted. We propose that all those seeking
settlement or citizenship should demonstrate an
appropriate level of English, and we will consider
whether changes to the current testing regime could
further assist integration.
We also propose to help UK Border Agency
caseworkers consider spouse and partner applications
by defining what we mean under the rules by a genuine
and continuing relationship, marriage or partnership;
to end immediate settlement, and immediate access to
benefits, on entry for spouses and partners who have
been married or in a relationship for at least four years
before coming to the UK, and for adult dependent
relatives, including those aged 65 or over, and to
require both groups to complete a five-year probationary
period; and to look at arrangements for dependent
relatives aged 65 or over to settle in the UK, reflecting
health and social care costs to the taxpayer.
The consultation also invites discussion on some
broader propositions, particularly in relation to tackling
sham marriages and forced marriages. On sham marriages
these build on existing joint work between the UK
Border Agency and the general register offices across
the UK, local registration services and the Anglican
Church. They also explore the case for legislative
change in England and Wales, including making “sham”
an impediment to marriage and allowing a marriage
to be delayed while a suspected sham is investigated.
It is important that we look at family migration in
the round and so the consultation also deals with
other family migration issues.
In 2010, 45,200 dependants under the points-based
system were granted a visa with a route to settlement
in the UK. The consultation proposes moving to a
five-year probationary period and everyday English
for settlement for the spouses and civil and other
partners of points-based system migrants, in line with
other groups.
Many British citizens and persons settled in the UK
have family members living outside the UK. This
results in a high volume of visa applications from people
wishing to visit family here. In 2010, 350,300 family
visit visas were issued, with around 73 per cent granted
on initial decision by the visa officer. In 2010-11,
95 per cent of family visit visa applications were
decided by the UK Border Agency within 15 working
days.
WS 69
Written Statements
[LORDS]
We have reviewed the arrangements for the operation
of the family visit visa. We are concerned that taxpayer
funding of around £40 million per year is being spent
on appeals where appellants are commonly misusing
the appeals system, by submitting information on
appeal that should have been put forward as part of
the original application, or where a second application
(costing another £76) is the most appropriate route for
securing a visa. We are also concerned that this is a
disproportionate use of taxpayer funding (for an appeal
process that can take up 34 weeks to be concluded) for
the benefit sought: a short-term visit to the UK.
Greater priority should be given to appeal cases that
have far-reaching impacts for the individuals concerned
and for the public at large, for example asylum claims,
settlement applications and the deportation of foreign
criminals.
In the light of this, we are reviewing the full right of
appeal for family visit visas and we invite views on
whether there are circumstances in which an appeal
right should be retained, beyond the race discrimination
and human rights grounds which, in line with other
categories of temporary entry clearance, will continue
to be available.
Finally, the consultation invites discussion on the
balance to be struck on Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for
private and family life) between individual rights and
the public interest in public protection and maintaining
immigration controls. Article 8 is not an absolute right
and our proposals aim to set out requirements that
must be satisfied in family migration cases which are
consistent with our ECHR obligations. We also want
to be clear about the circumstances in which the public
interest will outweigh an individual’s Article 8 right.
Details of the public consultation can be found on
the Home Office website and a copy will also be
placed in the Library of the House.
The consultation will run for 12 weeks, until 6 October
2011, and we will announce our firm plans in due
course, with a view to implementing changes during
2012.
Non-departmental Public Bodies
Statement
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Lord Henley): My right honourable friend the Minister
of State for Agriculture and Food has today made the
following Statement.
On 14 October 2010, the Government announced
the outcome of their review of non-departmental
public bodies (NDPBs). This reported that the majority
of Defra’s scientific and technical advisory bodies
were to be abolished and reconstituted as expert scientific
committees to provide advice on specific areas. As
part of implementing these reforms, the Pesticide Residues
Committee (PRC), which was a non-statutory advisory
NDPB, has been abolished and replaced by an expert
scientific committee from 1 July 2011. The new committee
will be called the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues
in Food (PRiF) to more accurately reflect its remit.
Written Statements
WS 70
The PRiF committee will continue to support Defra,
the devolved Administrations and the Food Standards
Agency on the scope and operation of surveillance for
residues of pesticides in food and the significance to
consumers of any residues detected.
The new committee’s membership and terms of
reference can be found on the PRiF website: http://
www.pesticides.gov.uk/prc_home.asp.
Prison and Probation Services
Statement
Baroness Northover: My right honourable friend
the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
(Kenneth Clarke, QC) has made the following Written
Ministerial Statement.
In the response to the Green Paper: Breaking the
Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing
of Offenders, I set out a vision for a transformed
justice system that will focus on public protection and
cutting crime. An important part of delivering the
changes I am committed to is ensuring that the services
we provide are focused on delivering the best possible
outcomes and the greatest value for money.
Competition between providers of our services can
help us to meet these challenges as the previous
Government recognised when they made contestability
a feature of offender services when setting up the
National Offender Management Service in 2004. The
competition strategy for offender services, which I
have published today, sets out how we will change the
way we use competition to meet these aims. My approach
is based on ensuring an effective balance between
making services more efficient while reforming them
so that they provide better outcomes for the public. In
doing so, we will draw on a wide range of expertise
from the private and voluntary sector, which will work
in partnership with a strong public sector.
For offender services, I intend to employ the principle
that competition will apply at some stage to all those
services not currently bound to public sector delivery
by statute. This will mean the benefits of competition
can be felt much more widely, contrasting with the
previous approach of only using competition when
procuring new services or as a way of managing poor
performance.
Underpinning this approach will be our commitment
to apply more widely the principles of payment by
results to services which reduce reoffending. By paying
some or all of a contract value on the basis of the
reduced re-offending levels achieved, we can focus
service providers’ efforts on what works. This will
ensure that money spent on rehabilitation is spent
effectively. We intend to run a number of pilot exercises
and competition will be a key mechanism in deciding
which models we adopt.
In practice, this will mean taking a different approach
for both custodial and non-custodial services. The use
of competition in custodial services is now well established
as most recently demonstrated by the successful outcome
of the competition for four prisons which I announced
in March this year.
WS 71
Written Statements
[13 JULY 2011]
To ensure that we build on this strong record I
am announcing today my intention to launch competitions
for the management of a further nine prisons in the
autumn. These are Lindholme, Moorland, Hatfield
and the Wolds in Yorkshire, Acklington and
Castington in Northumberland, Durham, Onley in
Northamptonshire and Coldingley in Surrey. The Wolds
is a prison run by G4S that has come to the end of its
current contract; the other eight prisons are public
sector establishments being competed for the first
time. The public sector will have the opportunity to
compete in all of these prison competitions.
These prisons have been selected by the National
Offender Management Service to balance our need to
increase efficiency and to make real the policy intent
of the Green Paper.
Looking to the future, there is a need to consider
the future shape of probation services in England and
Wales to improve justice outcomes and to make the
justice system more efficient and effective. I have asked
my officials to explore the possible options for service
improvements and different models of delivering offender
services within the community. I will set out my preferred
approach in the autumn. Alongside this, and supporting
it, I will set out in detail my competition strategy for
non-custodial services, which will also encompass the
recently launched competition for community payback
services, the competition for electronic monitoring
contracts I am announcing today, and payment by
results pilots in the community.
A further important element of our drive for greater
efficiency is to ensure we have a modern, fit-for-purpose
prison estate which can deliver high-quality, cost-effective
and secure regimes. With the prison population not
growing at the rate predicted by the last Government,
we have an opportunity to close some of our more
inefficient places.
I am therefore announcing the closure of HMPs
Latchmere House and Brockhill. This will see a reduction
of 377 prison spaces. This is part of an overall programme
that includes a further 2,500 new prison places becoming
available over the next 12 months. This will ensure that
our operational capacity continues to handle the projected
prison population in a way that meets the need both
for greater efficiency and ability to support a strengthened
focus on protection of the public and rehabilitation.
