For more information on DeHavilland and how we can help with political monitoring, custom research and consultancy, contact:
+44 (0)20 3033 3870 [email protected] www.dehavilland.co.uk
INTRODUCTION ...... 3 ACTING LABOUR LEADER HARRIET HARMAN’S RESPONSE ...... 5 PRIME MINISTER DAVID CAMERON’S RESPONSE ...... 7 SNP WESTMINSTER LEADER ANGUS ROBERTON’S RESPONSE...... 9 ENTERPRISE BILL ...... 10 ENERGY BILL ...... 13 EUROPEAN UNION REFERENDUM BILL ...... 16 INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL ...... 19 VOTES FOR LIFE BILL ...... 22 PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL ...... 23 HOUSING BILL ...... 25 IMMIGRATION BILL ...... 28 FULL EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE BENEFITS BILL ...... 31 SCOTLAND BILL ...... 34 WALES BILL ...... 36 HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL ...... 40 EXTREMISM BILL ...... 42 BUSES BILL ...... 45 BANK OF ENGAND BILL ...... 47 CITIES AND LOCAL DEVOLUTION BILL ...... 48 TRADE UNIONS BILL ...... 50 CHILDCARE BILL ...... 54 EDUCATION AND ADOPTION BILL ...... 57 NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL/FINANCE BILL ...... 60 EUROPEAN UNION (FINANCE) BILL ...... 62 DRAFT PUBLIC SERVICE OMBUDSMAN BILL ...... 63 POLICING AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL ...... 65 ARMED FORCES BILL ...... 67
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 2
Aspiration and conciliation were the watchwords of the day as Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative majority Government set forth its first Queen’s Speech of the 2015 Parliament.
Couched in the rhetoric of opportunity, the speech continued the Tory rhetoric of a “long-term plan” for the economy and the party’s campaigning emphasis on “security”, while also making a devolutionary “one nation” offering designed to placate those who had so radically disrupted politics north of the Border.
This was not, however, enough to stop him from taking aim at the platform of the SNP, as he explicitly grappled with the nationalists’ opposition to Trident renewal by namechecking British submariners among the military heroes singled out for praise at the commencement of his remarks.
Furthermore, exchanges during the initial Queen’s Speech debate indicated some of the controversy to come, as SNP Members including former First Minister Alex Salmond queried the legitimacy of a pledge to alter the Standing Orders of the House to deliver controversial Conservative proposals for “English Votes for English Laws”.
Notwithstanding such hints of trouble ahead, the 2015 Queen’s Speech appeared a somewhat muted occasion, as the furious speculation that had accompanied the legislative agendas set forth each year by the Coalition was replaced by a certain surety about what was to come.
Speculation this year chiefly surrounded which of the proposals outlined in the Conservative Manifesto would be set forth with the greatest urgency, and which looked likely to cause trouble with rebellious backbenchers, given the Government’s slim majority.
Indeed, the apparent stalling of one of the most controversial proposals to emerge from the Conservatives’ stated legislative programme was greeted with disgust by the morning’s press. The absence in the speech of specific legislation to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a “British Bill of Rights” led some commentators and opponents of the Government to suggest that it had already been forced to kick the issue into the long grass in light of practical difficulties.
Another of the most controversial policies to make it into the Speech – and the focus of a major ideological divide between the parties – is the Conservatives’ proposal, contained in its new Housing Bill, to extend the social housing Right to Buy to cover the tenants of housing associations.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 3
The Prime Minister summed up his party’s appeal to the electorate on housing by declaring that support for this measure was a “test of aspiration”.
In a similarly populist vein came a move to legislate specifically against tax rises, and a promise of a tax-free Minimum Wage, while a boost to free childcare was also framed as a means of helping working families to improve their lot.
A roar of backbench approval greeted the promise of an EU Referendum Bill, while Labour’s change of heart over the plebiscite met with a more troubled reaction, and prompted a defiant declaration from SNP Westminster Leader Angus Robertson that his party maintained its hostility to the vote.
Arguably the most difficult task of the day went to Acting Labour Leader Harriet Harman, who rose first to deliver a stern promise to provide “determined, forensic and vocal” opposition to the Government, and to remind Mr Cameron that his majority remained “slender”.
Taking on the themes of the election campaign, she made direct and resolute to her party’s perceived embarrassment, and also took the Prime Minister to task for his “divisive” election campaigning techniques.
With Labour looking subdued – and even legendary backbench heckler Dennis Skinner lapsing into silence – the Conservative benches were packed with MPs in fine good humour at the outset of their party’s first term in majority Government since the Major years.
But with the clouds of division on the horizon, and gaps already threatening to yawn between rhetoric and reality, this characteristically freewheeling Prime Minister faces a fractious future.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 4
Responding to the 2015 Queen’s Speech, Acting Labour Leader Harriet Harman said that while Labour had not triumphed in the General Election, it intended to hold the Government to account.
It would not hesitate to provide “determined, forensic and vocal” opposition to proposals with which it disagreed, she declared, highlighting the “slender” majority enjoyed by the Conservatives.
Ms Harman highlighted the challenges the UK faced in terms of the economy and the constitution, as well as when it came to providing public services.
The UK could not succeed via a “race to the bottom” in employment, she said, calling for a “high- skilled, long-term approach”.
UK productivity was being held back by a lack of investment, she declared, expressing her support for measures that could get people back to work, assist small businesses and boost infrastructure.
Labour would not support “more arbitrary measures” to undermine employment rights, Ms Harman declared.
Ms Harman noted legislation on tax, stating that Labour wanted a “fair tax system”.
Whilst the party did not want tax to increase for those on low or middle incomes, she stressed that the legislation must not “block off” the possibility of the Government being able to raise taxes on the highest earners in order to protect public services.
Stating that this was a “matter of principle”, she asserted that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden.
On devolution, Ms Harman stressed the importance of the Prime Minister sticking to his pledges to devolve further powers to Scotland and Wales. She also recognised the need for change in England and the House of Commons.
However, she went on to state that the Prime Minister to seek to introduce change built on the “broadest possible consensus” by seeking agreement and breaking his “habit of divisiveness”.
Despite noting that the SNP wanted to break up the UK, she argued that it would be “utterly irresponsible” for the Prime Minister to continue to do what he did “so shamelessly” during the General Election and set the English against the Scottish.
Government plans to change party funding rules needed to be in the national interest, and not just "rigged" in favour of the Conservatives, Ms Harman said.
On the European Union, Ms Harman said that Labour would support the Government's plan for a membership referendum, while asserting that Labour wanted the UK to stay in the EU.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 5
16 and 17-year-olds should have the right to vote in the referendum too, she added, underlining that it was "their future too".
Labour would hold the Government to account over its promises on childcare given the soaring cost of provision, declared Ms Harman.
She expressed support for measures aiming to achieve full employment, but said that Labour would have offered a compulsory “Jobs Guarantee”.
She added that Labour was “sympathetic” to the Government’s proposal to reduce the benefits cap, but argued that implementing this policy increased the need to ensure other welfare provision was adequate.
Affordable housing for rent was also vital, Ms Harman added, lamenting that the age of first purchases had increased and levels of home ownership had fallen.
She attacked the previous administration for failing to replace council homes sold under the Right to Buy policy, and said that the Government had failed to outline how it would pay for its promised extension of the scheme to housing associations.
She suggested that this policy would turn out to be “unfunded and unworkable”.
A fundamental priority of any Government was to protect the security of the country, especially when it came to extremism, Ms Harman stated.
Labour would wait for David Anderson’s review of terrorism legislation and would ensure that ensure there was greater accountability for the use any extra powers introduced.
Moving on, she stated that the rhetoric at the beginning of the speech was “well honed”, arguing that the first few lines looked as if Labour had written them.
However, she warned that the “reality would be very different from the rhetoric”.
Noting that the Prime Minister had described the speech setting out a “one-nation” programme, Ms Harman raised concern that it would instead lead to the break-up of the UK.
In addition, she noted that the Prime Minister had said that the speech was for working people, yet measures it introduced threatened workers’ rights.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 6
Beginning his remarks, Prime Minster David Cameron commended the work of the UK armed forces.
He then insisted that the Government was now "building on strong foundations" following the work of the last Coalition.
While the last Government was about "repair", the new one would be about "renewal", he stated.
The new Government would support those who "worked hard and did the right thing", he went on.
Mr Cameron noted the presence of the new SNP MPs, including Alex Salmond, who had returned to the House of Commons at the General Election.
Mr Cameron reaffirmed that the Government’s first priority was to help “working people” to secure homes and employment. Following proposals in the Queen’s Speech, he explained that the Government would create 3m more apprenticeships and legislate for a minimum wage tax guarantee.
Savings in public spending would be made in order to keep taxes down, he reiterated, adding that welfare payments would also be capped to fund more apprenticeships.
Arguing that welfare cuts were economically necessary, Mr Cameron also stressed the Conservatives’ aim of ensuring that “every young person should either be earning or learning”.
Furthermore, he estimated that the Childcare Bill would save families £5,000 per year and the Housing Bill would assist people to buy or reserve property.
He argued that MPs should support the extension of the Right to Buy to housing association tenants as a “test of aspiration”.
He also expressed support for deregulation and tax cuts in support of small businesses.
The new Government would be “very business-friendly”, he promised.
Delivering for working people also meant controlling immigration, Mr Cameron stated. The Immigration Bill would extend the Government’s principle of rapid deportation.
Responding to a question from Labour MP Keith Vaz on rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean, Mr Cameron said it was essential to “break the link” between people getting on boats and receiving the right to live in Europe.
In addition, he emphasised the importance of the using the UK’s 0.7 per cent GDP aid commitment to help stabilise the situation in countries like Libya. It was also vital to crack down on the criminals engaged in trafficking, he asserted.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 7
Moving on, Mr Cameron asserted that the Government would increase the pace of innovation in schools. Elaborating, he explained that the Schools Bill would crack down on "coasting" schools, pointing to the Government's plans to create 500 new free schools.
He added that the Conservatives would also deliver the additional funding needed by the NHS, including the additional £8bn a year needed by the end of the Parliament.
Prompted about the future of funding for the Metropolitan Police, Mr Cameron said that the Police had “done a brilliant job” of cutting crime while dealing with cuts over the last Parliament. The Government felt further cuts could be made, he said.
Moving on, Mr Cameron highlighted the changes that had been made to EU treaties over recent decades, and said that the Government had a clear strategy to hold a renegotiation and a referendum.
He welcomed cross-party support for the Bill to implement this poll in the Queen’s Speech.
The Government would continue to work with its international partners on securing the Post 2015 Development Goals, as well as taking action on climate change, he told the House.
Green MP Caroline Lucas asked whether the Prime Minister would reverse policies that increased the UK’s dependence on oil and gas and invest in renewable energy.
In reply, Mr Cameron stressed that the Coalition Government had invested renewables.
Moving on, Mr Cameron explained that the Government would legislate on English votes for English Laws.
Interjecting, SNP MP Pete Wishart asked for clarification as to how the Government would approach this policy aim.
In reply, Mr Cameron clarified that the Government would pursue English votes for English laws in the way set out in the Conservative 2015 General Election Manifesto.
The Prime Minister added that the SNP should clearly set out what they meant by "full fiscal autonomy", claiming their plans would lead to higher taxes or spending cuts for Scots.
Those who wanted the best for Scotland should campaign for a Union with solidarity at its heart, Mr Cameron said.
He committed his Government to introducing legislation to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights.
The Queen's Speech would provide stability and security, the Prime Minister concluded, adding that he was committed to delivering a "One Nation" Government.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 8
Responding to the Queen’s Speech, SNP Westminster Leader Angus Robertson said that the SNP intended to be “the effective opposition” to the Government.
Noting that the Conservatives had just one Scottish MP, he argued that the Government had “a democratic legitimacy problem in Scotland”.
Mr Robertson highlighted that the SNP had achieved more votes than all three UK-wide political parties in Scotland, and promised that the party would do its best to represent Scottish voters, no matter how they had voted.
The party supported electoral reform and improvements to representation, he said.
Mr Robertson accused the Government of failing to recognise the multinational character of the UK as a state, and pointed to the election of different parties to represent its constituent countries.
