Vol. 711 Monday No. 85 8 June 2009

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Questions Export Credits Guarantee Department Civil Service: Damian McBride House of Lords: Co-operation with European Parliament Education: Creative Partnerships Bank of England (Amendment) Bill [HL] Order of commitment discharged Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] Third Reading Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case Statement Business Rate Supplements Bill Report

Grand Committee Healthcare: EUC Report Medicines for Human Use (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2009 Medicines for Human Use (Prescribing) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2009 National Health Service (Charges) (Amendments Relating to Pandemic Influenza) Regulations 2009 Debated

Written Statements Written Answers For column numbers see back page

£3·50 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/index/090608.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords £3·50 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords £525 WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, £12; Lords £6 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £440; Lords £255 Index—Single copies: Commons, £6·80—published every three weeks Annual subscriptions: Commons, £125; Lords, £65. LORDS CUMULATIVE INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £40. Standing orders will be accepted.

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN, compiled by the House of Commons, gives details of past and forthcoming business, the work of Committees and general information on legislation, etc. Single copies: £1·50. Annual subscription: £53·50. All prices are inclusive of postage.

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2009, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ 411 Export Credits Guarantee Department[8 JUNE 2009] Export Credits Guarantee Department 412

remit so that more taxpayer money supports more House of Lords overseas deals such as the recent sale of 72 Eurofighters to Saudi Arabia? Will she undertake to ensure that Monday, 8 June 2009. projects that infringe UK human rights standards and the environment will not be supported? 2.30 pm

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool. Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I am very pleased to confirm that we would not support projects that do not meet environmental standards or are an abuse of Export Credits Guarantee Department human rights. On taxpayer funding, as I said in responding Question to the Question, ECGD has been self-financing over the past 20 years. 2.36 pm Asked By Lord James of Blackheath Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, is it not the case that the fixed-rate export finance scheme has come to To ask Her Majesty’s Government what current an end and that the new system to take its place was financial exposure is faced by the Export Credits announced and came into existence in December last Guarantee Department (ECGD); and what plans year? If that is the case, how is it that businessmen are they have for the ECGD. not able to get any information or details about the new system? How can they possibly plan ahead unless The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, they know what is going on? Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Cabinet Office (Baroness Vadera): My Lords, as of 31 March, ECGD’s total outstanding loans were £13.3 billion. Baroness Vadera: My Lords, the extension of the ECGD aims to recover any money that it pays in scheme to which the noble Lord refers—FREF—will claims and, over the past 20 years, has been cash-positive be announced in the autumn, but I point out that across its portfolio. As announced by the Secretary of there have been only four loans under the scheme in State in New Industry, New Jobs, we are looking at the last seven years. There is not a huge demand for it. existing and potential support offered by ECGD to There is currently only one serious inquiry and that ensure that the organisation plays a significant role company is well aware of the position. supporting UK exporters through the recovery and beyond. ECGD is currently consulting on a letter of Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, when credit guarantee scheme and will launch a consultation I was involved in promoting British projects overseas on a credit insurance scheme for exporters by 19 June. many years ago, especially in Latin America, we were always overtrumped and beaten to the punch by Coface Lord James of Blackheath: My Lords, I thank the and Hermes. Does the Minister have a view on whether Minister for that response. However, will she please that situation has improved? comment on the announcement in the Pre-Budget Report 2008 that a £1 billion allocation specifically to Baroness Vadera: My Lords, we provide a level of support small business finance would be channelled support to British exporters that, as a percentage of through the ECGD, and the later report in this April’s our exports, is equivalent to that provided by Germany Budget that consultations on the subject would start and the United States, but not to the level given by soon? Given the sheer importance of this £1 billion to certain countries such as Canada. Following the small business finance, how has it taken eight months privatisation of the short-term business in 1991, we before even consultations can begin? Can she also have had a lower volume of business than certain please assure the House that there is absolutely no other countries. However, I will not apologise for the assumption that the £1 billion is any form of rescue or more rigorous risk analysis, relative to some other lending-ratio adjustment for the ECGD itself? countries, and the environmental and human rights concerns that are taken account of by ECGD. Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I am very happy to clarify that the £1 billion was then converted into £10 billion and was launched in January as the working Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the noble capital scheme, which is now current; £5 billion of that Baroness explain how the banks got the money that is for trade credit insurance, which is now current and she referred to? Was it for their own activities or the being implemented, and £1 billion is set against the activities of their clients? lending agreements signed by RBS and the Lloyds group, which are also current. So that scheme is being Baroness Vadera: My Lords, the working capital launched. As part of that, in anticipation of potential scheme assigned a guarantee with Lloyds and RBS, market failure, there is a consultation on letters of under which they are required to sign a lending agreement credit. whereby they are required to lend to UK companies. We have a specific, legally binding agreement—one of Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the first of its kind in the world—which we monitor agree that the environmental groups are extremely on a monthly basis to ensure that the capital that is concerned by proposals possibly to expand the ECGD’s released goes to UK industry. 413 Export Credits Guarantee Department[LORDS] Civil Service: Damian McBride 414