The closure of these places will provide estimated
cost savings of £4.9 million this year and an ongoing
annual saving of £11.4 million. We also anticipate
capital receipts from sale of the land at Latchmere
House, which is in a prime location. We will transfer
resettlement provision from that establishment to HMP
Brixton to maintain our focus on reducing re-offending.
We expect to be able to absorb staff displaced by this
process elsewhere in the system and to avoid the use of
compulsory redundancies.
The public have a right to expect continuing
improvement in the quality and efficiency of public
services, without compromising public safety. The
competition strategy and adjustments to the prison
estate I have outlined today will help ensure that this is
the case.
Written Statements
WS 72
Copies of the offender services competition strategy
have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The
document is also available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/
publications/corporate-reports/moj/oscs.htm.
Railways: Crossrail
Statement
Earl Attlee: My right honourable friend the Minister
of State for Transport (Theresa Villiers) has made the
following Ministerial Statement.
Crossrail will support economic growth for London
and the UK. As part of the comprehensive spending
review in October 2010, the coalition Government
confirmed their commitment to the full Crossrail scheme.
A re-phased programme of delivery means that Crossrail
services will commence from 2018. We expect Crossrail
to cost no more than £14.5 billion. Forecasts continue
to suggest that Crossrail will be delivered within its
existing funding.
Crossrail has made significant progress since the
last annual update to Parliament. Crossrail Limited
has now let all its key tunnelling contracts and enabling
works are continuing at a number of sites across
central London. Construction is well advanced at
Canary Wharf Crossrail Station, and tunnel-boring
machines are expected to be launched in spring 2012.
In April 2011, Crossrail passed through the final project
review point, at which point the department and TfL
delegated full contractual authority to Crossrail Limited
to deliver the scheme. The new chief executive of
Crossrail Limited, Andrew Wolstenholme, was appointed
in May 2011.
During the passage of the Crossrail Act through
Parliament, a commitment was given that a Statement
would be published at least every 12 months until the
completion of the construction of Crossrail, setting
out information about the project’s funding and finances.
In line with this commitment, this Statement comes
within 12 months of my last one which was published
on 15 July 2010. The relevant information is as follows:
Total funding amounts provided to Crossrail
Limited by the Department for Transport
and TfL in relation to the construction of
Crossrail to the end of the period (22 July
2008 to 29 May 2011) (excluding recoverable
VAT on land and property purchases)
Expenditure incurred (including committed
land and property spend not yet paid out) by
Crossrail Limited in relation to the construction
of Crossrail in the period (30 May 2010 to 29
May 2011) (excluding recoverable VAT on
land and property purchases)
Total expenditure incurred (including committed
land and property spend not yet paid out) by
Crossrail Limited in relation to the construction
of Crossrail to the end of the period (22 July
2008 to 29 May 2011) (excluding recoverable
VAT on land and property purchases)
The amounts realised by the disposal of any
land or property for the purposes of the
construction of Crossrail by the Secretary of
State, TfL or Crossrail Limited in the period
covered by the statement
£1,484,605,000
£723,475,000
£1,884,254,000
Nil
WS 73
Written Statements
[LORDS]
The numbers above are drawn from Crossrail Limited’s
books of account and have been prepared on a consistent
basis with the update provided last year. The figure for
expenditure incurred includes monies already paid out
in relevant periods, including committed land and
property expenditure where this has not yet been paid.
It does not include future expenditure on construction
contracts that have been awarded.
Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station: Inquiry
Statement
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace
of Tankerness): My honourable friend the SolicitorGeneral has made the following Written Ministerial
Statement.
On 18 April 2011, Keir Starmer QC, the Director of
Public Prosecutions, announced that following a review
by Clare Montgomery QC, the safety of the convictions
of the individuals who protested at Ratcliffe-on-Soar
power station, should be considered by the Court of
Appeal as soon as possible.
During that review, the CPS had been conducting
an internal investigation into its own handling of the
case. However, in light of growing concerns about the
non-disclosure of material relating to the activities of
an undercover police officer in this case and, following
discussion with the Attorney-General and me, the
DPP said last month that he would establish an
independent inquiry conducted by a senior legal figure.
The DPP has now confirmed that retired Court of
Appeal judge, Sir Christopher Rose will conduct this
inquiry.
The terms of reference have been agreed with
Sir Christopher and are as follows:
The independent inquiry will examine and make
findings in respect of the following matters:
whether the CPS approach to charging in this case
was right, bearing in mind the known existence of
an undercover police officer in the operation;
whether the CPS and prosecution counsel complied
with their disclosure duties properly in relation to
the known existence of an undercover police officer
in this case;
whether the CPS arrangements in place for handling
the known existence of an undercover police officer,
including arrangements between the police and the
CPS, the CPS and counsel and the local prosecuting
team and the national co-ordinator, were adequate
and properly followed in this case; and
Written Statements
WS 74
whether the CPS followed all relevant guidance
and policy in relation to the known existence of an
undercover police officer in this case.
The independent inquiry will also make such
recommendations it feels appropriate in light of the
examination and findings set out above, including, if
appropriate, recommendations about CPS policy and/or
guidance and CPS arrangements for handling cases
involving undercover police officers.
The independent inquiry has been established by,
and will report its findings and recommendations to
the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Sir Christopher will have full access to all the
available evidence and will work in tandem with the
IPCC inquiry into this matter. Both organisations are
committed to sharing all relevant information and
arrangements are being made to ensure there is meaningful
liaison between the two inquiries. Inevitably this work
will take time but will be completed as soon as is
practicable. The Director of Public Prosecutions intends
to make public the findings and recommendations of
the independent inquiry.
Serious Organised Crime Agency:
Annual Report and Accounts
Statement
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness
Browning): My right honourable friend the Secretary
of State for the Home Department (Theresa May) has
today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) has
today published their annual report and accounts for
2010-11. I have laid a copy before the House and made
arrangements to place copies in the Vote Office.
UK Border Agency: Annual Report and
Accounts
Statement
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness
Browning): My honourable friend the Minister of State
for Immigration (Damian Green) has today made the
following Written Ministerial Statement.
The UK Border Agency annual report and accounts
2010-11 has been laid before the House today. Copies
will be made available in the Vote Office.
WA 173
Written Answers
[13 JULY 2011]
Written Answers
Wednesday 13 July 2011
Armed Forces: Commemoration
Question
Asked by Lord Rogan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any
British Foreign Secretary has visited the Baku British
War memorial dedicated to British soldiers and
sailors who died at the end of the First World War
defending that city; and whether the Foreign Secretary
will visit the memorial when next in Baku.[HL10900]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): No serving Foreign
Secretary has visited the Baku British War Memorial.
HRH The Duke of York and Lord Jones, while Minister
for Trade and Investment, visited the memorial in
2005 and 2008 respectively.
Our ambassador in Baku attends Remembrance
Sunday at the memorial every year and lays a wreath
on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. If the Foreign
Secretary visits Baku, consideration will be given to
including a visit to the memorial in his itinerary.
Aviation: Passenger Duty
Questions
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the
current rate of the current air passenger tax for
those arriving in Northern Ireland from the United
States; and by how much it has increased since first
imposed.
[HL10945]
ToaskHerMajesty’sGovernmentwhatrepresentations
they have received over changes of the air passenger
duty for those arriving in Northern Ireland from the
United States, both for and against an increase in
[HL10946]
the duty.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): There is no air passenger duty (APD) liable
for passengers arriving into the UK from other countries.
APD is liable only for passengers departing from a
UK airport.
The APD consultation closed on 17 June 2011. We
have received many representations from organisations
in Northern Ireland regarding reform of APD. The
Government will publish their response in the autumn.
Written Answers
WA 174
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): Our ambassador
has expressed concern about the case of Ghazi Farhan
with Bahraini Ministers, in the context of his wife’s
British nationality. He has not specifically raised the
other cases. However, we have raised our concerns
about the reports of abuse in detention, lack of access
to legal counsel, coerced confessions and that civilians
were being tried before a military judge.