Acknowledging the challenge of managing public spending while sustaining recovery, he cited the need not to damage the interests of the generation to come. However, economic management was not a “zero-sum game” pitting cuts versus spending, he argued. Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh asked what votes the SNP would opt out of, where only England was concerned. Mr Robertson replied that the SNP had very strong policies on what issues it would vote for and what it would not. This had not changed, he clarified.
Mr Robertson noted that wealth inequality had risen sharply in the UK since the General Election. He claimed that regional economic performance had also gone up under Labour and the Conservatives.
The SNP Westminster Leader called on the Government to set out the detail of £12bn in welfare cuts. Responding to an intervention in Conservative MP John Redwood, Mr Robertson pointed to his party's manifesto proposals for a modest increase in public spending.
He insisted that David Cameron would find it difficult to govern with a slim majority.
He further asked how it was right that England dictate the future EU membership of all nations of the UK.
However, Mr Robertson welcomed the decision in the Scotland Bill to incorporate the recommendations of the Smith Commission.
The Party would look at the detail of the Scotland Bill, he added, while suspecting that the Westminster Government had not taken on the proposals put forward by the Scottish Government.
He also criticised the Government's position on Trident and defence policy.
Furthermore, he complained that there had been no recognition in the Queen's Speech that the people of Scotland had rejected the austerity and "wrong priorities" of the Government.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 9
"Measures will also be introduced to reduce regulation on small businesses so they can create jobs."
The Government aims to “cement the UK’s position as the best place in Europe and start and grow a business,” by cutting red tape and making it easier for small businesses to resolve disputes quickly and easily. The Government also wants to reward entrepreneurship, generate jobs and higher wages, and “offer people opportunity at every stage of their lives”.
A key focus for the Bill is deregulation, where the Government has pledged to “cut red tape” and save businesses at least £10bn over this Parliament. It plans to do this by increasing the number of regulators that have to contribute to the deregulation targets, as well as requiring regulators to be more transparent. The Government will also be extending the Primary Authority scheme.
The Bill will establishing the Small Business Conciliation Service that will handle business-to- business disputes without the need for court action, tackling· in particular, late payment issues.
It will also introduce a cap on public sector redundancy pay to “end six figure payouts”.
In preparation for the revaluation in 2017, the Government plans to improve the business rates system, including by modernising the appeals system.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 10
Katja Hall, Deputy Director-General, CBI, commented that “(p)runing unnecessary red tape from Westminster and Brussels will give firms bursting with potential – especially small and medium- sized ones – the space to grow and thrive”.
John Allan, Chairman of the FSB, said he was pleased the Government was maintaining its focus on small businesses. The FSB’s members had been very clear of burdens of red tape and overdue payments, and he saw the Enterprise Bill as an opportunity to make progress on these issues. On regulation, he felt that it was important to look at enforcement and monitoring, as well as the regulation themselves, and they looked forward to the details of the proposed Small Business Conciliation Service to deal with late payments.
John Longworth, Director General of the BCC, labelled this Queen’s Speech a “positive start” to defining this Parliament by growth. Businesses will welcome the commitment to cutting red tape, he said. He added that while the Government’s proposals on late payment were to be welcomed, he felt that there also needed to be concerted effort from businesses themselves.
Simon Walker, Director General of the IoD, said that the Government has got off to a good start by focusing on reducing red tape for SMEs, adding that businesses will be looking carefully at where Mr Javid will find the £10bn worth of cuts to regulation.
Tim Thomas, Head of Employment Policy at the EEF, welcomed the ambition of the Enterprise Bill to cut regulation. However, he said that “businesses will now want to see are changes that will affect their everyday business life, and not a numbers driven approach that measures success by the quantum of regulations repealed or amended”.
Many Conservatives had felt the previous Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable had been a brake on the Government’s efforts to assist business, and felt that with Sajid Javid they now had a Business Secretary that “got business”. Now with the Lib Dems gone from BIS, this Bill does not quite feel like the brakes are completely off, but what seems to be a relentless focus on deregulation is certainly no less than we’d expect from a self-proclaimed Thatcherite such as Mr Javid.
The Government claimed it cut regulation by £10bn in last Parliament and are claiming they can do the same again this time. However, a recent report from pro-market think tank Reform stated that the Government in the previous Parliament actually increased the total burden of regulation on businesses by at least £3.1bn. While the business groups seem to be welcoming the focus on deregulation, this sort of evidence explains some of the scepticism from them in their responses to the Queen’s Speech.
Late payments has been a significant political issue for some time now, with Labour making it one of their few policies aimed at supporting SMEs, so the Conservatives establishing a Small Business Conciliation Service will be seen as a way to get back on the front foot on the issue. The key for this new Service will be how much “teeth” it is given to actually force companies to pay what they owe.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 11
With the previous Government cutting public sector workers jobs in huge numbers in the last Parliament, they were overwhelmed with the level of redundancy costs. With more public sector cuts expected and given some of the high profile “golden parachute” payments handed out recently, a limit on public sector redundancy payments was no great surprise in this Queen’s Speech.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 12
“Measures will be introduced to increase energy security…”
The Energy Bill will seek to strengthen energy security through measures to support regulation in the North Sea oil and gas industry, and also contains provision to privilege local planning concerns as regards wind farms.
It would formally establish the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) as an independent regulator, which would take the form of a government company, charged with the asset stewardship and regulation of domestic oil and gas recovery. It would transfer the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change's existing regulatory powers to the OGA, as well as giving the OGA additional powers including access to company meetings, data acquisition, retention and transfer, dispute resolution and sanctions.
The Bill also seeks to make legislative changes to devolve consenting powers in relation to onshore wind in England and Wales from the Secretary of State to local planning authorities, thereby making local planning authorities the primary decision-makers for onshore wind. However, these changes would not impact the planning regime in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Bill will not be outlining commitments to end new subsidy for onshore wind farms, which DECC will be announcing separately at a later date.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing document.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 13
Onshore wind
Alistair Phillips-Davies, CEO of SSE said: “As a major investor and renewables developer, SSE is committed to working with the government on its onshore wind mandate in the course of this Parliament in a way that meets climate change commitments cost-effectively, maintains investor confidence and retains the wider economic benefits that investment in renewable energy brings.”
Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of RenewableUK said: “Singling out one of the most popular and lowest cost forms of energy technology for different treatment in the planning system sends a worrying message to investors across the energy sector.
Onshore wind is committed to being a good neighbour to the local communities in which it is hosted, providing substantial economic advantages to the region including the ground-breaking community benefits it pays, so we are confident that Local Authorities should recognise the value of these projects.
However, we do hold concerns for the potential for delay of these significant infrastructure projects, so it is very important that Local Authorities are given full support and resourcing to enable them to make swift decisions”.
Katja Hall, CBI Deputy Director-General, said: “We welcome the Government’s commitment to greater community engagement in the deployment of onshore wind farms, but it must ensure that it also retains investor confidence to attract the huge amounts of investment needed in all types of energy. This means the Government should put its efforts into setting a Levy Control Framework beyond 2020.”
Alasdair Cameron, Friends of the Earth Campaigner called the Government’s announcement on onshore wind “ironic” and commented that "Wind farms are not suitable for all locations, but they are a popular and affordable form of energy, providing jobs and investment in rural communities. Despite a vocal minority, more than 60% of people back more onshore wind, including a majority of Conservative voters. A big risk with the local planning approach is that local authorities may not be equipped to deal with the scale and complexities of large wind farm applications.
“It’s still unclear what the Government’s ‘no new subsidy’ for future onshore wind actually means. But if ministers give the UK wind industry proper support it could soon become one of the cheapest sources of energy we have.”
Oil and Gas Authority
Deirdre Michie, Chief Executive of Oil & Gas UK stated that “The OGA is a critical catalyst for the work being done to sustain offshore activity” and looked forward to “complete the implementation of Sir Ian Wood’s recommendations” which she hoped would be done as soon as possible.
Furthermore, she said: “We are at a critical stage in the history of UK offshore oil and gas development and bold steps need to be taken now to ensure strong activity continues into the future… The commissioning of the Wood Review and implementation of its recommendations, and
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 14
the tax changes announced in the 2015 Budget, laid strong foundations for the regeneration of the UK North Sea.”
The detail provided on the Energy Bill thus far includes few surprises for the energy sector, confirming pre- existing commitments on the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) and onshore wind planning.
The establishment of the OGA follows on from the recommendations put forth by Sir Ian Wood in his review of UK offshore Oil and Gas recovery and its regulation. A key recommendation of the Wood Review was the introduction of a new regulatory body for the Oil and Gas sector which saw the establishment of the OGA in 2014, closely followed with the appointment of former BG Group Managing Director Andy Samuel to Chief Executive.
This has been largely welcomed across the political spectrum as a necessary move towards ensuring energy security for the UK. The further regulatory powers that have been granted to the OGA through the Energy Bill, as well as its status as a Government company, will be a step closer towards the implementation of the Wood Report. However, it is yet too early to ascertain whether it will live up to expectations of a “robust, independent and effective regulator”.
More controversial perhaps, are the provisions on the devolution of planning powers for wind farms to local authorities who would be required to consult with local communities, removing the need for the Energy Secretary to approve large wind farms of more than 50MW. This has prompted some concern from the renewable energy sector over the capacity of local planning authorities to absorb this new responsibility.
A more pressing concern for the sector is the confirmation that the Government would deliver on a Conservative manifesto pledge to end new subsides for onshore wind farms. This is likely to face strong opposition in Parliament, especially in light of the new SNP bloc which is firmly in favour of wind energy, and set to hold the chairmanship Energy and Climate Change Committee. A list of Bills affecting Scotland, which includes the Energy Bill, was published today by the Scottish Government which indicates that it is highly likely that Scottish MPs will seek to influence the outcome of this Bill, despite the changes only applying to England and Wales.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 15
“My Government will renegotiate the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union and pursue reform of the European Union for the benefit of all Member States. Alongside this, early legislation will be introduced to provide for an in-out referendum on membership of the European Union before then end of 2017.”
The European Union (EU) Referendum Bill will enable the electorate to have an in-out vote on the UK’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017.
The franchise for the referendum will be based on the General Election franchise, including members of the House of Lords and Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar. British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens over 18 who are residing in the UK will be able to vote as will UK nationals who have resided overseas for less than 15 years.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
British Chambers of Commerce
Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce John Longworth said, “Our research shows that British businesses want to remain in the EU, but a different EU, one which has been reformed. They want the Union to work better for them, now and in the future..”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 16
ICAEW
ICAEW Chief Executive Michael Izza said, ““The commitment to reform the EU and put a referendum to the British people is at the heart of the government’s plans, but we are disappointed that there was no commitment to bring the referendum forward as quickly as possible.
CBI
CBI Deputy Director-General Katja Hall said, “It’s vital that alongside the EU Referendum Bill, the Government gets momentum going behind its reform agenda. We must work with our allies to create an EU that does more of what it’s good at, like signing trade deals and completing the single market, and less of what it’s bad at, like interfering in lifestyle issues, such as what type of bottle olive oil can be sold in.”
British Property Federation
CEO Melanie Leech said, “The prospect of an EU Referendum will bring a lot of uncertainty and, as we saw ahead of the Referendum in Scotland, this can cause a significant slowdown in investment activity, which could impact negatively on the built environment. We urge the government to provide clarity about its parameters and timetable as soon as possible to reduce this risk.”
Electoral Reform Society
Chief Executive of the ERS Katie Ghose, said, “With serious constitutional issues on the table such as Britain’s position in Europe, city devolution, the implementation of the Smith Commission and more powers for Wales, Britain’s democratic future will be fiercely debated – and significantly affected by this Parliament.
SSE
Alistair Phillips-Davies, CEO of SSE said, “Whilst membership of the EU is a matter for voters, I will be taking an active interest in the energy related discussions that the UK Government takes over the forthcoming months. Progressive integration of the GB energy market with other countries in Europe is widely considered to be in the interests of delivering affordable, secure and low carbon energy for the benefit of all customers.”
Scottish National Party
SNP Westminster Leader Angus Robertson MP said, “The group of 56 SNP MPs will move amendments to the EU Referendum Bill on this basis, and seek support across political parties and across the UK.”