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, can my noble friend the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, decided assist me? She referred to the £1 billion that became to make Mr McBride a special adviser beyond the veto £10 billion in the new schemes. Is that part of the of Sir Gus O’Donnell. Is that report true or untrue? £10 billion package that the Government announced to deal with our economic crisis and which Her Majesty’s Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Damian McBride Loyal Opposition opposed? was appointed as a special adviser in 2005 following a distinguished and important role in the Treasury. As Baroness Vadera: My Lords, it is a little unclear the noble Lord will appreciate, he held a very high and sometimes what Her Majesty’s Opposition do or do significant position in the Treasury. He was appointed not support. I find it difficult to follow, because they as a special adviser under the terms of such an appear not to have many detailed policies that we appointment. The press reports to which the noble can discuss. Lord referred have to be taken on the basis of one’s judgment of the paper concerned. Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, given the Minister’s first Answer to my noble friend and the Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, will my noble answer that she has just given, does she appreciate the friend join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord irony that, after 12 years of the Treasury working very Lamont, on his courage in raising this issue, which hard to conceal bad news, it has developed the habit of must bring back some painful memories of when he concealing good news as well? was forced to offer his resignation to John Major because of the collapse of the ERM after being advised Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I am delighted that by someone—his special adviser, a Mr David Cameron? noble Lords have the good news now. Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as ever, I am Lord De Mauley: My Lords, the ECGD’s last annual grateful to my noble friend. However, the House will report said that there was a need to reduce its cost have seen that the original Question relates to events base. How has the extra work announced recently in 2005, reflecting then discussion about issues which affected any planned cost reductions? obtained in 1992. We might think that we ought to deal with more contemporary issues. Baroness Vadera: My Lords, my noble friend the Secretary of State has announced that a review will be Baroness O’Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister taken in very short order. The review will look at the elucidate a bit further on this? If my noble friend’s skills, calibre and resources that the ECGD will need. statement from the Guardian is correct, surely it should That will feed into the cost-cutting exercise. never have passed anybody’s mind to re-employ Mr Damian McBride. Not only that, he did literally Civil Service: Damian McBride the most appalling things while he was in office, but he was allowed to resign. Why was he not sacked? Is the Question Prime Minister waiting for the opportunity to put somebody in his Government who will be able to turn 2.44 pm to somebody like him and say, “You’re fired”? Asked By Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is true that To ask Her Majesty’s Government why Damian Damian McBride resigned, but he obtained—and does McBride ceased to be a civil servant in 2005. obtain—no benefits, emoluments, compensation or any money at all. He left that day without a further Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Damian McBride penny of public money being spent on his employment. was appointed as a special adviser in April 2005. He If the noble Baroness is suggesting that there is a was employed under terms and conditions set out in significant distinction between being allowed to the Model Contract and Code of Conduct for Special resign and being dismissed, I think that the House will Advisers. Mr McBride relinquished his post as Head disregard that. of Communications in Her Majesty’s Treasury on taking up this appointment. Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, irrespective of whether Mr McBride is a special Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the adviser or a civil servant, his activities are one of the Minister for that reply. Has he seen the report in the reasons why trust in politicians and this Government Guardian by Patrick Wintour on 16 April? It stated is so low? What assurances can the Minister give us that Sir Gus O’Donnell, the then Permanent Secretary that the McBride mentality has been stamped out by to the Treasury, insisted on the resignation of Mr McBride Downing Street? as a Treasury civil servant and press officer on the grounds, among others, that he had planted in newspapers Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I just indicated, false stories about Sir John Major and myself, quite Damian McBride left immediately because of the wrongly alleging that we were blocking the release of fault that had been identified in what he had done. All information about the Conservative Government’s special advisers are aware of that and have been informed economic policies—information requested under the by the Prime Minister of an added specification to Freedom of Information Act—and that at that point their code of conduct which reinforces the fact that, 415 Civil Service: Damian McBride[8 JUNE 2009] Co-operation with European Parliament 416 although special advisers have a particular