Our embassy in Bahrain attended many of the
trials to observe the proceedings. We continue to press
the Government of Bahrain to ensure that due process
is carefully and transparently followed. We have underlined
that civil liberties should be protected, particularly
where severe penalties are proposed. Anyone accused
should have adequate time to prepare a defence, access
to legal counsel and be tried before independent,
impartial tribunals. We continue to urge the Government
of Bahrain, at the highest level, to take forward their
commitment to investigate the claims of abuse. In this
context, we welcome the establishment on 30 June by
the King, of an independent commission composed of
international figures to look into the events of recent
months and into allegations of human rights abuses.
Bank of England: Financial Policy
Committee
Questions
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion
of the proposed independent membership of the
Bank of England Financial Policy Committee are
non-resident or non-domiciled for tax purposes.
[HL10864]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): It would not be appropriate for the Government
to disclose private tax information relating to specific
individuals.
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the
independent members of the Bank of England’s
Financial Policy Committee (FPC) will have their
own research budgets; whether they will be able to
commission research by individuals or organizations
outside the Bank of England; and what is the
situation in this respect for the current members of
[HL10865]
the shadow FPC.
Lord Sassoon: The interim Financial Policy Committee
is supported by Bank staff, who are available to undertake
research requested by external members of the committee.
Bahrain
Question
Asked by Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
have made representations to the Government of
Bahrain about the arrest and alleged maltreatment
of (a) Mr Mohamed Ghuloom Darwish, (b) Mr Ghazi
Farhan, and (c) Ms Ayat al-Gormezi; and, if so,
[HL10651]
what was the outcome.
Banking
Question
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 4 July
(WA 2), whether the Project Merlin lending targets
to which he refers are the “real” or “stretch targets”
WA 175
Written Answers
[LORDS]
Written Answers
WA 176
as described by the Minister of State at the
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,
Mark Prisk, on 22 June (Official Report, Commons,
[HL10867]
col. 334W).
value of Northern Bank banknotes which were not
returned in the 2005 recall, and the note issues; and
what they mean by “declaration of notes by series”.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): The Merlin commitment agreed with the
banks that they would make available the appropriate
capital and resources to support gross new lending
of £190 billion to UK businesses. This includes new
committed lending capacity of £76 billion to small
and medium-sized enterprises. This goes beyond what
the banks lent in 2010 and their initial assessment of
what they would lend in 2011.
Lord Sassoon: While the Government have records
of the value of notes stolen, it does not keep records of
the unreturned notes from the 2005 recall by Northern
Bank.
The Government’s interest in commercially issued
banknotes extends to ensuring that holders of those
banknotes are adequately protected in the event of
one of the issuing banks getting into difficulty.
Reporting under Part 6 of the Banking Act 2009
requires commercial issuers to declare the total value
of their notes in circulation for the purposes of noteholder
protection. However, it does not require these figures
to be broken down by design, by series or by year of
issue, as that level of detail makes no material difference
to the value of backing assets that must be held.
Banking: Afghanistan
Question
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they,
or any Government agencies, have deposits, accounts
or credit balances with Kabul Bank of Afghanistan.
[HL10620]
[HL10827]
Businesses: Red Tape
Question
Asked by Lord Laird
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): HM Treasury guidance states that departments
should obtain Treasury agreement before they or a
public body which they sponsor open a commercial
bank account. No department has asked for Treasury
authority to open a commercial account at Kabul
Bank of Afghanistan.
Banking: Northern Rock
Questions
Asked by Lord Beecham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in
any future sale or disposal of Northern Rock, they
will impose as a condition that the Northern Rock
Foundation should continue to receive long-term
financial support from the bank at least to the level
[HL10730]
currently required.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): The Government appreciate the good work
that the Northern Rock Foundation has been doing in
the north-east and in Cumbria.
Any purchaser would inherit the current obligation
to fund 1 per cent of Northern Rock’s pre-tax profits
to the foundation through to the end of 2012 with the
potential for a rolling one-year extension, by mutual
consent.
As the sale process has only recently been announced,
it is too early to speculate on any outcome but it is
expected that any bidder will think very carefully
about the role of the foundation in the future.
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 28 June
(WA 412), whether they have a record of the total
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals
they have to cut red tape for small businesses.
[HL10901]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness
Wilcox): This Government have set out a clear aim—to
leave office having reduced the overall burden of
regulation.
The coalition agreement set out an ambitious agenda
for dealing with the burden of red tape on businesses.
In September, the Government introduced the One-in,
One-out rule for new regulation so a new regulatory
burden cannot be introduced without identifying another
to be removed first. In December, we introduced a new
approach to transposing EU directives, to end gold-plating
and ensure they are not transposed in such a way that
they disadvantage UK businesses relative to their EU
competitors. In March we introduced sunset clauses in
new regulations which impose a cost on businesses, to
ensure they remain relevant and are fit for purpose.
However, we recognise that badly designed regulation
and red tape can have a particularly damaging effect
on our smallest businesses.
In The Plan for Growth, published alongside the
Budget 2011, as part of a package of measures to
improve the UK’s regulatory environment, the
Government announced that micro-businesses (those
with fewer than 10 employees) and start-ups would be
exempt from all new domestic regulation for three
years. We also decided not to extend the right to
request time to train to SMEs, potentially saving SMEs
approximately £350 million and not to bring forward
the dual discrimination provision, saving business up
to £3 million per year.
Last month, my right honourable friend the Prime
Minister launched the Red Tape Challenge website
(www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk), which asks
the public and businesses to identify regulations that
WA 177
Written Answers
[13 JULY 2011]
need to be amended or removed. Every few weeks
regulations affecting one specific sector or industry
will be published on the website. There is also the
opportunity to comment on cross-cutting areas of
regulation, such as employment law.
Consumer Markets Authority
Question
Asked by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, under
their proposals A competition regime for growth
(March 2011), the super-complaints such as that
submitted by Which? on card payment surcharges
in March will be investigated by the proposed
[HL10709]
Consumer Markets Authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness
Wilcox): The Government launched a consultation on
Institutional Changes for the Provision of Consumer
Information, Advice, Education, Advocacy and Enforcement
on 21 June 2011 which included proposals for the ways
that super-complaints would be handled if the proposed
Competition and Markets Authority is established.
Most super-complaints highlight alleged structural
market failings where further analysis is necessary
and, as a result, the consultation proposes that they
should be handled by the proposed new Competition
and Markets Authority.
It may be appropriate also to have a process by
which designated consumer bodies could simply request
enforcement action against a pattern of alleged breaches
of consumer law. The consultation asks for views on
the suggestion that the proposed Trading Standards
Policy Board would receive such super-complaints.
Cornwall: Stannary Law
Written Answers
WA 178
Debt
Question
Asked by Lord Whitty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is (a) the
total size, (b) the average time of maturity of loans,
(c) the average rate of interest due on debt, (d) the
schedule of tranches of repayment by year (or
bands of years), (e) the equivalent percentage of
gross domestic product, and (f) the equivalent
percentage of public expenditure, for United Kingdom
[HL10889]
Government debt.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): (a) as at end-March 2011, public sector net
debt, excluding the temporary effects of financial
interventions (PSND ex), was £905.9 billion (source:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/psf0611.pdf);
(b) the largest portion of PSND comprises gilts
and Treasury bills, issued by the Debt Management
Office (DMO). As at end-March 2011, the market
value-weighted average maturity of the total stock
of gilts and Treasury bills, excluding government holdings,
was 13.51 years (source: http://www.dmo.gov.uk/
documentview.aspx?docname=publications/
quarterly/jan-marl1.pdf&page=Quarterly_Review);
(c) as at end-March 2011, the market value-weighted
average yield on outstanding conventional gilts was
3.11 per cent and 0.32 per cent on index-linked gilts
(source: http://www.dmo.gov.uk/documentview.aspx?
docname=publications/quarterly/janmarl1.pdf&page=Quarterly_Review);
(d) the profile of gilt redemptions is published
on the DMO’s website at: http://www.dmo.gov.uk/
index.aspx?page=Gilts/Gilts_In_Issue;
(e) as at end-March 2011, PSND ex accounted for
60.1 per cent of gross domestic product (source: http://
www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/psf0611.pdf); and
(f) PSND ex (as at end-March 2011) accounted for
130.1 per cent of public sector total managed expenditure
in 2010-11.