Plaid Cymru
Plaid Cymru Parliamentary Leader Jonathan Edwards said, “"Plaid Cymru's goal is to strengthen Wales' hand in Europe. We will seek to amend the EU referendum bill in order to defend the Welsh national interest.”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 17
It was in January 2013 that Prime Minister David Cameron announced he would be in favour of holding a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union if he remained in post after the 2015 General Election. Since then Conservative backbench MPs have been keen to enshrine the promise in legislation, although with no success. Lacking the support of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, both James Wharton’s and Bob Neil’s Private Member’s Bill failed to pass the House of Lords in the last Parliament.
In the run up to the 2015 General Election the Conservative Party argued that it was the only party that could bring meaningful reform to the European Union, and claimed in their manifesto that they “would give the public a say over Britain’s membership of the EU and commit to a referendum by the end of 2017.” The Party’s official position has been for the United Kingdom to remain part of a reformed EU.
It has been reported by the BBC that voters are likely to be asked to choose YES if they wish to STAY in the EU, and NO if they wish to LEAVE.
Under the leadership of Ed Miliband the Labour Party refused to hold a referendum on Britain’s position in the EU and argued that continued membership was vital to the country’s security and prosperity. Recently however, acting Labour leader Harriet Harman has taken the more nuanced approach of endorsing a referendum while committing to campaign for Britain to remain part of the EU. SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has proposed a “double majority” vote. This would mean that exit from the EU could only occur if all four nations agree. Ms Sturgeon’s SNP is also dedicated to campaigning for Britain’s continued membership.
Mr Cameron has not laid out his plans for reform in detail, but in a number of speeches and newspaper articles he has broadly defined his negotiating hand. His priorities include a general change in the direction of “ever closer union”, restricting migrants’ access to benefits, parliamentary powers to block EU legislation, freeing businesses from EU red tape, and protection for the City of London from EU legislation. There is some ambiguity as to whether Mr Cameron’s demands would require all member states to agree to them - triggering changes to treaties - or whether simple political agreements would suffice.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has pledged to work Mr Cameron on Britain’s EU membership. He said recently, “I stand ready to… strike a fair deal for the United Kingdom in the EU and look forward to… ideas and proposals in this regard.” Yet some European leaders, such as German Finance Minister Wolgang Schaeuble, have been less enthusiastic about Britain’s desire for reform, and expressed doubt about the feasibility of treaty changes.
It is expected that Mr Cameron will set out his reform plans in more details in late June.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 18
“New legislation will modernise the law on communications data.”
Pertaining to all investigatory powers, including communications data, the Bill will seek to “maintain” and “address ongoing capability gaps” in the law enforcement and intelligence agencies ability to combat terrorism and other serious crime. The Bill will also outline new oversight and safeguard arrangements.
The Government state that the legislation will respond to the issues raised in the yet to be published review of the operation and regulation of investigatory powers by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson Q.C.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Renate Samson, Chief Executive of Big Brother Watch said: “Whilst the title may have changed from a Communications Data Bill to an Investigatory Powers Bill it will be interesting to see whether the content has radically changed. We have yet to see real evidence that there is a gap in the capability of law enforcement or the agencies’ ability to gain access to our communications data.”
Antony Walker, Deputy CEO of techUK commented that “We encourage the government to consult in detail with the industry to ensure a clear legal framework that provides trust and clarity for the public and for businesses providing communications services. It matters that we get the detail right.”
Jim Killock, Executive Director for the Open Rights Group described the Bill as “dangerous” and tomorrow's solution to yesterday's problem”, but conceded that some elements (e.g. “promising to
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 19
tidy up some of the unregulated behaviour by GCHQ that was revealed in the Edward Snowden leaks, as well as promising greater safety measures”) would be welcome.
@thomasbrake (Liberal Democrat MP) Disappointed but not surprised that in the #QueensSpeech there are government plans to introduce the snoopers charter
Tim Colbourne @twrc (former Special Adviser to Nick Clegg) The fact it's called the "Investigatory Powers Bill" rather than the "Comms Data Bill" implies further steps on intercept + encryption.
@AmnestyUK "My government will modernise law on communications data" - sounds like the snoopers charter & more mass surveillance on all #QueensSpeech
The Investigatory Powers Bill would appear to represent the re-introduction of the ill-fated Communications Data Bill (or the “Snooper’s Charter” to its critics) from the previous Parliament. However, its scope, pertaining to “all investigatory powers”, may suggest it will provide a broader basis for reform.
What is readily apparent is that the Bill may represent one of the more onerous challenges for the newly- assembled Government Whips' Office.
The remaining rump of Lib Dem MPs, the party that took credit for the death of the Communications Data Bill in the last Parliament, will certainly remain opposed. The SNP and Plaid Cymru are also staunch opponents.
Labour’s position is less clear. In the last Parliament Shadow Home Secretary and Labour leadership hopeful Yvette Cooper rejected the Communications Data Bill as “too widely drawn”, but supported the need for “longer-term reform”. The party has indicated that it would wait for the publication of the review of investigatory powers by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, before committing to a substantive position.
Libertarian-minded Tory backbenchers such as David Davis may also be vocally opposed. Intriguingly, however, one of the strongest Tory critics of the Bill in the last Parliament, Dominic Raab – who described it as an “Orwellian scheme that should be buried for good” – has been drafted into the Government as Civil Liberties Minister at the MoJ.
Extra-parliamentary opposition will be led by digital and civil rights organisations such as the Open Rights Group and Privacy International, who campaigned robustly against the Communications Data Bill.
If Labour choose to oppose the Bill outright and others join suit, an assemblage of discontents may wield significant power – if not to block the Bill entirely, but to water down its more controversial provisions.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 20
While the detail is not yet available and will not be until the Bill is published, controversial aspects may include efforts to curtail encryption (as mooted by the Prime Minister pre-election), the scope of third party data retention requirements and the mechanism by which authorised bodies are able to request and access data.
Given that the passage of the Bill would meet a clear manifesto commitment the Government will be confident in deploying the Parliament Act to reverse any undesirable changes made to the Bill in the Lords – where it does not have a majority – or even to force through its passage.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 21
The Bill will scrap the 15 year time limit on British citizens who live abroad voting in UK parliamentary and European elections. The Bill will encourage “larger numbers” of British citizens living abroad to register for UK elections, and would make it easier to cast votes while living abroad. It will apply to the whole United Kingdom.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
This Bill was featured in the Conservative Party Manifesto as part of a wider section on constitutional issues. The full text of the pledge is; “we will complete the electoral register, by working to include more of the five million Britons who live abroad. We will introduce votes for life, scrapping the rule that bars British citizens who have lived abroad for more than 15 years from voting”. These promises have made it in full into the proposed Bill. There was no similar commitment in the Labour Party manifesto and it is not yet clear whether the party will support the Bill.
There were two aborted attempts by Conservative backbenchers to introduce similar legislation via private members’ bills in the last Parliament. Christopher Chope introduced the Overseas Voters Bill 2014-15 in July 2014 while Geoffrey Clifton-Brown introduced the Overseas Voters (15 Year Rule) Bill 2014-15 in December 2014. Both Bills sought to promote non-UK residents to vote; Mr Chope’s by voting on the internet and Mr Clifton-Brown’s by allowing “British citizens resident overseas for more than 15 years to vote in UK Parliamentary elections and referendums”. Under Mr Clifton-Brown’s plan, UK expatriates would be able to vote in the forthcoming EU referendum.
Contextually, this issue reared its head at the election just passed. According to The Guardian, a number of Britons complained that they were unable to vote if they were living abroad. The Electoral Commission were quoted in the report, saying that they were “aware that some overseas voters have raised concerns that they have not received their postal ballot packs and we will look carefully at the evidence shared with us on this when we consider what issues to raise in our statutory election report”.
It is currently unclear whether the passage of this Bill would impact upon the European Union Referendum Bill. According to that Bill, the franchise will exclude British citizens living abroad for longer than 15 years despite the Votes for Life Bill removing that current disenfranchisement for parliamentary and European parliamentary elections. It will have to be seen whether this Bill (or the Referendum Bill) is amended to take account for the promised in/out referendum to be held later in the Parliament.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 22
“New legislation will…ban the new generation of psychoactive drugs”
The new generation of psychoactive substances will be banned by statute. While possessing said substances will not be illegal, there will be a blanket ban on distribution, sale and supply. The Bill will include prohibition and civil offence orders alongside the right to search persons, premises and vehicles to seize and destroy the illegal substances. Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, medical products and food will be excluded from the new legislation.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Peter Fleming, Local Government Association spokesman commented that “an outright ban on legal highs will rightly enable the closure of head shops and protect the public from devastating consequences.”
Charlotte Bowyer, Adam Smith Institute Head of Digital Policy said that a blanket ban would “push trade underground and encourage a slew of new, even more dangerous alternatives.” She went on to say that “to reduce harm from drug use the government should instead legalise recreational drugs like cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine so they are available with rigorous safety controls."
James Lowman, Chief Executive of the Association of Convenience Stories commented that he welcomed “the Government’s focus on banning the sale of products known as legal highs, but call for clarity on the products that are due to be banned and more information on the implementation of the ban.”
Martyn Brown, President of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents said that “the Federation and its members are pleased the government has acted now to tackle this growing problem”.
Kieran McCarthy, MLA for Alliance Strangford wrote that he was “very pleased that the Government will bring legislation to ban so called ‘legal highs’. These substances should not be available to cause harm and take the lives of people in our society.” He went on to cite a young man who had died as a result of legal highs and praised “the work of politicians from Northern Ireland, including the Justice Minister, who have brought pressure on the Home Office to bring forward such legislation”.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 23
Tracey Crouch MP, Minister for Sport said that she was very pleased with the decision to ban legal highs. She noted that the “sale and use is an issue I campaigned on in the last Parliament and I am pleased that the Government has listened to these concerns and will bring forward legislation to introduce a ban on this new generation of psychoactive drugs”.
Tom Colbourne, former Special Advisor to Nick Clegg, tweeted that “there's a big problem with legal highs. But a crude "blanket ban" will drive the trade out of the head shops and onto the street”.
The promise of a blanket ban on new psychoactive substances was included in the Conservative Party Manifesto, which included a commitment to protect “young people from exposure to so-called legal highs”. The chance of this Bill receiving cross-party support is high, as the Labour Party manifesto also called for a ban on sale and distribution. Neither manifestos nor the proposed Bill itself call for possession of these substances to be criminalised.
It is worth noting that the Scottish National Party manifesto makes no mention of legal highs.
Momentum has been growing behind the proposed Bill, as the Local Government Association recently called on the Government to introduce a blanket ban. On May 23rd, the LGA called for the ban and highlighted the fact that the Republic of Ireland has had a ban in place since 2010. A spokesperson for the LGA said that “untested, unpredictable and a potential death sentence” and lamented that “at the moment, as soon as one is outlawed, another one with a slightly different chemical composition appears”.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 24
“Legislation will be introduced to support home ownership and give housing association tenants the chance to own their own home.”
A Bill seeking to boost home ownership via an extension of the Right to Buy; a promise of “starter homes” for first-time buyers; planning reform; and measures to stimulate self-build.
The proposed legislation would extend the Right to Buy scheme to cover housing association tenants, and compel local authorities to dispose of high-value vacant council homes as a means of funding affordable housing.
It would provide the statutory framework required to deliver a programme of starter homes, to be offered to young first-time purchasers at a 20 per cent discount.
The Bill would introduce a statutory brownfield land register to support the use of Local Development Orders, and seek to simplify and speed up neighbourhood planning, as well as making other changes to relevant laws to support housing growth.
It would also implement a “Right to Build” by requiring councils to support registered self-builders in identifying suitable land for projects.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 25
Right to Buy Extension
Mayor of London Boris Johnson has notably expressed a critical view of the proposed Right to Buy extension. Addressing the London Assembly, he said: “I wouldn’t want to see councils in London deprived at a rapid rate of their housing stock which is one of their fundamental assets. Nor would I want to see housing associations deprived too rapidly of their homes which are fundamental to their credit worthiness and their ability to borrow and to build more homes”.
Elsewhere, in a bid to defend the interests of his sector, National Housing Federation Chief Executive David Orr has argued that: “We don’t have an ownership crisis, we have a housing crisis. If the Government is able to find resources, it needs to be devoting them to new build and regeneration, not to giving large sums of money to individual citizens”.
Former Labour MP Tessa Jowell, one of the contenders for her party’s nomination, took to the pages of the New Statesman to declare that “it is a policy which appears almost designed to make London's homes crisis even worse”. “It would tear our city apart”, she declared, stating that she was “determined to fight this proposal every step of the way”.