role in of the European Parliament in scrutinising the relating matters of government to the public, they are policy-making process of the European Union and bound by a clear code of conduct, and infringements the implementation of EU policies. of that code will produce condign effects on them. The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister described Tara): My Lords, there is already substantial co-operation Mr McBride as having a distinguished and important between this House and UK MEPs. For example, role at the Treasury, but this contradicts the reports there are regular tripartite meetings between your that my noble friend Lord Lamont outlined; that Lordships’ EU Committee, its Commons counterpart Mr McBride was implicit in briefing against Sir John and UK MEPs. In addition, our own Brussels-based Major while he was a civil servant and, because of EU liaison officer is responsible for facilitating the that, Sir Gus O’Donnell required him to stand down exchange of information between the EU Committee from the Civil Service. The Minister did not deny that and MEPs. Finally, the EU Committee regularly seeks when he responded to my noble friend; I now give him evidence from UK MEPs. the opportunity categorically to do so. Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, when I refer to Chairman of Committees for that Answer. I welcome Mr McBride’s role, I refer to obvious facts from his the establishment of an office in Brussels and the curriculum vitae. He was head of indirect taxation improvement of relations between British MEPs and from 1999 to 2002. He was head of VAT strategy in this House. We share the common purpose of improving 2003. He was head of communications and strategy scrutiny of both national and European proposals as from September 2003 until he took up the special they go into and out of Brussels. I remember well that, adviser’s role. That was a significant career in the after the last European election, the head of services Treasury. The Opposition are contending that, during of the British chair of a new European Parliament part of that time, Damian McBride may have committed committee proposed that he should read two reports some infringement in his actions in relation to the from our EU Committee before he started. We have public. It is clear that, as soon as the offence was the opportunity to make this a closer relationship. identified in 2009, the Prime Minister acted. What further measures can we take to make sure that Members of the European Parliament are welcome to sit in on EU Committee meetings in this House; and Lord Morgan: My Lords, is the answer to this that when we go to Brussels we, in turn, catch up with question for the Government to disinter proposals in what they are doing? its Constitutional Reform Bill and create an independent Civil Service, which would be on a statutory basis and would not be tarnished by such appointments? The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, there is high co-operation already. If noble Lords wish to propose any additional Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I notice that forms of co-operation, I undertake to pass them on to there are also commendations to my noble friend from the Chairman of the European Union committee. the other side of the House. My noble friend will be all Sadly, as your Lordships are aware, he is not here too well aware that a very significant expansion in today; he is recovering from surgery and we hope to special advisers took place while the Opposition were see him back before the end of the month. in power. It is the case that we have increased the role of special advisers. We have also trebled the resources Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while we are for Her Majesty’s Opposition parties’ ability to hold on the subject of scrutinising EU policy-making activities, the Government to account. This reflects that government has by any chance the Chairman of Committees received is more complicated and more demanding and, of any information on when the new Minister for Europe course, that media requirements are more demanding. will take up her portfolio or when she might be entering There is a necessity for some role beyond the Civil this House? Service, which must be independent, as my noble friend has indicated. This will be reinforced in our The Chairman of Committees: Sadly not, my Lords. constitutional proposals. I think all parties agree that I should make it very clear at the beginning of this there is a proper role for special advisers, who must, of Question that I am answering it on behalf of the course, be governed by a proper code of conduct. administration of the House, and I shall not be able to answer any questions on events in the European Union House of Lords: Co-operation with elections last Thursday. European Parliament Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the continued Question development of the European security and defence policy argues the case for even closer co-operation, 2.53 pm because the work straddles the responsibilities of this Asked By Lord Wallace of Saltaire Parliament and of the European Parliament. Although there has been progress, the two Parliaments are in To ask the Chairman of Committees what steps many ways almost on different planets. Can there not are being taken to improve co-operation between be a series of measures that include ensuring that, as a the House of Lords and United Kingdom Members matter of course, the committees of this House send 417 Co-operation with European Parliament[LORDS] Education: Creative Partnerships 418