Question
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Answer by Lord McNally on 11 May
(WA 213–4) concerning stannary law, what is meant
by the use of “likely” in the statement that “it is
likely that such customary law has been superseded
[HL10726]
by modern legislation”.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: It would be for a court to
decide in the context of a particular case what account,
if any, is to be taken of stannary customs. The
Government’s assessment of likelihood was based on
the absence of recent reported cases concerning such
customs. The Government have become aware of a
very small number of applications to the county court
in recent years concerning tin bounding, which is a
very specific aspect of stannary law. The Government
are unaware of any other recent cases where the court
has upheld arguments derived from stannary customs.
European Parliament
Question
Asked by Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what would
be the annual saving of centralising all the facilities
of the European Parliament in one city; whether
any capital expenditure would be necessary; when
they last made representations on this subject; and
[HL10650]
what was the result.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): Estimates suggest
that having two seats for the European Parliament
currently costs the British taxpayer at least £28 million
a year. However, the full cost to the EU budget of the
European Parliament sessions in Strasbourg is not
publicly available. This is not itemised separately in the
European Parliament’s budget. It is possible that some
WA 179
Written Answers
[LORDS]
capital expenditure would be necessary were the European
Parliament facilities to be centralised in one city, depending
on the circumstances at the time.
Ministers have made representations to ministerial
counterparts in other EU member states, the European
Commission and the European Parliament on the
dual sitting of the European Parliament.
The European Parliament itself voted on 9 March
to hold 11 sessions per year in Strasbourg instead of
12 in both 2012 and 2013.
Written Answers
WA 180
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Individual departments
have published this information for 2009-10 in their
updated business plans, which can be seen via the
Cabinet Office website: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/
department-business-plans-updated.
We will provide a commentary on the overall picture
as part of the SME progress report to be published on
19 July.
Government Departments: Research and
Data
Food: Waste
Questions
Question
Asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps
they will take in the forthcoming year to reduce
food waste; and by what date they aim for zero food
waste to go to landfill .
[HL10861]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Lord Henley): The Government’s review of waste
policy in England, published in June, sets our direction
to move towards a zero waste economy, in which
resources are reused, recycled or recovered wherever
possible, and only disposed of as a last resort. To
reduce food waste in the forthcoming year, we will
move towards fulfilling our commitments laid out in
the review.
The public sector will lead by example across its
own estate. Government buying standards for the
procurement of food and catering by government
departments and their agencies are now ready to be
implemented. We are also working with trade
organisations and businesses to develop a responsibility
deal in the hospitality sector, and will be continuing to
make it easy for businesses and consumers to reduce
food waste, notably through the Courtauld commitment.
While we have not set a specific date to achieve zero
food waste going to landfill, we believe that the measures
set out in the waste review and the publication of the
anaerobic digestion strategy and action plan highlight
this as a foreseeable goal, while ensuring that waste
collection services and the waste treatment infrastructure
meet local needs.
Government Departments: Expenditure
Questions
Asked by Lord Cope of Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentage
of central government procurement expenditure is
spent with small and medium-sized enterprises.
[HL10890]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the
percentage of the total procurement expenditure of
each government department which is spent with
[HL10892]
small and medium-sized enterprises.
Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Answer by Baroness Wilcox on 23 June
(WA 365), what data collection does the Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills undertake.
[HL10615]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness
Wilcox): The information on data collections that the
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills undertakes
will be placed in the Library of the House.
Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what data
collection HM Revenue and Customs undertakes.
[HL10790]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) collects
data, including personal and business data, that are
required in order to achieve its business purpose i.e. the
collection of taxes and distribution of benefits and
credits.
HMRC also collects data in relation to enforcement
of UK tax law and for various administrative
purposes.
Government Departments:
Scientific Advisers
Question
Asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough
To ask Her Majesty’s Government who is the
Departmental Chief Scientific Adviser for the
Department for Transport; and (a) when they were
appointed and for how long, (b) what is their academic
or experience background, (c) what is their civil
service rank, (d) whether their post is full-time or
part-time, and what other work commitments they
have, and (e) on how many occasions during the
past year they have had meetings with the Secretary
of State for Transport or the Minister to whom
[HL10082]
they have direct responsibility.
WA 181
Written Answers
[13 JULY 2011]
Earl Attlee: Following the Department for Transport’s
recent restructure we currently have a vacancy for a
new Chief Scientific Adviser. We are working in
partnership with the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills to run a recruitment campaign for a joint
Chief Scientific Adviser in the next few weeks.
The previous Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor
Brian Collins CBE FREng, left at the end of his term
in office in May 2011. In the year to that date, he met
with the Secretary of State and Ministers on four
occasions.
Health: Orthopaedics
Question
Asked by Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what
representations they have received about the inclusion
of osteoporosis in the 2012–13 Quality and Outcomes
Framework; and what action is being taken as a
[HL10637]
result.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): No direct representations have
been made to the department about the inclusion of
osteoporosisinthe2012-13qualityandoutcomesframework.
However, recommendations on the prioritisation of
potential indicators for inclusion in the quality and
outcomes framework are the responsibility of the National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence which
would consider such matters.
Healthcare: Costs
Question
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 20 June
(WA 248), when the unpaid claims for healthcare
costs under European Union Regulation 883/2004
were submitted to Poland; for what dates and for
how much; what consideration has been given to
deducting such amounts owing from payments made
to Poland; what estimate they make of the annual
cost of unclaimed primary medical care for Polish
nationals resident in the United Kingdom; and how
[HL10693]
many such nationals there are.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department of Health (Earl Howe): In 2009-10, claims
for pensioners and their dependents totalling around
£29,000 were submitted by the United Kingdom to
Poland. Payment was made by Poland in 2010-11.
Full details of claims and payments made in 2010-11
will be available following the publication of the
department’s 2010-11 resource accounts in 2011.
The department does not hold data on how many
Polish nationals, ordinarily resident in the UK, are
accessing healthcare in the UK.
Written Answers
WA 182
Higher Education: Sciences
Questions
Asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light
of the proposals in the Higher Education White
Paper published on 28 June, what proposals they
have to expand the number of students studying for
their first degree in science, technology, engineering
[HL10657]
and mathematics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Lord Henley): The higher education White Paper sets
out plans to improve the information available to
prospective students so they are able to make informed
choices about what course to study. Degrees in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics are valued
by employers and the key information set will include
details on employment and salary outcomes. In addition,
we have asked UCAS and higher education institutions
to provide new data at course level showing the type
and subjects of the qualifications held by previously
successful applicants. This will help inform young
people’s GCSE and A-level choices and ensure that
those who want to undertake a STEM degree, have the
right qualifications to do so.
The White Paper also sets out proposals to free up
the current, restrictive approach to institution level
student number controls, while ensuring the cost to
the public purse remains affordable, allowing more
students to attend the institution of their choice and
institutions that can attract students to expand. We
have asked HEFCE to consult, immediately, on how
to implement these approaches and to monitor the
impact of the approach and its effect on supply and
demand. Crucially, we have asked HEFCE to ensure
that, in freeing up student number controls, provision
of, and support for, strategically important and vulnerable
subjects is not disadvantaged.
We know that science and engineering subjects cost
more to teach and we want a system where anyone
with the ability can access university and study these
courses, without being put off by the cost. That is why
we will continue to provide additional funding for
these courses.
Asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the
total number of United Kingdom domiciled students
qualifying with a first degree in physics, chemistry,
biology, engineering and mathematics in each of
the years 2001 to 2010 from universities in England
[HL10658]
and Wales.
Lord Henley: The latest available information from
the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) is
shown in the table below. The subject classification
system as well as the way in which students were
allocated to subject of study changed in the 2002-03
academic year. Therefore earlier figures are not comparable
and have not been provided. Figures for the 2010-11
academic year will be available in January 2012.
WA 183
Written Answers
Written Answers
[LORDS]
WA 184
UK Domiciled First Degree Qualifiers by Subject of Study English and Welsh Higher Education Institutions Academic Years 2002-03 to 2009-10
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Engineering (1)
Mathematical
Sciences (2)
Total
2002-03
1,855
2,390
3,605
10,575
4,140
22,565
2003-04
1,775
2,265
3,710
10,865
4,345
22,965
2004-05
1,905
2,240
3,805
10,400
4,040
22,390
2005-06
1,980
2,055
3.695
10,020
4,120
21,865
2006-07
1,870
2,105
3.880
9,925
4,250
22,030
2007-08
1,825
2,220
3,900
10,040
4,290
22,270
2008-09
1.990
2,285
3,735
10,215
4,440
22,660
2009-10
2,070
2,395
3,840
10,425
4,740
23,470
Academic Year
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).
Notes: Figures are based on a HESA qualifications obtained population and have been rounded to the nearest five. Due to rounding
rows may not sum to totals.
(1)
The subject group of Engineering covers the following types of engineering: General, Civil, Mechanical, Aerospace, Naval
Architecture, Electronic & Electrical, Production & Manufacturing, Chemical, Process & Energy, Other.
(2)
The subject group of Mathematical Sciences covers the following: Mathematics, Operational Research and Statistics.
Homelessness
Question
Asked by Lord Bradley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
have an overall target figure for the number of new
house completions in England over the next ten
years, following the abolition of regional allocations.
[HL10888]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
people are estimated to have been made homeless in
each district of Greater Manchester as a result of
the total cap on benefits.
[HL11008]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): We
expect to introduce the benefit cap in 2013. It will
mean that people on benefit will face choices about
housing costs similar to those faced by people in work.
But it will not necessarily mean that they will need to
move from their home. Even within the limits of this
cap, households will still be able to receive significant
amounts of financial assistance from state welfare
payments and if a member of the household moves
into work and becomes eligible for working tax credit
they will be exempt from the impacts of the cap.
There is a range of help local authorities can offer
to households at risk of becoming homeless including
the provision of discretionary housing payments. We
have already made an additional £190 million available
over the spending review period for this purpose as a
result of the changes we have made to housing benefit.
The Government published their impact assessment
of the benefit cap in February alongside the introduction
of the Welfare Reform Bill. This made clear that it is
not possible to estimate the number of additional
homelessness applications that might arise as a
consequence of the overall benefit cap because this
would have to be based on behavioural changes. The
impact assessment can be found via the following link:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/household-benefit-capwr2011-ia.pdf.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Communities and Local Government
(Baroness Hanham): The Government do not provide
estimates of future new build numbers, as forecasting
is imprecise and could affect market sentiment. However,
there are various private sector organisations which
can, and do, use our statistics to make their own
forecasts. Ultimately, the number of new homes that
are built will depend upon market conditions and
decisions that are taken at the local level.
The Government have replaced top-down targets
with fiscal incentives for local authorities to develop
housing. The new homes bonus impact assessment,
published with the consultation document at: http://
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/
newhomesbonusconsult illustrates the potential effect
of local authorities’ response to the incentives.
Annual housing starts reached 106,590 in the 12 months
to March 2011, up by 22 per cent compared with the
12 months to March 2010, and up by 32 per cent
compared with the 12 months to March 2009.
Asked by Lord Whitty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their
estimate of the number of new households that will
[HL10887]
be formed over the next five years.
Baroness Hanham: Statistics on the projected number
of households in England between 2008 and 2033,
based on the 2008-based population projections published
by the Office for National Statistics, are published on
the DCLG website at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/
publications/corporate/statistics/2033household1110.
Housing
India and Pakistan
Questions
Question
Asked by Lord Whitty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their
estimate of the numbers of new housing completions
in each of the next three financial years in England
as a result of the new homes bonus.
[HL10885]
Asked by Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will raise with the Commonwealth Secretariat ways
of achieving détente between India and Pakistan
and of increasing their mutual trade.
[HL10771]
WA 185
Written Answers
[13 JULY 2011]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We welcome the
renewed engagement between India and Pakistan
following the meeting between Prime Ministers Singh
and Gilani on 30 March. India and Pakistan are
working to build confidence in a number of areas
including bilateral trade. But the scope and pace of
their dialogue is for India and Pakistan to agree. We
believe that third parties should neither mediate nor
proscribe solutions. It is important that India and
Pakistan are given space to pursue a promising series
of contacts on all aspects of the relationship.
We are working with Pakistan, India and other
member states to reinvigorate the Commonwealth.
Members of this unique organisation share principles
of democracy, rule of law and similar legal systems,
which provide solid foundations to conduct business
and have shown to bring trade advantages.
Indonesia
Question
Asked by Lord Patten
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
they have made of the reported attacks by Islamists
on (a) Christian churches in Java, and (b) on members
of the Ahmadiyah sect, in Indonesia.
[HL10653]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): Indonesia has made
much progress in protecting human rights over the
past 13 years. However, despite progress on a broad
range of human rights issues, we are concerned about
a rise in the number of violent incidents targeted
against religious minorities in 2011. We continue to
stress to the Government of Indonesia that if there is
credible evidence of wrongdoing, it should be investigated
and any perpetrators brought to justice. We regularly
raise freedom of religion issues with the Government
of Indonesia and keep in close contact with representatives
of the religious minority groups most affected to
discuss their concerns.
Written Answers
WA 186
Asked by Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
they have made of the treatment of Christians in
[HL10720]
Iraq.
Lord Howell of Guildford: The Christian community
in Iraq was targeted in terrorist incidents towards the
end of 2010 and early 2011. In recent months we have
seen fewer incidents targeting Christians specifically.
The Government of Iraq have pledged to safeguard
the rights and freedoms of all their citizens and to
provide adequate protection for their minority groups.
The Iraqi Interior Ministry has drawn up a comprehensive
plan for protecting churches and Christian areas in
Baghdad and other governorates. Furthermore the
president of Iraq announced the formation of a committee
of Christian affairs to look at conditions for Christians
in Iraq. We consider these to be positive steps.
Iraq: Camp Ashraf
Question
Asked by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
they have made of the threat of an imminent attack
by Iraqi government forces on Camp Ashraf; whether
they have raised this matter with American Command
in the area; and what reassurances they have sought
[HL10755]
from the Government ofIraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We remain concerned
about the situation at Camp Ashraf, particularly in
light of events on 8 April and statements made by the
Government of Iraq that they will close the camp by
the end of 2011. We have urged the Government of
Iraq to refrain from violence and to work with the
camp leadership to find a peaceful solution to the
issue. We will continue to do this.
US officials in Iraq are fully aware of the situation
at Camp Ashraf. We remain in close contact with them
and other international partners.
Iraq
Questions
Israel and Palestine
Asked by Lord Touhig
Questions
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate
they have made of the numbers of Christians in
Iraq in (a) 2002, and (b) 2010.
[HL10719]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): It is difficult to
provide accurate population figures for Iraq. The last
credible census held in Iraq was in 1987. However, we
have seen reports which indicate that in 2002 there
were between 800,000 and 1,000,000 Christians living
in Iraq. By 2010, the numbers were estimated at 400,000.
We assess that a large percentage of these numbers
have fled to neighbouring states, most notably Syria,
Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. However, again, it is
difficult to provide accurate refugee figures for the
region.