Green MP Caroline Lucas offered a similar perspective, tweeting: “#RightToBuy HA homes shows Tories either don't understand housing, or they do & are deliberately trying to push up house prices & rents”
“Starter homes”
British Property Federation (@BritProp) “Starter Homes have potential, but Govt must ensure there is sufficient #infrastructure provision on the allocated sites #QueensSpeech”
Former Labour PPC for Newbury Jonny Roberts (@JonnyforNewbury) “#QueensSpeech #Labour ppl pls point out that the new Housing Bill will allow developers to build 200,000 homes that aren't energy efficient”
“Right to Build”
Westminster Policy Institute Co-Founder Nick Faith (@nickfaith82) “This @Policy_Exchange paper is the basis to the Right to Build Bill giving people powers to build their own home. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/a%20right%20to%20build.pdf …”
Shelter Head of Policy Toby Lloyd (@tobylloyd) “Some positive moves on self build and city devo, but not a great Queen's Speech for housing. Battles on welfare loom. http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/05/what-does-the-queens-speech-mean-for- housing/ …”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 26
The centrepiece of the Housing Bill, the Government’s decision to extend the iconic Thatcher-era Right to Buy policy, is indicative of its determination to further an agenda of privatisation in the service of aspiration – a point explicitly made by the Prime Minister in the Commons following the speech, when he challenged Opposition members to support the Bill.
While British housing provision is rapidly assuming the dimensions of a crisis according to many in the policy community, and despite Opposition pledges to take action to address issues with other forms of tenure, the preferred ministerial response is focused firmly on maximising ownership.
The Right to Buy extension has already become by far the most controversial aspect of the new Housing Bill. It has met with opposition from organisations including the National Housing Federation, the CBI, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the British Chambers of Commerce, given the perceived danger of further depleting affordable housing stocks.
Indeed, the announcement was the focus of some of Acting Labour Leader Harriet Harman’s strongest criticism during her Commons response to the Queen’s Speech. She suggested that early signs showed the Right to Buy extension could be “unfunded and unworkable”.
The Local Government Association responded to the Queen’s Speech by insisting that the homes sold under the policy must be replaced one-for-one, while the National Housing Federation argued that, in combination with the proposed changes to welfare, it could put affordable housebuilding at risk. Housing charity Shelter was more damning, concluding that the policy represented “another nail in the coffin for affordable housing”.
Indeed, given recent dramatic increases in house prices and the boost the Conservative election victory has provided to the top end of the London market, the affordability of homes is likely to become a bigger bone of political contention in the coming years, as a generation comes of age for whom ownership without significant support is simply a financial impossibility.
The Government will seek to remedy this phenomenon through another part of the Bill – the provision of “starter homes” – though this plan has attracted some criticism from those who would prefer to see specifications on energy efficiency and supporting infrastructure built into the plans.
These issues also look set to dominate the agenda as London goes to the polls next year to elect its next mayor, with Labour candidates for the race already stressing the need to address affordability. Indeed, the incumbent mayor and newly-elected Conservative MP, Boris Johnson, has himself publicly raised these concerns – highlighting potential tensions between senior Government figures, and emphasising the uneven geographical impact of housing proposals.
On a more technical level, the Right to Buy extension could also face legal obstacles, given the non-profit status of housing associations. The NCVO has called the plans a “worrying precedent of Government interference in the running of independent charities by enabling the compulsory sale of charity assets at a discount”.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 27
“Measures will be introduced… to control immigration.”
The Bill will attempt to tackle illegal immigration, reduce demand for skilled migrant labour and “crack down on the exploitation of low skilled workers”.
A new offence of illegal working will create a legal foundation for the seizure of wages paid to illegal immigrants as proceeds of crime. In addition, a new enforcement agency will be established to crack down on the exploitation of migrant labour.
Recruiting solely from abroad without advertising jobs in English in Britain will be illegal, and there will be a consultation on a new visa levy on businesses that use foreign labour.
The bar on providing services to illegal migrants will also be made “clearer”. This will build on the landlord scheme established in the 2014 Immigration Bill and make it easier to evict illegal migrants. Banks would also be expected to take action against existing current accounts held by illegal migrants.
Changes to the appeals process in immigration cases will mean the principle of “deport first, appeal later” will apply to all cases where it will not cause serious harm, including those where a human rights claim is made.
Finally, all foreign offenders released on bail will be tagged.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Many of the comments included below were made in advance of the Queen’s Speech in response to the announcement of the policies several days previously.
Response from Business leaders
A number of business leaders have condemned the plans. London Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Colin Stanbridge said, “Businesses are already telling us that restrictive visa rules on bringing in international staff, as well as connecting with overseas business visitors have a negative impact on their business. We must think very carefully about any changes to the existing, already restrictive system, and ensure that they do not disadvantage businesses further.” DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 28
Meanwhile, London First Immigration Policy Director Colin Stanbridge said that “Britain’s businesses, especially in the capital, need access to talent from around the world if we are to continue to remain one of the world’s most innovative and productive countries.”
Responding to the Bill, techUK Deputy CEO Antony Walker said, "The UK needs a smart migration policy that helps fast-growing tech companies access the talent they need to create the jobs of the future… The industry will be looking for practical detail, with questions on the visa levy model to fund new apprenticeships."
EEF Head of Employment Policy Tim Thomas said, “[Even] the most proactive of employers will, at times, need to recruit specialist workers from outside the UK and Europe. Any future apprenticeship levy imposed on these employers, simply because they have recruited a worker from outside the EU, will be seen as punitive and risks alienating the same employers who already train UK apprentices. ”
Comments from migrants’ rights organisations and legal bodies
Writing for Left Foot Forward, Labour MP Paul Blomfield, who is also a Board Member of Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX) said, “All respected organisations working to address labour exploitation, including Focus on Labour Exploitation… have condemned labour market deregulation measures that shift the balance of power from the worker to employers, and allow employers to exploit workers unchecked… This is not just a question of human rights, although many of our international obligations will be contravened should this Bill become law; but it also cuts to the core of the ‘productivity puzzle’ outlined by the Bank of England.”
Migrants Rights Network (MRN) Director Don Flynn said, “Mr Cameron seems to want British police officers to go rifling through the purses and wallets of people suspected in breach of the rules to seize whatever cash they have on them as the ‘proceeds of crime’. This is not money earned by robbery or fraud: it is all too often the meagre earnings from long hours or work in exploitative workplaces.”
Immigration Law Practitioners Association Legal Director Alison Harvey said, “The ‘whole government approach’ that the Prime Minister describes is predicated upon a formidable level of data collection and data sharing on persons under immigration control and those who have anything to do with them… It is no less than an identity card system for foreign nationals, however it is dressed up.”
The Head of Immigration at law firm Stevens and Bolton’s Kerry Garcia said, “The danger is that even legitimate migrants will find it increasingly difficult to find accommodation as landlords may be unwilling to risk taking on a tenant from outside the European Economic Area (EEA)… Given the complexities of, and frequent changes to, immigration law it is all too easy for employers to make a mistake and employ someone who does not have the right to work for them and at present this is recognised. It would seem totally disproportionate in such circumstances to effectively make illegal working a one-size-fits-all strict liability offence.” Her comments were tweeted by Unison Scotland Head of Bargaining and Campaigns Dave Watson.
Comments from landlords
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 29
Responding to the legislation, National Landlords Association (NLA) CEO Richard Lambert said, “We welcome the initiative taken by government to tackle the problem of criminals acting as private landlords to exploit illegal migrants. However, it is essential that councils are given the necessary funding to ensure that they can enforce these powers effectively… We are pleased that the government has given landlords the ability to deal quickly with illegal migrants and hope this deters those that want to stay here illegally. We are however a little concerned regarding the Right to Rent scheme.”
The measures proposed by the Government are likely to find few friends outside the Conservative Party. While some policies included today were also in the Labour party’s manifesto, such as a ban on recruiting solely from abroad, the more punitive measures put in place may be opposed by Labour.
More certain is opposition from the SNP, whose manifesto called for a more liberal approach to post study work visas.
Certain measures, such as change in the appeals process for migration cases, tougher labour market regulations to tackle exploitation and a crackdown on services and private rental accommodation offered to illegal migrants, were expected and laid out in the party manifesto for the General Election.
The more surprising aspect of the proposed legislation is the emphasis on illegal migrants compared to those on student visas, which were given more prominence before the Election. No changes have been mooted to the student visa system as yet, nor has any mention been made of targeted sanctions on colleges and universities failing to ensure international students lived within their visa requirements.
Another measure mentioned in the manifesto which has yet to be addressed is a Controlling Migration Fund to ease the pressure on public services in areas seeing high levels of migration and pay for additional immigration enforcement.
It remains to be seen whether a more full draft of the legislation will include measures in these areas, but for now they seem to have slipped somewhat from the list of priorities.
Thus far, the proposed legislation has been met with a frosty reception. Where on the one hand migrants’ rights organisations have condemned the legislation for proposing to take money from vulnerable illegal migrants, on the other businesses have been angered by the levy on foreign employees and the potential for these measures to affect legitimate, skilled migrant labour.
However, in the face of rising net migration the measures may help to allay fears that the Conservatives are too soft on immigration and help the party in their battle against UKIP.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 30
“Legislation will be brought forward to help achieve full employment and provide more people with the security of a job. New duties will require my ministers to report annually on job creation and apprenticeships…”
“To give new opportunities to the most disadvantaged, my Government will expand the Troubled Families Programme and continue to reform welfare, with legislation encouraging employment by capping benefits and requiring young people to earn or learn.”
Intending to deliver fairness to the taxpayer whilst continuing to provide support to those who need it, the Bill will seek to ensure it pays to work rather than to rely on benefits.
The Bill will also create duties to report on progress towards achieving full employment, meeting the target of 3 million new apprenticeships and on the Troubled Families Initiative.
The main rates of working-age benefits, tax credits and Child Benefit will be frozen for two years from 2016-17. Pensioners and benefits relating to disability costs will be protected, as well as statutory payments such as Maternity, Paternity and Adoption Pay.
The total benefits a non-working family can receive in a year will be reduced to £23,000. Households receiving Working Tax Credit, War Widow’s/Widower’s Pension or in receipt of benefits relating to disability costs will be exempt.
18-21 year olds out of work for longer than 6 months will be required to go on an apprenticeship, training or community work placement. Automatic entitlement to housing support will also be removed for this age group.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Household benefits cap
Welcoming the cap, Jonathan Isaby, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: “It is common sense that nobody out of work should be earning more than somebody in work…The benefit cap is deeply popular and has encouraged people to get off the benefit roll and into work.”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 31
However, Gingerbread Chief Executive Fiona Weir explained that “More than 60 per cent of households hit by the benefit cap are single parent families, and 70 per cent of those have children under five. Lowering the cap is likely to hit even more of these single parents with pre-school children and we are calling for the government to exempt them from the cap to prevent deeper child poverty”.
Commenting on the changes to welfare, Dr Fran Woodward, Director of Policy and Research at Macmillan Cancer, called on the Government to “clarify how it will ensure any changes to the welfare system do not negatively impact people with cancer.”
Removal of housing support for 18-21 year-olds
Jon Sparkes, Chief Executive of Crisis, warned that: “The Government’s plan to cut housing benefit for 18-21 year-olds could spell disaster for thousands of young people who cannot live with their parents. At an age when other young people are leaving home to travel, work or study, growing numbers could be facing homelessness and the terrifying prospect of roughing it on the streets.
Gavin Smart, deputy chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing, echoed these fears: “Cutting housing benefit for under-21s fails to take into account the reality of many young people’s lives. It could have a serious impact on vulnerable young people who have left home, including those who have been rough sleeping and may be forced to return to it. It could also mean that young people would be unwilling to take risks such as moving for work because there would be no safety net for them.”
Barnardo’s CEO Javed Khan also warned that “These rash plans risk compromising 118,000 vulnerable young people, forcing many to choose between staying on in unstable homes or becoming homeless.”
18-21 Jobseekers’ Allowance
Sir Tony Hawkhead, Chief Executive, Action for Children, said: “Plans for changes to Jobseeker’s Allowance for young people must show how the Government is going to address the underlying problems that make it hard to find stable employment… Action for Children strongly supports the Government’s ambition of getting people into work. We are, however, very worried that the changes being considered may unintentionally have the opposite effect.”
Duty to Report on Apprenticeships
Andrew Leck, Head of Western Europe, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), welcomed “the Government’s commitment to creating 3 million new apprenticeships”.
Through the passage of the Full Employment and Welfare Benefits Bill the Government will seek to significantly reduce the welfare bill for non-working families, whilst protecting those with the greatest need.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 32
Whilst the freeze in working-age benefits, tax credits and child benefit represents a straightforward way of reducing the welfare bill, the effects of this will be reduced by the prospect of continued low or even negative inflation.
Critics of the household benefits cap will point to the arbitrary nature of the new figure. That being said, the Government have ensured that pensioners and those receiving disability benefits will be protected from this and the freeze in benefits.
Changes to welfare provision for 18-21 year-olds is consistent with the Conservative Party’s “earn or learn” philosophy, with the removal of housing support suggesting the Government believe that young adults out of work should be supported by their own family rather than the state.
It’s important to place this Bill in the context of the Government’s proposed £12bn welfare cuts. These are expected to be introduced as part of the Budget and the subsequent Spending Review. How they will achieve such drastic cuts remains to be seen, not least when the savings achieved by this Bill are incredibly small by comparison.
According to the IFS, the Conservative manifesto pledge to protect state pensions and universal pensioner benefits accounts to £95bn of annual spending, representing 40% of the benefits and tax credit budget. This almost doubles the implied cut to the rest of the budget to around 10%.
The fact that disability benefits have been protected today suggests that they may be protected again in the future, leaving an even smaller portion of benefit expenditure vulnerable to significant changes.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 33
“My Government will bring forward legislation to secure a strong and lasting constitutional settlement, devolving wide-ranging powers to Scotland.”
The Government will bring forward a new Scotland Bill to deliver the commitments for further devolution set out by the Smith Commission in November 2014.
The Bill will allow Holyrood to set the thresholds and rates of income tax on earnings in Scotland and keep all money raised in the nation. It will also provide the first ten per cent of VAT raised in Scotland at a reduced 2.5 per cent rate. Air Passenger Duty and Aggregates Levy will be fully devolved. Additional borrowing can be agreed between Westminster and Holyrood as part of a new fiscal framework.
MSPs will also gain control of £2.5bn in welfare powers, including the ability to vary the frequency of Universal Credit payments. Holyrood will also set the rules over a range of benefiting affecting carers, disabled people and elderly, as well as controlling programmes to help people find work.
Finally, a new fiscal framework for Scotland will be negotiated alongside the Bill. Ministers intend that Scotland should benefit from the economic decisions taken within a UK-wide system and a shared currency. The Barnett Formula will be retained, but will account for a smaller share of Holyrood’s revenues.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Meeting the Vow?
The Scotland Office, commenting on the legislation on Twitter: “oday's #QueensSpeech confirmed there will be a Scotland Bill which will deliver the Smith Commission agreement in full. #morepowers”
SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson commented: "In terms of more powers for Scotland, it is an early test of the UK government's good faith that the Scotland Bill lives up to both the spirit and the letter of the Smith Commission.”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 34
Shadow Scotland Secretary Ian Murry commented: "This bill is a serious offer of more power to Scotland, and Scottish Labour will work constructively to push the Tories to deliver the power to the Scottish Parliament to defend Scotland against further austerity.”
Scottish Liberal Democrats leader Willie Rennie commented: “David Cameron must put the more powers for Scotland agreed by the five-party Smith Commission front and centre of his Queen's speech today. It must be delivered in full. No ifs, no buts.”
Welfare powers
Federation of Small Businesses Scotland Senior Policy Adviser Barry McCulloch, commenting on Twitter: “Unclear from the Queen's speech briefing pack whether the Scotland Bill will go further on new welfare powers.”
Fiscal devolution and EVEL
Adam Smith Institute Director Dr Eamonn Butler, commenting on the Scotland Bill: "The devolution plans will hit major opposition from English MPs unless there is a credible 'English Votes for English Laws' initiative. It is well beyond time that the West Lothian Question was resolved.”
"One of two pieces of legislation to be introduced immediately after the Queen’s Speech, the Scotland Bill is the centre piece of David Cameron “one nation” government commitment.
The legislation will implement the proposals of the cross-party Smith Commission, devolving control over taxation and welfare powers to Holyrood. However, the proposals have been quickly disowned by the SNP, whose enlarged and emboldened parliamentary party carry their own mandate to hold Westminster’s “feet to the fire” over further powers.
Despite the legislation being almost certain to pass, the real question becomes how far the Prime Minister will be willing to accommodate SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon’s demand for full fiscal devolution. Ms Sturgeon is seeking powers to increase the National Minimum Wage, control National Insurance rates, introduce separate equality policies and set other business taxes.
The passage of this legislation will also be intrinsically linked to the passage of “English votes for English laws”, which could have an unforeseen influence on SNP MPs. Moreover, the passage of “EVEL” will be necessary to ease English concerns over the fiscal disparity that could be created by the devolution of smaller levies, including Air Passenger Duty (APD) to the Scottish Parliament. For example, northern English airports will be worried about a differential rate of APD affecting their numbers of passengers. Nevertheless, the Smith proposals will require the Scottish Government to repay any revenue lose to Westminster from cutting APD.
Fiscal devolution to one part of the UK must come with balancing it against the needs of the others.
Passing this legislation will be the ultimate test of the new Government’s ability to keep the UK together. The future of the Union is riding on this Bill”.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 35
“My Government will also bring forward legislation to secure a strong and lasting constitutional settlement, devolving wide-ranging powers to […] Wales.”
The National Assembly for Wales will gain new powers under a proposed Wales Bill in the Queen’s Speech.
Legislation will clarify the model of devolution by clearly specifying which powers are reserved for Westminster. Welsh Ministers will gain control of powers to consent to energy projects in Wales, both onshore and offshore, of up to 350 Megawatts.
The Assembly will gain control over ports, taxi regulation, bus service registration, speed limits and sewage services. It will oversee the licensing of onshore oil and gas exploration, as well as controlling administration of local government elections.
In addition, the permanence of the Welsh Assembly will be enshrined in law, including the legislative consent procedure, and it will receive full control of its own elections and affairs.
Finally, the Bill will implement the non-fiscal Smith Commission proposals that are appropriate to take forward in Wales.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Living up to promises?
Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones commented: “Wales expects David Cameron to live up to his promises in the Queen’s Speech. That means delivering the Wales Bill and setting out how Wales will remain a priority for the UK Government in the coming years.”
Plaid Cymru Westminster leader Jonathan Evans commented: “With the Scotland Bill set to be published later this week, it will become clearer than ever that Wales gets a raw deal from Westminster […] the Wales Bill set to be unveiled in Wednesday’s Queen’s Speech must include the same powers as what’s on the table for Scotland.”
South Wales Political Editor David Williamson, commenting in an article for Wales Online: “The Bill is also expected to open the door to even greater Welsh devolution and could give the Assembly
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 36
similar powers to those proposed for the Scottish Parliament in some areas following the recommendations of the post-independence referendum Smith Commission.”
"All eyes may have been on Scotland since last September, but the Conservatives have not forgotten the other parts of the UK.
Under the St David’s Day Agreement, the National Assembly for Wales is set to gain considerable new powers and status. Perhaps most important will the clarification of the powers reserved for Westminster under a new clearer model. Prior to this, the powers had also been framed in terms of what had been devolved, not retained, by Westminster.
Consent over energy projects up to 350 Megawatts will also give the Welsh Government much more say over their energy mix. Meanwhile, the UK Government will be hoping to incentivise fracking through the transfer of onshore oil and gas licensing powers.
Legal and constitutional recognition for the status of the Assembly will be welcome. However, there will be many who feel that the implementation of just the non-fiscal parts of the Smith Commission for Wales do not go as far as Westminster has been willing to go for Scotland.
Wales, like Scotland, will also have the power to decide if 16 and 17 year-olds will be able to vote in Assembly elections. How long will it be before the voting age is lowered in England?
Ministers have been quick to insist that the Wales Bill still amounts to a significant piece of legislation. However, with a draft legislation not expected to be produced before the autumn and key questions, including the funding floor, still unaddressed, the UK Government will have a struggle to convince Wales that the proposals will amount to meaningful change.”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 37
“Legislation will be taken forward giving effect to the Stormont House Agreement in Northern Ireland.”
This Bill will implement the provisions of the Stormont House Agreement, finalised in December 2014.
It will create a new independent body to oversee outstanding investigations into deaths that took place during the Troubles. The Bill would provide for a dedicated family support unit to assist next of kin through the process, as well as committing the UK Government and other existing bodies to the full disclosure of material relevant to investigations.
A new independent cross-border information retrieval body will also be created, after agreement was reached between the UK and Irish Governments. Whilst it would provide next of kin with access to relevant information about Troubles-related deaths, it would be admissible in court proceedings.
Lastly, an independent Oral History Archive would be created to allow individuals to share their experiences of the troubled from a central resource.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Finding common ground
Alliance Party President Andrew Muir, tweeted this in response to the defeated of the Welfare Reform Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly: “@DipperMc United Front?! We did that at Stormont House & got an Agreement which needs implementation not spin from SF HQ Connolly House”
Political commentator Alex Kane, commenting on Twitter on the political difficulties facing the Stormont House agreement: "Parties reached an agreement in the Stormont House Talks. We all agreed. We may disagree about what precisely we agreed" Sums it up!
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 38
"The UK Government has a fine line to walk in implementing legislation to carry forward its side of the Stormont House Agreement.
Consensus within Northern Ireland’s power-sharing Executive was only reached in December after tense negotiations. The decision of the Northern Ireland Assembly to vote down the package of welfare reforms agreed through the process and the hospitalisation of First Minister Peter Robinson just before the Bill is due to be announced, may give ministers pause for thought.
However, the Government looks set to press ahead and trust to the demonstration of good will that holding up their end of the bargain represents.”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 39
“My Government will continue to legislate for high-speed rail links between the different parts of the country.”
The Government will press ahead with legislation allowing for the completion of Phase 1 of the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway.
Legislation, carried over from the last Parliament, will provide the Government with the power to compulsorily acquire or temporarily take possession of the land required for the scheme, or its construction or operation.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Going the distance
SNP MSP Joan McAlpine, writing in the Daily Record, commented: “This [economic imbalance between Scotland and England] will get worse with HS2, as it sucks even more money and people into the English capital […] It’s on the wrong track entirely.”
UKIP deputy chair Suzanne Evans, commenting on Twitter: “#HS2 still on the agenda despite overwhelming evidence it won't solve rail problems & is just a political vanity project. #QueensSpeech”
Campaign group Stop HS2, writing on their blog, commented: “Given that it’s now clear the Government does not want to extend HS2 to Scotland, it’s worth reminding people that some of the
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 40
biggest losers in a report which tried it’s best to invent economic benefits from nowhere were Aberdeen (£220m/yr), Dundee (£96m/yr) and Glasgow (£77m/yr).”
"The Conservatives have already sunk considerable parliamentary time into HS2 and are to see the legislation through to completion in this Parliament.
However, tweaks are already being made to the project. Prior to the General Election, ministers confirmed that they would not be proceeding with the planned spur to Heathrow Airport. There have also been reports that that new railway will be not now reach all the way to Scotland.
With shovels planned to be in the ground before the end of this Parliament, the Government will need to focus hard in keeping HS2 on track.”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 41
“Measure will also be brought forward to promote social cohesion and protect people by tackling extremism”.
The proposed Extremism Bill will introduce powers that strengthen the Government’s ability to ban extremist activity, behaviour, and prevent extremist individuals from contact with children. The Bill intends to strengthen powers to tackle all forms of extremism, directly targeting groups and individuals behaviour that “falls below the threshold in counter-terrorism legislation”.
Under plans, the Home Secretary will be granted the power to distribute Banning Orders, which will ban extremist groups.
On an individual level, law enforcement powers will be enhanced to deliver Extremism Disruption Orders, designed to prevent individuals engaging in extremist behaviour.
Directly targeting extremist group activity, Closure Orders will be granted for law enforcement and local authorities. This new power will enable the closure of premises used to “support extremism”.
The Communications Act 2003 will be amended to extend powers to Ofcom, which will include “tough measures” directed at channels that broadcast extremist content.