Asked by Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will seek access for the International Committee of
the Red Cross to (a) Corporal G Shalit and any
other detainees in Gaza, and (b) Palestinian prisoners
[HL10766]
and detainees in Israel.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We regularly hold
discussions through our embassy in Tel Aviv about the
release of Gilad Shalit with other EU and UN partners.
Most recently, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State, my honourable friend Alistair Burt, met with
Gilad Shalit’s father during his recent visit to the
region. We continue to call for Hamas to release Gilad
WA 187
Written Answers
[LORDS]
Shalit unconditionally. We consider it unacceptable
that the International Committee of the Red Cross is
denied access to him. It is unacceptable that he has
been held for five years without any Red Cross
access.
On the fifth anniversary of his capture the Secretary
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my
right honourable friend the Member for Richmond
(Yorks) (Mr Hague) released a statement and Alistair
Burt released a video message calling for Shalit’s
immediate and unconditional release.
The UK consistently raises our concern where
appropriate about human rights abuses carried out by
Israelis including the Israeli defence forces. These include
concerns about the use of legislation and detention in
the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in particular
concerning children. Minister for the Middle East and
North Africa, Alistair Burt, raised these with the
Israeli Minister of Justice recently when he visited
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We
consistently raise the importance of Israel adhering to
all of its international obligations.
Asked by Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
they have made of Israel’s use of administrative
detention, including that of children; and what
representations they have made to the Government
ofIsrael regarding the indefinite detention of 250
[HL10850]
Palestinian citizens.
Lord Howell of Guildford: The UK is concerned
about the number of children currently being held in
Israeli prisons. We raise our concerns with the Israeli
Government about the application of due process and
the treatment of Palestinian detainees, including where
children are involved, on a frequent basis. Most recently,
our ambassador in Tel Aviv has raised the issue of
Israel’s treatment of Palestinian children with Education
Minister Saar and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’s
Principal Legal Advisor Daniel Taub. My honourable
friend Alistair Burt raised this during his recent visit
to the region.
The noble Baroness may be interested to hear that
alongside our existing projects, our consulate-general
in Jerusalem has recently secured funding to fund the
UK Bar Committee for Human Rights to come to the
Occupied Palestinian Territories in September 2011 to
research a report about the treatment of children
arrested and detained in the Israeli military court
system.
We will continue to monitor the situation with regard
to all Palestinian prisoners, including parliamentarians,
in Israeli prisons. We call on the Israeli Government to
take immediate action to ensure that all cases are
reviewed by a court in accordance with fair procedures,
and that detainees’ rights are upheld, particularly with
regards to fair trial and family visits. All Palestinian
prisoners should have access to a fair trial, and Israel
should ensure that it acts always in accordance with
international law. We shall continue to raise our concerns
with the Israeli authorities and issue statements when
appropriate.
Written Answers
WA 188
Middle East
Question
Asked by Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what
representations they have made to Governments in
the Middle East about prejudice and discrimination
against Christians in the Middle East.
[HL10718]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Government
are greatly concerned about those who are denied
the right to freedom of religion or belief. We condemn
all instances of violence and discrimination against
individuals and groups because of their faith or belief,
wherever they occur or whatever the religion of the
individual or group concerned. We, together with
international partners, regularly make clear to
Governments across the region the importance we
place on promoting cultural and religious tolerance
and on eliminating all legal provisions and policies
which discriminate against different religious communities.
We will continue to make these representations.
Monetary Policy Committee
Question
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the answer by Lord Sassoon on 6 April (Official
Report, col. 252), whether, in setting the inflation
target for the Monetary Policy Committee, they
will in future exclude factors which the Monetary
Policy Committee feels it has no capacity to influence.
[HL10912]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): The Chancellor confirmed at Budget 2011
that price stability shall be defined as 2 per cent
inflation, as measured by the 12-month increase in the
consumer prices index.
National Insurance
Questions
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what they
estimate to be the total annual national insurance
contributions not charged to seconded workers on
intra-company transfers and their employers because
of the 52-week exemption in regulation 145 of the
Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2001;
and how many such employees obtained visas for
admission to the United Kingdom last year.
[HL10829]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): I refer the noble Lord to the Answers I gave
him on 16 November 2010 (col. WA 196) and 2 December
2010 (col. WA 484), which explain why non-European
Economic Area workers are allowed a 52-week exclusion
from national insurance contributions.
WA 189
Written Answers
[13 JULY 2011]
Workers from countries outside the European
Economic Area, with which the UK has no bilateral
agreements, may benefit from a 52-week exclusion
from national insurance contributions, by virtue of
Regulation 145(2) or (3) of the Social Security
(Contributions) Regulations 2001, provided they meet
the statutory conditions. The current exclusion is designed
to keep temporary visiting workers, students and
apprentices out of the UK social security scheme.
Information on the amount of national insurance
contributions (NICs) foregone due to this exemption
is not available. An estimate of the number of such
workers is also not available. It would add unnecessarily
to the burdens on businesses and be inconsistent with
the current approach to other exemptions and disregards
that apply to NICs, to require employers to send
information to HM Revenue and Customs about this
exemption.
Asked by Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
[HL10959]
national insurance numbers there are.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): The
latest available figures (Feb 2011) shows a total of
83.36 million national insurance number (NINo) records
on the department’s Customer Information System
(CIS). This includes NINos of people known to be
living abroad and 19.63 million NINos relating to
deceased persons.
Once a NINo is allocated it needs to remain on the
department’s computer system. This is because the
NINo provides a permanent numerical link between
the individual and their national insurance contribution
record, which determines entitlement to contributory
benefits and state pension. In respect of deceased
individuals, a partner may make a claim for a contributory
benefit, which is dependent on the contribution record
of the deceased.
North Korea
Question
Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their
assessment of the impact and value of the British
Council’s English Language programme in North
Korea; and what steps they will take to prevent the
programme from being scaled down or ended as a
[HL10665]
result of expenditure cuts.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The British Council’s
English language training programme in the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has had a very
positive impact on the levels of English proficiency
in the country and attitudes towards the United
Kingdom. The programme—which supports teaching,
teacher training and development, and curriculum
development—has now been running in three universities
over the past 10 years. Rather than scaling down
activity, there are plans to expand the programme to
Written Answers
WA 190
three further universities during 2011. In addition, a
letter of understanding outlining the programme’s
objectives for the next three years was signed with the
DPRK Commission of Education in June 2011.
Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012
Question
Asked by Baroness Hollis of Heigham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many of
the Olympic tickets allocated to the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport are allocated to the
Department’s Olympic committee; and how many
are allocated for use by Department for Culture,
[HL10841]
Media and Sport officials.
Baroness Garden of Frognal: There is no departmental
Olympic committee.
Around 300 tickets have been allocated to Department
for Culture, Media and Sport/Government Olympic
executive officials. These will be paid for by the staff
members.
Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani
Question
Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what
representations they have made about the death
sentence for apostasy imposed on Pastor Yousef
Nadarkhani by the Iranian Supreme Court.
[HL10747]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We are aware of
reports that Pastor Nadarkhani’s sentence to death
for apostasy has been annulled by the Supreme Court
of Iran and the case has been returned to the district
court. If true, this is a positive development in Pastor
Nadarkhani’s case, though we maintain our belief
that Pastor Nadarkhani has no case to answer for and
call for his release. We have spoken to the Iranian
authorities in Tehran, and the Iranian embassy in
London to seek clarification of Pastor Nadarkhani’s
status, and look forward to receiving a response soon.
Pensions
Questions
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate
they have made of the percentage of employees
who are members of workplace pension schemes in
the public sector and private sector respectively;
and what are the current requirements on membership
[HL10643]
of a pension scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): In
2010, 36 per cent of private sector employees were
members of workplace pension schemes. This represents
6.6 million employee jobs.
WA 191
Written Answers
[LORDS]
In 2010, 84 per cent of public sector employees
were members of workplace pension schemes. This
represents 6.2 million employee jobs.