Employers will be granted powers to check whether an individual is an extremist and stop them working with children.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Asheem Singh, Director of Public Policy at ACEVO commented: “…we will work with the government to ensure that the new Extremism Bill does not obstruct the vital work of charities operating in the UK and overseas, whose operations are already made harder by asset freezes and other regulation”.
John Low, Chief Executive of the Charities Aid Foundation, commented:
“Measures to tackle extremism will also need careful balancing so that they do not inadvertently hinder charities’ efforts to prevent terrorism and provide humanitarian aid to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 42
BBC Home Editor Mark Easton, commented “Under the proposals, ministers would be able to silence any group or individual they believe is undermining democracy or the British values of tolerance and mutual respect”. He added, “One can understand a government's determination to prevent extremism that might lead to radicalisation and terrorism. But where to draw the line? And indeed, how do we draw up a definition?”
BBC Home Affairs Corresponded Dominic Casciani, commented “first, can a definition of extremism that leads to someone facing restrictions, such as a ban on using social media, withstand legal challenges - particularly on human rights grounds?” Furthermore, he raised concern over “bans work in practical terms without tying up the resources of the security services.”
Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake, commented “Liberal Democrats blocked Theresa May’s plans for banning orders on three different occasions. He added, “If she has just re-heated her original proposals, they are ill thought through, illiberal and will not tackle the problem they are supposedly designed to solve.
Additionally, he argued that “Banning orders will undermine existing efforts to engage with communities and run the serious risk of criminalising legitimate groups who have a right to speak out against the government.”
Speaking to the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, Jonathan Russell, The Quilliam Foundation, commented:
The measures, he told the programme, were in danger of “negatively” shifting the balance between national security and civil liberties.
This Bill is the latest attempt by the Conservative Party to tackle extremism and radicalisation in the UK, and attempt to make operative a strategy directed at young people, non-violent groups, and communities – framed around “promoting views and behaviour that undermine British values”.
Home Secretary Theresa May first floated plans for extremism disruption orders at the Conservative party Conference in 2014 and presented them in her UK Counter Extremism Strategy in March 2015. However, as the Financial Times reported, proposals were met with open hostility from the Liberal Democrats on civil liberties grounds and additionally from fellow Conservative colleagues. The Strategy was left unpublished in full, and was distilled to a speech of potential measures.
Senior Conservatives voiced opposition Ms May’s plans, many of whom have since retained senior posts and are members of the Cabinet. Most notable are Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers, Communities Secretary Greg Clark, Justice Minister Dominic Raab, and Business Secretary Sajid Javid.
Indeed, the Guardian reported Mr Javid had written a letter, in his capacity as former Culture Secretary, to protest Theresa May’s plans to extend Ofcom’s powers to censor pre-broadcast. He argued proposals would envisage a “fundamental shift in the way UK broadcasting is regulated”.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 43
Measures to increase Ofcom’s powers relating to the broadcasting of extremist content have been included in the Extremism Bill, however it does not clarify if “tough measures” could involve pre-broadcast scrutiny.
Nevertheless, at the first meeting of the National Security Council, Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed that the party would press ahead with measures and there were to be included in the Queen’s Speech. Furthermore, the new policy extends to incorporate “the full spectrum of extremism”, thus targeting non-violent extremism in the UK and measures to prevent the radicalisation of young people.
A notable detail excluded from the Bill was Conservative proposals to ban extremist speakers from campuses, and an inquiry into the application of sharia law in Britain. However, the Guardian reported details on the issue are to be expected.
The Liberal Democrats are likely to oppose measures on the grounds of civil liberties.
Following an Urgent Question on 2 March 2015, Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper called into question the power of community anti-radicalisation programme, known as Prevent. Ms Cooper has also pointed to Labour’s policy on counter-radicalisation and the need to work with local communities. Nevertheless, the statement by Ms Cooper in response to a counter-terrorism announcement made in November 2014 holds the additional caveat that, for Labour, “strong powers should always be balanced by strong checks and balances, should be proportionate to the threat”.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 44
“To bring different parts of our country together, my government will work to bring about a balanced economic recovery. Legislation will be introduced to provide for the devolution of powers to cities with elected metro mayors, helping to build a northern powerhouse.”
The Buses Bill seeks to provide combined authority areas with directly-elected Mayors the option to control local bus service provision.
The Bill aims to make bus services more “passenger centred” and allow for the development of integrated transport systems reflecting the London model.
More details on the provision of bus franchising powers will be published in due course.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
The Labour Shadow Transport team tweeted “Labour supports giving London-style bus powers to all areas of country, not just combined authorities who choose to have an elected Mayor.”
Stephen Joseph, Chief Executive of Campaign for Better Transport, commented:
“The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill together with the new Buses Bill, which will enable directly elected mayors to take responsibility for running their local buses, are welcome steps towards devolving power on transport down from Whitehall to the local level where decisions can be best taken to improve services. But these powers must extend further, including to rural areas, which have borne the brunt of bus budget cuts."
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 45
"London-style devolved transport powers could bring the same kinds of service improvements from which that city has benefited to long-neglected cities in the North of England and elsewhere. However, it is important that transport devolution is not just confined to the big cities but spreads across the country bringing together a better, integrated transport network, crucially in rural areas."
"Ultimately, people will judge this plan to move powers from Whitehall to local authorities on whether they get the better local transport services they deserve.”
Simon Walker, Director General of the Institute of Directors, said “The biggest economic opportunity of this Parliament comes in the Bill on devolution within England. Business leaders across the country stand ready to work with local authorities and mayors to take greater control of decision-making in areas including transport and planning in order to promote growth and employment.”
The Buses Bill emerges amid growing pressure for the localisation of powers over bus services and the Government’s much-vaunted commitment to build a “Northern Powerhouse”. The legislation follows the agreement between the Government and Greater Manchester Combined Authority to devolve new powers to the local level, a substantial proportion of which relate to improving transport infrastructure.
The GMCA agreement looks to devolve responsibilities for franchised bus services as part of a wider consolidated transport budget with a multi-year settlement to be determined at the next Spending Review. The Buses Bill looks to create the legislative framework for this plan in addition to laying the groundwork for further Combined Authorities to secure similar powers.
Labour were particularly vocal on passenger transport issues during the election campaign with Shadow Transport Secretary Michael Dugher leading the charge with his ‘Passenger Power’ campaign. Dugher called for legislation to mirror London-style transport powers across the country giving local authorities the power to determine routes, set fares and integrate and improve bus services. This Bill’s promotion of ‘integrated transport systems’ will likely please those advocating London-style transport systems as crucial to local infrastructure development.
Further detail on the provision of bus franchising powers remains to be seen but the Bill’s reliance on the existence of directly-elected Mayors could hamper its implementation in the near future. Aside from Greater Manchester, all four combined authorities showed reluctance to elected mayors upon their formation. However, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority is reconsidering the need for a metro mayor following the Chancellor’s insistence on its centrality to the City Region model. Opposition to the Buses Bill, should it arise, is most likely to come as a result of disagreements over local devolution deals.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 46
There was no specific reference to the Bill in the body of the speech
The Bank of England Bill seeks to build on the changes made in the Financial Stability Act 2012 and ensure that the Bank of England is well-positioned to fulfil its role in overseeing monetary policy and financial stability in the UK.
The Bill alludes to measures that would work towards Governor Mark Carney's vision of aligning monetary policy, macro prudential policy and micro prudential regulation.
Ensuring transparency, and strengthening governance and accountability of the Bank of England are also central to the Bill.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
There were few major surprises or development in the Bank of England Bill, which essentially offers a continuation of the Bank of England’s role as overseeing monetary policy.
Although little detail was given in today’s release, with the main elements of the Bill to be announced by the Government in due course, the Bill does outline the Bank of England’s plans to implement the findings of the Warsh review. The review into transparency, conducted by former Fed Board Governor Kevin Warsh, published in December 2014, primarily recommended that the Monetary Policy Committee meet eight times a year instead of 12. In addition to this, the Bank of England is expected to take steps to improve transparency measures, in terms of reporting and releasing of reports.
The Bill also confirms that the new Deputy Governor of the Bank, Minouche Shafik, will be placed on the Bank’s governing body, and the Financial Policy Committee.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 47
“To bring different parts of our country together, my government will work to bring about a balanced economic recovery. Legislation will be introduced to provide for the devolution of powers to cities with elected metro mayors, helping to build a northern powerhouse.”
The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill fulfils the Government’s commitments on devolving powers to boost local growth in England and begins plans to build the Northern Powerhouse. The Bill would provide the necessary framework for the Greater Manchester deal in addition to wider local Growth deals designed to empower towns and counties.
The proposed bill would be “generic” to allow its implementation to specific combined authorities but would seek to put in place an elected mayor for each area. New mayors would also undertake the role of Police and Crime Commissioner for the area.
The bill would also remove statutory limitations on combined authority functions extending those on economic development, transport and regeneration.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
UKIP commented: “We support the concept of devolution but would rather real power be handed down to councils. The last time referenda were held on this matter they demonstrated little appetite for regional devolution. A number of cities are still not fully signed up to the proposals put forward by George Osborne, including directly elected Mayors.”
Liberal Democrat MP and leadership hopeful Tim Farron MP, commented “For people in our area it is neither sufficiently 'northern', nor is it a 'powerhouse'. I will be urging the Government to give extra powers to areas like ours to allow us to take more control over transport, job growth and apprenticeships to allow our economy to grow.”
Trudi Elliot, Chief Executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), said “The RTPI welcomes more powers devolved to cities as outlined in the Queen’s Speech, including the widening of the functions of combined authorities. But it is also vital that areas and towns between cities are not left behind and can benefit from planning that looks beyond political boundaries.”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 48
Katja Hall, Deputy Director General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), commented: On the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, she said:
“Giving city regions greater control of budgets where they are proving their value is the right approach. With strong and collaborative leadership, the devolution of key powers could accelerate growth across the country. Where there is an economic case for further devolution, business will support it.
“Building a northern powerhouse should spur investment in our vibrant cities from Liverpool to Leeds to Newcastle, to create an economic power in the north to rival clusters around the world.”
David Sparks, Chair of the Local Government Association, commented: The Cities Devolution Bill is great news for our larger cities but we want to make sure the benefits of devolution reach all corners of England.
"Making decisions at a more local level will bring about huge economic and social benefits and with non-metropolitan England responsible for 56 per cent of economic output the case for wider devolution is clear.
"Like the communities secretary we believe the push to decentralise power should be extended to these non-urban areas and are ready to work with the government to meet this aspiration."
Anthony Walker, Deputy CEO of techUK, said "With an increased focus on the devolution of powers to cities and building a Northern Powerhouse, there is now a major opportunity to create world leading smart cities right across the UK – we're looking for real ambition here.
The Cities and Devolution Bill is the primary legislative vehicle for the delivery of the Conservative’s much- hyped “Northern Powerhouse” project aimed at rebalancing the economy and developing local infrastructure in the North.
Many local government groups have been receptive to devolution plans welcoming moves away from Westminster-led models. However groups have been sceptical about the shape of the Conservatives’ plans in particular the focus put upon directly-elected mayors and urban areas. The Bill focuses on northern cities that have formed combined authorities limiting its scope by somewhat ignoring non-urban areas. The Bill does aim to “empower towns and counties” but the specifics of such plans are to be announced.
Aside from Greater Manchester, all four of the combined authorities showed reluctance to an elected mayor upon their formation, however as more potential devolved powers have been announced other combined authorities are reassessing their position. West Yorkshire Combined Authority, for example, show some signs of reconsidering the need for a metro mayor as a result of George Osborne’s insistence on its centrality to the City Region model but remain sceptical following their referendum in 2012 which rejected the idea.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 49
"My Government will bring forward legislation to reform trade unions and to protect essential public services against strikes."
The legislation’s purpose is to reform trade unions and to protect essential public services against strikes. It seeks to ensure that strikes are the result of “clear, positive and recent decisions by union members”, and ensure disruption to essential public services has a democratic mandate.
To achieve this, the legislation will introduce a 50% voting threshold for unions ballot turnouts. Additionally, it will introduce the requirement that 40% of those entitled to vote must vote in favour of industrial action in essential public services such as health, education, fire and transport.