The current requirements on membership of a pension
scheme are that an employer with five or more employees
has to provide access to a pension for their employees.
There is no requirement however for an employee to
be a member of a pension scheme.
From 2012, new employer duties will start to be
introduced. After the new requirements are fully in
place a minimum of 8 per cent of qualifying earnings
will be contributed to a pension unless an employee
chooses to opt out. At least 3 per cent of that minimum
is expected to be contributed by the employer.
These changes are estimated to increase the proportion
of employees making pension contributions with
5-8 million newly participating, or saving more, in
workplace pensions.
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate
they have made of the percentage of males and
females who are members of workplace pension
schemes in the public sector; what are the rules
relating to such employees and pension scheme
membership; and what is their assessment of the
reasons for eligible staff not being members.
[HL10644]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): HM Treasury is responsible for overall public
service pensions policy but the relevant department
leads on individual schemes, including access rules,
membership and take-up.
Scheme-specific breakdowns of membership by gender
will vary from scheme to scheme but an overview,
based on the annual survey of hours and earnings
2010, is that active membership of public service pension
schemes is 33 per cent male and 67 per cent female.
People Trafficking
Question
Asked by Lord Lea of Crondall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their
assessment of the findings of the United States
State Department report Trafficking in Persons
that staff of embassies in London are being denied
[HL10669]
basic rights.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (FCO) condemns illegal activity
by diplomats in the UK. Under the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations, those entitled to immunity
are expected to obey the law.
The FCO treats any allegation of mistreatment of
domestic workers in diplomatic households very seriously.
The police investigate allegations that the law has been
broken by persons entitled to immunity and report the
results to the FCO. When an allegation is brought to
our attention by the police, we liaise as necessary with
the relevant diplomatic mission and the UK Border
Agency to work for an appropriate response. In the
case of an allegation of mistreatment requiring further
Written Answers
WA 192
investigation by the police, the FCO will request a
waiver of the diplomat’s immunity from the diplomatic
mission concerned on behalf of the police. Failure to
provide a waiver may result in a request to the mission
for withdrawal of the diplomat. In 2010 there were
two cases involving allegations of mistreatment of a
domestic worker in a diplomatic household.
In accordance with the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations 1961 (VCDR) foreign diplomats
accredited in the UK are entitled to employ domestic
workers. Under Article 41 (1) of the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations it is the duty of all diplomats
“to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving
state”. This applies to the terms and conditions of
employment for all domestic staff. The Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (FCO) regularly reminds all
foreign missions based in the UK of their obligations
under the law, most recently in February 2011.
While the United States State Department report
does raise concerns about the issue of diplomatic
domestic workers in the UK, it also acknowledges
“the UK’s continued work to vigorously investigate
and prosecute trafficking offenders”. It notes the
Government’s funding to identify and protect victims
and their sustained partnerships with civil society to
improve its anti-trafficking efforts in 2010. The UK’s
freely available information allowed non-governmental
organisations to make comprehensive assessments of
the UK’s anti-trafficking efforts.
Public Toilets
Question
Asked by Viscount Waverley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether public
lavatories designated for the disabled are for the
exclusive use of disabled persons; if so, whether
there is any guidance on the circumstances under
which they may be used by non-disabled people;
and whether RADAR keys are sufficiently widely
[HL10661]
distributed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): Under
the Equality Act 2010 service providers are required
not to discriminate against, and to make reasonable
adjustments for, disabled people. Where providing toilet
facilities as part of its services to the public, the usage
of accessible toilets is a matter for the service provider.
No statutory guidance is available to govern the use of
accessible toilets.
Where service providers choose to keep their accessible
toilets locked, they are encouraged to join the national
key scheme, a voluntary scheme run by RADAR.
However, RADAR does not advocate the general fitting
of locks to all toilets for disabled people.
Re-export Controls
Question
Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent
reports they have received of the operation of re-export
control provisions in those countries that have enacted
legislation.
[HL10875]
WA 193
Written Answers
Written Answers
[13 JULY 2011]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness
Wilcox): Discussions with EU colleagues on export
control policy are ongoing and take place formally
within the Council Working Group on Conventional
Arms, and informally between member states’ officials
involved in strategic export licensing. These discussions
have served to confirm our understanding of established
member state practices on re-export.
WA 194
There has been no recent assessment of the level of
food growing in schools. While the Government support
education outside the classroom, we consider that
individual schools are in the best position to decide
which activities are most relevant for their students.
Schools: Teachers
Question
Asked by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
Republic of Ireland: Financial Support
Question
Asked by Lord Empey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the
loan of £7 billion to the Republic of Ireland as part
of the December 2010 bailout agreement has been
[HL10842]
drawn down.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): The UK’s bilateral loan to Ireland amounts
to £3.227 billion. The loan cannot be drawn until after
the approval of the third quarterly review of Ireland’s
Memorandum of Understanding with the International
Monetary Fund and the European Commission. The
review is expected to take place in August 2011.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was
(a) the total, and (b) the ratio of men to women
among primary school teachers in England and
Wales for 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010, to
[HL10754]
the nearest 2,500.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The following table
provides the number, ratio and percentage of men to
women of qualified teachers in full-time regular teaching
service in publicly funded primary schools in England
and Wales in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010.
Full-time regular qualified teachers in service in publicly funded nursery/primary
schools1 by gender.
Coverage England and Wales 2
Years: March 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and November 2010
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
20102
Numbers
Saudi Arabia
Question
Asked by Lord Ahmed
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they
protect the rights of British citizens working in
Saudi Arabia.
[HL10822]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): Our publication
Support for British Nationals Abroad: A Guide sets out
the help we aim to provide to British nationals who are
in difficulty overseas. We provide this support in over
180 countries across the world, including Saudi Arabia.
Schools: Cooking and Growing Food
Men
37,500
40,000
45,000
35,000
30,000:
25,000
Women
107,500
122,500
152,500
145,000
152,500:
135,000
Men and
Women
142,500
162,500
197,500
177,500
180,000
160,000
0.34
0.34
0.30
0.24
0.20:
0.18
Men
25.6
25.1
22.9
19.4
16.3:
15.5
Women
74.4
74.9
77.1
80.6
83.71
84.5
Men and
Women
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0:
100.0
Ratio of
men to
women
Percentages
Source: Database of Teacher Records (1960 to 2000), and School
Workforce Census, (2010).
1. Figures are for local authority maintained schools for years
1960 to 2000. Also includes primary age range academies in
2010.
2. 2010 figures exclude Wales.
Figures are rounded to the nearest 2,500
Question
Asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
they have made of the level of practical food experience
in schools including cooking skills and food growing;
and what plans they have to increase it. [HL10862]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): Cooking is currently
compulsory in primary schools at key stages 1 and 2.
While the Government consider that practical cooking
in schools is important, we do not plan to make any
changes to the statutory national curriculum which
would place new burdens on schools while the current
review of the national curriculum is under way.
Taiwan
Question
Asked by Lord Northbrook
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their
assessment of the proposal for signing the Economic
Co-operation Agreement between the European
Union and Taiwan.
[HL10836]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We value the strong
trade links we have with Taiwan and are keen to
enhance them. The Government support active
consideration of practical measures to strengthen trade
between the EU and Taiwan.
WA 195
Written Answers
[LORDS]
Written Answers
WA 196
political parties to participate in Turkey’s democratic
process, and ensure that the proposed new constitution
enjoys the broadest possible consensus in Parliament
and among Turkish citizens.
Taxation
Question
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they
intend to put the recommendation of the Office
of Tax Simplification to remove the tax relief
allowed by Regulation 145(3) of the Social Security
(Contributions) Regulations 2001 into effect; and
what is the annual net cost to the Government of
this national insurance contribution exemption.
[HL10828]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): The Government announced the removal of
this relief at Budget 2011 and are currently consulting
on the timing for this removal. A consultation document
was issued in May 2011 and responses are due by the
end of August 2011.
Data on the net cost of the exemption are not
available, although given Immigration Rules, the cost
is unlikely to be significant. The consultation gives an
opportunity for groups affected by this exemption to
provide details of how they are impacted.
Turkey
Questions
Asked by Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what
representations the Ankara representatives of the
European Commission, together with the ambassadors
of the European Union states, have made to Turkish
political parties about avoiding boycotts of the
Grand National Assembly and starting the work of
[HL10834]
constitutional revision.
Lord Howell of Guildford: There have been no
formal EU demarches or council conclusions on avoiding
the boycott of the Grand National Assembly and the
start of constitutional revision. The EU Commission
continues to maintain dialogue with political parties
including those that have undertaken a boycott. Our
ambassador also met the BDP (Peace and Democracy
Party) on 28 June 2011 to discuss the boycott. We
encourage all political parties to participate in Turkey’s
democratic process and ensure that the proposed new
constitution enjoys the broadest possible consensus.
However, the legal basis under which the Turkish
Members of Parliament serve is a matter for the
relevant legislative authorities.
Asked by Lord Patten
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
they have made of the recent decision by Turkey’s
High Election Board to bar from taking his
Parliamentary seat Mr Hatip Dicle of the Peace
and Democracy Party, and the subsequent Kurdish
[HL10652]
boycott of Parliament.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We are aware of the
decision by the High Election Board and Turkish
courts regarding Hatip Dicle’s participation in the
Turkish Parliament, and are following the situation
surrounding boycotts of Parliament by opposition
parties and politicians closely. It is not general UK
Government practice to comment on individual judicial
processes, but we expect high legal and judicial standards
to be observed. The legal basis under which Turkish
Members of Parliament serve is a matter for the
relevant legislative authorities. We also encourage all
Turks and Caicos Islands
Question
Asked by Lord Ashcroft
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford
on 30 June (WA 482), who, other than the official
delegation, met Ministers and Officials in the week
commencing 13 June to discuss the new constitution
[HL10739]
for the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): Mr Floyd Seymour
and Mr E Jay Saunders accompanied the People’s
Democratic Movement delegate, and Mr Royal Robinson
and Mr Beryn Duncanson accompanied the delegate
from the Progressive National Party.
Wednesday 13 July 2011
ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
Col. No.
Col. No.
Afghanistan: Roulement .................................................... 59
Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report........ 67
Animals in Scientific Procedures: Statistics........................ 61
Migration .......................................................................... 67
Armed Forces: Allowances ................................................ 62
Non-departmental Public Bodies....................................... 69
Child Protection ................................................................ 63
Prison and Probation Services ........................................... 70
Elections: Registration....................................................... 64
Housing: Squatters ............................................................ 65
Identity and Passport Service: Annual Report and
Accounts ....................................................................... 66
Independent Safeguarding Authority: Annual Report
and Accounts................................................................. 66
Railways: Crossrail ............................................................ 72
Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station: Inquiry........................... 73
Serious Organised Crime Agency: Annual Report and
Accounts ....................................................................... 74
UK Border Agency: Annual Report and Accounts............ 74
Wednesday 13 July 2011
ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS
Col. No.
Col. No.
Armed Forces: Commemoration ..................................... 173
Homelessness................................................................... 183
Aviation: Passenger Duty................................................. 173
Housing ........................................................................... 183
Bahrain ............................................................................ 173
India and Pakistan........................................................... 184
Bank of England: Financial Policy Committee................ 174
Indonesia ......................................................................... 185
Banking ........................................................................... 174
Iraq.................................................................................. 185
Banking: Afghanistan ...................................................... 175
Iraq: Camp Ashraf........................................................... 186
Banking: Northern Rock ................................................. 175
Israel and Palestine .......................................................... 186
Businesses: Red Tape ....................................................... 176
Middle East ..................................................................... 188
Consumer Markets Authority.......................................... 177
Monetary Policy Committee ............................................ 188
Cornwall: Stannary Law .................................................. 177
National Insurance .......................................................... 188
Debt................................................................................. 178
North Korea .................................................................... 189
European Parliament ....................................................... 178
Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012.............................. 190
Food: Waste..................................................................... 179
Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani .............................................. 190
Government Departments: Expenditure .......................... 179
Pensions........................................................................... 190
Government Departments: Research and Data................ 180
People Trafficking............................................................ 191
Government Departments: Scientific Advisers................. 180
Public Toilets ................................................................... 192
Health: Orthopaedics....................................................... 181
Re-export Controls .......................................................... 192
Healthcare: Costs............................................................. 181
Republic of Ireland: Financial Support ........................... 193
Higher Education: Sciences.............................................. 182
Saudi Arabia.................................................................... 193
Col. No.
Col. No.
Schools: Cooking and Growing Food .............................. 193
Taxation........................................................................... 195
Schools: Teachers............................................................. 194
Turkey.............................................................................. 195
Taiwan ............................................................................. 194
Turks and Caicos Islands ................................................. 196
NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS
Col. No.
Col. No.
[HL10082]........................................................................ 180
[HL10790]........................................................................ 180
[HL10615]........................................................................ 180
[HL10822]........................................................................ 193
[HL10620]........................................................................ 175
[HL10827]........................................................................ 176
[HL10637]........................................................................ 181
[HL10828]........................................................................ 195
[HL10643]........................................................................ 190
[HL10829]........................................................................ 188
[HL10644]........................................................................ 191
[HL10834]........................................................................ 196
[HL10650]........................................................................ 178
[HL10836]........................................................................ 194
[HL10651]........................................................................ 173
[HL10841]........................................................................ 190
[HL10652]........................................................................ 195
[HL10842]........................................................................ 193
[HL10653]........................................................................ 185
[HL10850]........................................................................ 187
[HL10657]........................................................................ 182
[HL10861]........................................................................ 179
[HL10658]........................................................................ 182
[HL10862]........................................................................ 193
[HL10661]........................................................................ 192
[HL10864]........................................................................ 174
[HL10665]........................................................................ 189
[HL10865]........................................................................ 174
[HL10669]........................................................................ 191
[HL10693]........................................................................ 181
[HL10709]........................................................................ 177
[HL10867]........................................................................ 175
[HL10875]........................................................................ 192
[HL10885]........................................................................ 183
[HL10887]........................................................................ 184
[HL10718]........................................................................ 188
[HL10888]........................................................................ 184
[HL10719]........................................................................ 185
[HL10889]........................................................................ 178
[HL10720]........................................................................ 186
[HL10726]........................................................................ 177
[HL10730]........................................................................ 175
[HL10739]........................................................................ 196
[HL10890]........................................................................ 179
[HL10892]........................................................................ 179
[HL10900]........................................................................ 173
[HL10901]........................................................................ 176
[HL10747]........................................................................ 190
[HL10912]........................................................................ 188
[HL10754]........................................................................ 194
[HL10945]........................................................................ 173
[HL10755]........................................................................ 186
[HL10946]........................................................................ 173
[HL10766]........................................................................ 186
[HL10959]........................................................................ 189
[HL10771]........................................................................ 184
[HL11008]........................................................................ 183
Volume 729
No. 182
Wednesday
13 July 2011
CONTENTS
Wednesday 13 July 2011
Questions
EU: Common Fisheries Policy ....................................................................................................................................... 713
Energy: Fuel Poverty ...................................................................................................................................................... 716
Devolution: England ........................................................................................................................................................ 718
Immigration: Advisory Service....................................................................................................................................... 720
Phone Hacking
Statement ......................................................................................................................................................................... 723
Mull of Kintyre Review
Statement ......................................................................................................................................................................... 735
European Union Bill
Commons Amendments and Reasons ............................................................................................................................ 744
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Report (4th Day) ............................................................................................................................................................ 794
Grand Committee
Education Bill
Committee (6th Day) .............................................................................................................................................. GC 303
Written Statements......................................................................................................................................................... WS 59
Written Answers ............................................................................................................................................................ WA 173