The Bill also plans to tackle intimidation of non-striking workers during a strike, the introduction of time-limits on a mandate following a ballot, make changes to the role of the Certification Officer, and introduce a transparent opt-in process for the political fund element of trade unions subscriptions.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Frances O’Grady, General Secretary of the TUC, argued that this was a Queen’s Speech that declared “open season” on the rights and protections of workers. She felt that the new thresholds would tip the balance of power against workers, and the real agenda was to prevent public sector workers fighting back against the “extreme cuts and pay freezes expected in George Osborne’s budget”.
Katja Hall, Deputy Director-General, CBI, said that the CBI had long called for the introduction of a threshold “to ensure strikes have the full support of the workforce when they take place”.
Len McCluskey, General Secretary of Unite, stated that it was “staggering” that a priority of this government was to attack trade unions. He felt that the way to increase turnouts in strike ballots was to modernise voting, not make it harder for people to do so.
Dave Prentis, General Secretary of UNISON, said there was no need to make already tough laws on strikes any stricter. He also felt that the modernising the voting system was better for democracy than introducing thresholds.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 50
Dr Mary Bousted, General Secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), described the moves as an “assault on the right of teachers and other public sector workers to make their views known to employers and to the Government”.
Manuel Cortes, leader of the TSSA rail union, noted that “under the new rules, [the Prime Minister] would not have been elected leader of the Tory Party and 270 Tory MPs would have failed to be elected in last month's General Election”.
RMT general secretary Mick Cash stated that the Government would “have a fight on their hands plans”, pledging to undertake “the fiercest possible resistance”.
John Longworth, Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) argued that “un the eyes of businesses, large and small, this legislation has merit, as it would help ensure essential services and the freedom to work in the event of strike action”.
Sajid Javid famously has a portrait of Margaret Thatcher in his office, and I’m sure he’ll have the Iron Lady in his mind when he guides this Trade Unions Bill through Parliament. the legislation will introduce a 50% voting threshold for unions ballot turnouts. Additionally, it will introduce the requirement that 40% of those entitled to vote must vote in favour of industrial action in essential public services such as health, education, fire and transport. These plans will be seen as a way to make the inevitable significant public sector cuts due to announced in the Chancellor’s Budget and Comprehensive Spending Review, both this year, easier to get through.
While the media had been briefed on these plans to make it harder for trade unions to take strike action, the changes to the political fund had not been confirmed; and they are just as significant.
The trade union political funds are the main source of funding for the Labour Party at a time when the party lacks donors from business and is being threatened with funding cuts from Unite amidst a potentially destabilising leadership election. The Bill will change the current system were union members have to contract out from paying the political levy to one in which they have to contract in.
The main trade unions have focused their responses on the changes to the thresholds on strike action, but they will arguably be more concerned about reforms that could significantly alter their relationship with the Labour Party, and could have an influence on the leadership election. Trade unions and the Labour Party appear to have been caught off guard by this announcement and how it responds in the coming days and weeks will be fascinating to watch.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 51
There was no specific reference to the Bill in the body of the speech
This Bill will seek to strengthen powers of the Charity Commission for England and Wales, making it easier to take action against abuse of charity. The Bill focuses on protecting charities against abuse and misuse, and also gives charities new powers to make social investments, (pursuing both a financial and social return), along with clear duties and responsibilities when doing so.
The Bill details plans to extend the criteria for automatic disqualification from charity trusteeship, and extend disqualification to senior management positions to better protect charities from the risk of abuse. The Charity Commission would be enabled to issue official warnings to charities, direct that a charity be closed down after an inquiry and disqualify a person who is unfit to serve as a charity trustee in certain circumstances.
The social investment provisions were recommended by the Law Commission, to make it easier for charities to undertake social investment.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
William Shawcross, Chairman of Charity Commission, commented that this was a “vital piece of legislation if we are to have the powers that we need to stop individuals abusing charities. We must be able to take action where abuse occurs. The public, who give so generously of their time and
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 52
money, would expect nothing less. This Bill is also good news for charities wanting to make social investments”
In their summary of the Bill’s provisions, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) stated that “additional powers for the Charity Commission to take regulatory action are understandably going to raise concern within charities, particularly given the current music mood of ‘clamping down on charities’ and increasing media coverage about extremism within charities. However, it is widely acknowledged that deliberate wrongdoing in charities is extremely rare, so these powers are unlikely to be used by the Commission more than a handful of times a year.”
Asheem Singh, Director of Public Policy at ACEVO, stated that although The Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill has been through pre-legislative scrutiny, ACEVO “have doubts about the number of safeguards it will include on the Charity Commission’s new powers.”
John Low, Chief Executive of the Charities Aid Foundation responded by saying that “voluntary organisations have a unique and valuable insight from providing services, supporting people and advocating for those who have been disadvantaged or marginalised. This expertise must be listened to as the government embarks on its new programme of legislation. The trust and confidence of the public is vital to charities, and the Charities Bill announced today has the potential to boost this by enhancing the protection of charities from abuse... Measures to tackle extremism will also need careful balancing so that they do not inadvertently hinder charities’ efforts to prevent terrorism and provide humanitarian aid to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”
The Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill is introduced following the consultation of the Draft Protection of Charities Bill mentioned in the last Queen’s Speech, which extended the powers of the Charity Commission to protect the sector from abuse and maintain high public trust in charities.
This Bill will outline a number of further powers for the Charity Commission, including the right to prevent a trustee involved in wrongdoing from taking up a role at another charity, and the ability to give statutory warnings.
It also includes a power to enable the Commission to direct a charity to close following an investigation, and a pre-emptive power to stop a charity breaching the law. The reaction to this Bill has been broadly positive, with the consensus being that more needs to be done to promote and support charity’s social investment efforts.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 53
“Measures will be brought forward to help working people by greatly increasing the provision of free childcare.”
The Childcare Bill fulfils the Conservative Manifesto pledge to bring forward measures to help working people by “greatly increasing the provision of free childcare”.
The Bill will deliver on the party’s commitment to give families, where all parents are working, an entitlement to 30 hours a week of free childcare for their three and four-year-olds for 38 weeks of the year.
To help ensure parents are able to access information about the additional free childcare being introduced, local authorities will be required to publish information about the provision of free childcare in the local authority area, as well as other local services or facilities that might be of benefit to parents or prospective parents, or children or young people.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Despite welcoming plans to improve the availability of childcare in theory, Alliance Chief Executive Neil Leitch, has warned that “they unfortunately remain unlikely to succeed in practice as, to date, the Government has done very little to address concerns that the free childcare scheme is severely underfunded”.
Noting that childcare providers were already facing funding shortfalls of around 20 per cent meaning many are being forced to increase the cost of paid-for hours, he cautioned that “extending
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 54
the free childcare offer without first addressing these funding gaps will only exacerbate this problem further”.
Similarly, Adam Smith Institute Head of Communications Kate Andrews has argued that the pledge to provide more childcare benefits will “exacerbate prices and further distort the market”.
Stating that “stringent qualification requirements and low mandatory child-to-staff ratios cause prices to skyrocket, making UK childcare costs 27 per cent of average family incomes”, she remarked: “It’s high time for the Government break this costly bubble and adopt policies more similar to countries like Denmark and Sweden”.
Association of Teachers and Lecturers General Secretary Dr Mary Bousted welcomed the measures stating that “high quality early childcare is good for children and good for parents”.
However, she also stressed that “it needs well qualified professional staff, excellent resources and cannot be done on the cheap”.
Which? Executive Director Richard Lloyd has also welcomed the Bill, but added: “this should just be the start of reforms”.
He went on to call for parents to be given better access to information about the quality of nurseries and childminders and for complaints to more effectively inform Ofsted’s inspection activities.
Voice General Secretary Deborah Lawson has criticised the Queen’s Speech for failing to address funding and recruitment crises facing education and childcare.
“It seems that it [the Government] is more interested in headlines and structures than in the people needed to deliver education and childcare and the funding that they require to do that”, she asserted, adding: “Increasing free childcare may sound like good news for parents, but nurseries need to retain and recruit motivated qualified staff to provider that childcare”.
Family and Childcare Trust interim Chief Executive Stephen Dunmore welcomed the extension of the free early education entitlement, stating: “This is really good news for working parents in England whose childcare costs will reduce significantly after their children pass their third birthday”.
However, he said that “more extensive reforms are needed to ensure the money is spent fairly and effectively”.
He also emphasised the need for a review into the funding formula for two-year-olds to “ensure it meets the costs of providing high quality early education in expensive areas such as London”, and for a funding review into childcare for children with disabilities.
Children’s Commissioner for England Anne Longfield welcomed the extension of free childcare,. However, she added that she had “asked the Prime Minister to lead an ambitious five-year vision for children and childhood across Government with an action plan and delivery programme to truly fulfil his pre-Election promise to make this country the best place in Europe in which to grow up”.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 55
Responding to the Queen’s Speech, Acting Labour Leader Harriet Harman promised to hold the Government to account over its promises on childcare given the “soaring cost” of provision.
“Prime Minister David Cameron set out his intention to make childcare a priority during his first Cabinet meeting, making the Childcare Bill an expected feature of the Queen’s Speech.
The Bill fulfils the Conservative Party’s commitment to helping working parents with the cost of childcare, and enables those parents who want to work more to do so. This ties in with the party’s overarching priority of supporting economic growth and achieving full employment.
It is unlikely to meet much opposition given that extending the free childcare entitlement to 25 hours a week was announced as a Labour policy at the party’s 2013 conference.
However, concern is likely to be raised over inadequate funding for childcare with calls for greater focus on improving the quality of provision. Arguments for a better analysis of the effectiveness of Government spending on free childcare, presented by the Affordable Childcare Committee’s report for 2014-15, may resurface.
Other possible areas of debate include extending the free entitlement to one- and two- year olds (a key Liberal Democrat policy) and support for Sure Start centres.”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 56
“Legislation will be brought forward to improve schools and give every child the best start in life, with new powers to take over failing and coasting schools and create more academies.”
The purpose of the Education and Adoption Bill is to speed up intervention in failing schools and introduce regional adoption agencies. It is based on commitments from the Conservative manifesto.
The proposed legislation would give Regional School Commissioners powers to bring in leadership support from other schools and heads.
The bill would speed up the process of converting schools into academies. Under the bill an inadequate Ofsted judgment would usually lead to a school being converted into an academy.
A new definition for ‘coasting schools’ would be introduced and schools that meet this definition would be eligible for conversion to academies.
The legislation would increase the scale at which adoptions services are delivered by introducing regional adoption agencies. More information can be found in the following press release.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Schools
Commenting Tristram Hunt, Shadow Education Secretary, said:
"Labour supports having the option of converting coasting schools to academy status and the devolution of school improvement decisions away from Whitehall.
"But unlike the Tories we realise that raising standards and tackling underperformance requires far more.
"We need from government a much stronger focus upon raising the quality of classroom teaching, greater collaboration between schools at a local level and better support for head teachers so standards stay high."
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 57
Sir Michael Wilshaw, Head of Ofsted, commenting before the Queen’s Speech in an interview with the BBC, gave his backing to government plans to intervene in schools rated less than good. He would not be drawn on what should trigger an intervention in schools but supported the principle of school takeovers: "Why should a child in London, or parts of Liverpool or Newcastle have a better chance of going to a good school than a child in Suffolk or Norfolk?"
Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) commented:
"The forced academy programme is policy making without evidence that it will work. There is no proof that academies perform better than other types of school and there is great variation in the effectiveness of different academy chains.” Dr Bousted also said: “The announcement that ‘coasting schools’ will face interventions, including possible forced academisation, is a concern, as the Government has still not defined what a ‘coasting school’ is.
Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers (NUT), said:
“The concern for so called, although as yet undefined ‘coasting schools’ will not be addressed by forced academisation. Along with the LGA, the NUT believes it should be for local authorities to assist schools.” Continuing, Ms Blower said: “This would be preferable to sacking headteachers and silencing opposition to academisation by doing away with the already minimal level of consultation.”
Malcolm Trobe, Deputy General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) said:
“The Bill is silent on the two immediate issues facing school and college leaders. There is a looming crisis in both funding and recruitment which must be resolved in order to ensure that schools and colleges have the tools with which to do the job.”
Deborah Lawson, General Secretary of Voice, said:
“While we welcome the Government’s aspirations for world-class education and childcare, we believe that it is failing to address the twin crises of funding and recruitment facing education and childcare. It seems that it is more interested in headlines and structures than in the people needed to deliver education and childcare and the funding that they require to do that. There is no evidence that academies or free schools are more likely to provide higher standards than other schools.”
Cllr David Simmonds, Chairman of the Local Government Association's Children and Young People Board, said:
"Councils have taken a proactive role in supporting schools to become academies where this will help improve their performance, but are concerned that the Department for Education is unable to effectively support the rapid expansion in schools converting to academy status.” Continuing, Cllr Simmonds said "Like-for-like comparisons of academies and maintained schools show that legal status on its own does not bring the improved performance we need to see
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 58
Adoption
The British Association for Adoption and Fostering, responding to last week’s press release on the adoption provisions, said: “We welcome the inclusion of the new legislation regarding adoption in the Queen’s speech. Children who have been seriously maltreated are among the most vulnerable in society and it is not acceptable that some children are waiting up to 18 months to be placed with their adoptive family. By increasing the pool of potential adopters by working in regional arrangement will, we believe help more children to be matched.”
The Education and Adoption Bill follows on from Conservative manifesto commitments convert poorly- performing schools into academies, improve the leadership of coasting schools and introduce regional adoption agencies.
When Education Secretary Nicky Morgan made her announcement on measures to tackle ‘coasting schools’ in the run up to the Queen’s Speech many sought clarification as to the definition of “coasting”. While she has indicated that these are those schools which have a mediocre performance the definition of coasting schools will be decided “in due course” and “according to a number of factors”.
Labour’s position is unclear. The Party is unlikely to oppose any measure that is seen to be aimed at raising school standards, but Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt has argued that the elevation of school standards requires a broader package of reforms than simply converting a greater number of schools to academy status.
Teachers unions are opposed to several elements of the Bill, and in the wake of the announcement have reiterated their opposition to the extension of the academy programme.
Several adoption charities have welcomed the adoption provisions and the overall aim of increasing the number of children adopted. However, some local government organisations have raised concerns about the reorganisation of local authority adoption services.
We await further detail on what types of organisation would be eligible to run adoption services under the proposals.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 59
“Legislation will be brought forward to ensure… there are no rises in income tax rates, value-added tax or national insurance for the next five years.”
The National Insurance Contributions Bill/Finance Bill contains measures to realise the Conservative Party’s pledge to ensure there are no rises in income tax rates, value-added tax (VAT) or National Insurance Contributions (NICs) for the next five years.
It will do so by setting a ceiling for the rates of income tax, VAT and employee and employer NICs so they cannot be raised above their current levels.
It will also ensure that the NICs upper earnings limit is no longer higher than the income tax higher rate threshold.
In addition, the Bill will legislate to guarantee that there will be no extension of the scope of VAT.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
TaxPayers Alliance Chief Executive Jonathan Isaby has broadly welcomed the Bill, stating that the ‘tax lock’, “whilst on the gimmicky side, offers some welcome protection for hard-pressed taxpayers”.
However, he added: “it is crucial, however, that the Chancellor doesn’t quietly hike other taxes, but rather finds spending reductions to ensure we are still moving towards the goal of a balanced budget”.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 60
Responding to the Queen’s Speech, Acting Labour Leader Harriet Harman stressed that Labour did not want to increase taxes for those on low and middle incomes.
However, she added that it was essential the legislation did not prevent the Government from taking action to raise taxes for the highest earners in the future, if necessary to protect public services.
"The Bill puts in place measures to introduce the promised five-year ‘tax lock’, announced by Prime Minister David Cameron during the election campaign.
Described by Labour as a “desperate gimmick”, the Bill is expected to come under heavy scrutiny.
However, with Labour keen to present itself as a party of ‘aspiration’ following its poor performance at the General Election, it may not wish to present any real opposition to the Bill.
Nonetheless, a potential area of contention is the additional rate of tax with both Labour and the SNP committed to reintroducing the 50p rate of tax.
The strongest indication of this was in Acting Deputy Labour Leader Harriet Harman’s response to the Bill, in which she stressed the importance of ensuring that the legislation did not “block off” the possibility of Government being able to raise taxes on the highest earners in order to protect public services.
The Bill could also create further tension with Scotland with the potential for SNP MPs to use it to reaffirm arguments for fiscal devolution.”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 61
“Other measure will be laid before you.”
The central purpose of the Bill is to give the UK “approval to the financing aspect” of the seven year EU Budget deal, relating to the period covering 2014-2020.
The essential component of the Bill will approve the European Council decision on the system of own resources of the EU, agreed 26 May 2014. This is the system by which Member States finance the annual budgets.
The measure will implement European Union legislation referred to as the “Own Resources Decision” (ORD), to enable the financing arrangements of the EU Budget deal. Initially, the financial arrangement were agreed in 2013 and consequently saw a “real-terms cut in spending”.
The Bill intends to preserve the UK’s rebate, prevent new EU-wide taxes and new forms of Member State contributions to finance EU Spending.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
This legislation, though comparatively minor, may command the attention of the notoriously vociferous Conservative Eurosceptic backbenchers. Notable rebellious MPs such as Christopher Chope, David Davies Peter Bone, David Davis and Philip Davies may inevitably take issue with the perceived encroachment of the EU.
Nevertheless, the implementation of the EU “Own Resources Decision”, a decisively technical piece of legislation, may be subject to delaying tactics by prominent eurosceptics but poses little danger to the fledgling Conservative majority Government”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 62
“Other measures will be laid before you.”
The purpose of a Draft Bill is to allow for consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, meaning that this Bill will not be laid formally before the House but will instead be examined by either a pre-existing Select Committee or a specially convened Bill Committee.
It will then be introduced as a formal Bill to the House, possibly in next year’s Queen’s Speech, and has therefore not been explicitly mentioned in this year’s Speech.
The legislation would create a single Public Service Ombudsman absorbing the functions of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Health Ombudsman, the Local Government Ombudsman and possibly the Housing Ombudsman.
This new body, which will be independent of Government and be directly accountable to Parliament, would establish a “simplified, improved and more accessible” final tier of redress for those who have complained and are not satisfied with the way their complaint has been handled.
In addition, the body would aim to improve public services by identifying where problems are occurring and informing the development of effective responses.
A consultation into this legislation was opened on 25 March 2015 and will close on 16 June 2015. To read more on this consultation, please click here.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Responding to the Bill, Which? Executive Director Richard Lloyd, whose organisation is campaigning for a single ombudsman as part of their ‘Make complaints count’ campaign, said, “Thousands of people have told us they faced problems when complaining about public services. Complaints are falling between the gaps in the current system, so we’re pleased the Government has listened to our calls to introduce a single ombudsman. This should make it easier to complain and ensure every complaint counts.”
The announcement was also welcomed by Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Julie Mellor, who said, “We have been calling for a single public service ombudsman to make it much simpler and easier to complain about public services in England and we are delighted that the
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 63
government has made a firm commitment to this today… We want a unified public service ombudsman that will make it easier for people to get redress when things go wrong - what I call the ‘no wrong door’ approach to complaining. This will be better for the public, better for Parliament and provide better value for money.”
The draft legislation is a continuation of work begun in the last Parliament, and is partially the result of considerable support from the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC), under the Chairmanship of Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin.
In a report published in 2014, the Committee called for the union of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), the Local Government Ombudsman and the Housing Ombudsman into a single Public Service Ombudsman for England. It was proposed that the scale of the workload likely to be faced by the new Ombudsmen could be addressed through the use of regional offices.
Concerns were raised by the Committee over the allocation of devolved matters that currently fell within the purview of the PHSO, with the Committee arguing that either a single Ombudsman would have a dual role for England and the UK, or there would be two separate UK and England ombudsmen.
The Gordon report, which also makes recommendation for a single Ombudsman, has suggested that the volume of complaints from the devolved nations will fall as the devolution settlements deepen.
However, while it did not specify whether two separate individuals were necessary for each role, it did state the need for two separate “schemes” for UK and England and placed emphasis on ease of access.
It currently remains uncertain whether the Housing Ombudsman would be part of any plan for a unified Ombudsman.
With a consultation currently underway elements of this Bill remain flexible. Lying outside of partisan interests, it is likely to be this consultation process that has the greatest impact on the process of forming a single Public Service Ombudsman.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 64
“A Policing and Criminal Justice Bill will be brought forward to improve the law on policing and criminal justice.”
Aimed at making every community safer, improving efficiency and building confidence in the system, this Bill looks to continue with police and criminal justice reform and to enhance the protection of vulnerable people.
Pre-charge bail law will be reformed, and a presumption created that suspects will be released unless detention is deemed necessary. Senior police officers, or, courts, in exceptional circumstances, will be able to extend detention without trial to three months.
17-year-olds who are detained in police custody will be offered greater protection and treated as children under the Policing and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).
Reviews of sections of 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 will be brought forward, regarding the use of police cells as places of safety for minors, by reducing the 72-hour maximum period of detention and by extending powers to detain in any place other than a private residence.
Changes to police disciplinary systems will allow appeal hearings to be held nationally, ensure that a reformed IPCC investigates all cases involving chief officers and allow for action to be taken against former officers. Additionally, whistleblowers will be offered greater protection, the role of HMIC strengthened and the Freedom of Information Act applied to the Police Federation.
Child protection will be improved either by the introduction of the new offence of ‘wilful neglect’ or through a mandatory reporting scheme, depending on the outcome of a public consultation. Loopholes regarding the live-streaming of child sexual abuse online will be closed.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 65
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
The Children’s Society commented: “The Government must give police the powers to protect all children from child cruelty – including 16- and 17-year-olds, who are currently being failed by the law. We know that victims of cruelty and abuse can experience devastating mental and physical harm that can blight the rest of their lives. In the eyes of the law, they are children until they are 18 yet they are not offered proper protection. If the Government is serious about stopping child cruelty – including child sexual exploitation – it must act to close this legal loophole.”
The new Government’s planned reforms to bail conditions follow the findings of the Coalition’s consultation on the subject, published in December 2014 and published earlier this year in March.
Following increased attention over the last Parliament due to a number of scandals relating to the issue, the Government is now looking to place greater responsibility in the hands of social workers in the reporting of child abuse.
Similarly, an apparent greater commitment to mental health issues by the party at the General Election sees the Conservatives use this Bill to reduce the risk of mental health problems being suffered by those going through the system.
Furthermore, with police whistleblowers becoming an increasingly prominent issue over recent years, the Government is acting to offer greater protection to these individuals, while also offering the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) greater investigative powers. This comes after the previous administration’s consultation on improving police integrity.
Although the Conservative election manifesto promised to introduce short, sharp sentences for persistent offenders, this Bill as yet does not offer further details on sentencing.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 66
“My Government will undertake a full Strategic Defence and Security Review, and do whatever is necessary to ensure that our courageous armed forces can keep Britain safe.”
Introduced in response to the longstanding requirement to bring forward an Armed Forces Bill every five years, the Bill will replace the expiring Armed Forces Act 2006.
It provides a legal basis for recruitment and discipline and will aim to maintain the effectiveness of the Service Justice System by simplifying charging procedures.
Click here for the Government’s official briefing documents.
Sky News Defence Correspondent Alistair Bunkall (@AliBunkallSKY) “Interesting wording in Queen's Speech of a 'full' SDSR. Pre-election talk was for a light-touch review.” “I reckon we'd be looking at SDSR to publish around end of October/early November”
UK National Defence Association (@DefenceAssoc) “#QueensSpeech reaffirms UK's leading role in #NATO and salutes "our courageous Armed Forces" but what does this mean for @DefenceHQ budget?”
Endeavour Public Affairs Defence (@DefencePA) “Government confirm intent to conduct SDSR. Will do 'whatever is necessary… to keep us safe'. More #defence funding on the way??”
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 67
The Armed Forces Bill represents the continuation of a long tradition of legislation put forward every five years to ensure the continued operation of the British Armed Forces. Largely routine in nature, its predecessor Act, passed in 2011, was notable for its implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant.
Then new Armed Forces Bill will make some alterations to internal forces affairs, but is unlikely to provoke wider debate. Instead, commentators are likely to focus their attention on the implications of the coming Strategic Defence and Security Review, given recent controversies over the UK’s commitments on defence spending.
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2015 www.dehavilland.co.uk 68