[LORD ANDERSON OF SWANSEA] The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is an their work programmes and reports to the relevant interesting view. However, it goes somewhat wide of British Members of the European Parliament, and the Question on the Order Paper, which asks what vice versa? co-operation this House has with our MEPs who were elected yesterday. We have to work with the system as The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the reports it is, rather than with what the noble Lord may consider of our European Union Committee are already sent to be a better one. to all those in the European Parliament who are interested. That is one reason why we have a European Union liaison officer who is responsible in Brussels for Education: Creative Partnerships dealing with exactly that kind of thing. Question

Lord Waddington: My Lords— 2.59 pm Asked By Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords— To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contribution is made by the Department for Children, The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Schools and Families to the Creative Partnerships Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food scheme. and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I think we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, first. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families (Baroness Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, given that the Morgan of Drefelin): My Lords, the Department for EU Parliament only has the power of co-decision, Children, Schools and Families has provided financial while the monopoly for proposing all EU legislation support to the Creative Partnerships programme remains with the Commission, and given that the since 2003. The total funding from the department is Government have overridden the scrutiny reserve some £16.5 million. This financial year the department is 500 times in the past six years, and because, by the contributing £2 million to the programme. Government’s own admission, Brussels pays no attention to the views of our Select Committees, would it not be Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, I more sensible to close down our EU committees and thank the noble Baroness for that Answer and congratulate redistribute their excellent resources to other Select the Government on the creation of the Creative Committee work, which is of such value to the nation? Partnerships scheme which, through introducing artistic creativity in schools, goes so far to help turn round The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is struggling schools. Why, however, when the House of just the kind of question which I am not going to Commons Education and Skills Committee recognises answer this afternoon. this as core education, does such a tiny fraction of the finance come from the DCSF? Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, does The DCMS, which shoulders the majority of the the Chairman of Committees agree that the connections cost, has a budget which is 4 per cent of that of the that have been made between the committees, particularly DCSF. To put that into figures, that is £2 billion versus some of the sub-committees, and Members of the £54.4 billion. Why is the smallest department of state European Parliament have influenced the outcome of subsidising one of the largest? much of the legislation? I speak as the chair of Sub- Committee G, which has published a number of reports Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I am which have changed the proposed legislation. grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind opening remarks but, with all due respect, it is in the name. It is The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is the department for media and culture and that is why very good news which proves the worth of the European it makes such a significant contribution. I would reassure Union Committee and of our contacts with MEPs. her, however, that the DCSF is very committed to promoting arts and culture and creative education in Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble Lord all our schools. That is why through our schools not agree that the taxpayer would save a load of funding and our work with developing the primary money, and it would be a very good thing, if we curriculum and the new secondary curriculum, we are reverted to the old system of indirect elections to the promoting creative skills development as an integral European Parliament? We would have no need of new part of that new curriculum. I share, therefore, the procedures, such as those mentioned by the noble commitment of the noble Baroness to promoting arts Lord, Lord Wallace, and the MEPs would be among and creative education. us here at Westminster. Surely the present set-up can be attractive only to those who look upon the Commission Baroness Shephard of Northwold: My Lords, the as a sort of government accountable to the people of Minister has spoken of the responsibilities of the Europe. It should be treated as a bureaucracy that Department for Children, Schools and Families. In serves the community’s sovereign member states so the light of the abolition of its sister department, the that they can work more effectively together. Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, 419 Education: Creative Partnerships[8 JUNE 2009] Bank of England (Amendment) Bill 420 can she tell us what has happened to universities? have seen improvements in their motivation and 70 per Have they become the responsibility of the Department cent have seen an improvement in their behaviour. So for Children, Schools and Families? If they have, has the noble Baroness is right: it is extremely important there been a ministerial Statement, which I certainly that we continue to invest in work such as that of have missed? Have the universities been consulted and Creative Partnerships, an independent organisation what is their view? which is also promoting the Find Your Talent scheme and the 10 pathfinders. However, when you think Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, to reassure about promoting a culture of austerity in government, the noble Baroness, obviously where there are changes I am curious to know—and I should be very interested to the machinery of government, the Government to hear more from the opposition parties—how that ensure that a proper Statement is made as soon as kind of approach would work with the high-quality possible and appropriate. Having come from the DIUS, investment that we are making in the arts and cultural I am aware of the important role that universities play education. I am troubled by how that would work. in this country and, in view of the work that my right honourable friend David Lammy has been doing in Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness answered promoting the highly successful higher education sector my noble friend Lady Shephard at some length but, in this country, I am sure that will continue in the having listened carefully to my noble friend’s question, new setting. I understand that she wanted to know which government Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, interesting department is responsible for universities. I understand and important though that was, perhaps I may to that there is doubt about that outside this House as revert to the Question on the Order Paper. Is it not the well. Can she very kindly tell us which department is case that with the Creative Partnerships scheme, the now responsible for universities? schools that commit themselves seriously to the arts see not only an enhancement of confidence and Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I am imaginative range on the part of many of their students informed that there will be a Statement on machinery but a lifting of academic attainment and morale right of government changes this afternoon. across the whole school, while the arts institutions that play their part are investing in the development of a The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, can the new generation of audiences and arts practitioners for Minister explain what provision there is for young whom the arts will be important all their lives? That offenders within the Creative Partnerships scheme? being so, what plans do the combined departments have to extend the benefits of this scheme to schools Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, as the and institutions which have not so far had the opportunity right reverend Prelate will be aware, Creative Partnerships to be involved? was set up as part of the Arts Council, which I believe works extensively with young offenders. I will have to Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, in the get back to the right reverend Prelate about the detail Children’s Plan that the DCSF launched shortly after of how Creative Partnerships connects, and I will its inception, following changes to the machinery of make sure that I put a note in the Library as well. government with the creation of the first department focusing on children, we have made it clear that we wish to extend the offer of five hours of high quality Arrangement of Business cultural experience to all children throughout the country. Announcement Through 10 pathfinders, we have a considerable amount of work going on looking at how we can draw on the 3.07 pm experience of Creative Partnerships to work in particularly Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with the deprived areas to make sure that all children have leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Bach will access during the curriculum and through extra-curricular repeat the Statement on the Sonnex case immediately activities to the kind of high quality cultural experience after the Third Reading of the Marine and Coastal he is talking about. Access Bill. Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the programme ticks many of the Government’s Bank of England (Amendment) Bill [HL] core education policy boxes and that it is therefore Order of Commitment Discharged very worth while to subsidise it right across the country? For example, Ofsted said that it benefits academic 3.07 pm performance, personal and social education, behaviour and attendance. Given the duty on schools to promote Moved By Lord Saatchi social cohesion, the multicultural nature of many of That the order of commitment be discharged. the activities ticks that box as well. Lord Saatchi: My Lords, as no amendments to this Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, the noble Bill have been tabled and no noble Lord has indicated Baroness highlights very important work by Ofsted. a wish to move a manuscript amendment, unless any An independent survey looking at the role and work noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of of Creative Partnerships has found that, as a result of commitment be discharged. that work, 91 per cent of head teachers have seen improvements in pupils’ communication skills, 87 per cent Motion agreed. 421 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 422

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] (a) waters in or adjacent to England up to the seaward limits Third Reading of the territorial sea; (b) an exclusive economic zone, except any part of an exclusive economic zone in relation to which the Scottish 3.07 pm Ministers have functions; (c) a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Royall of Blaisdon): My Lords, I have it in command Ministers have functions; from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness (d) an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, Shelf Act 1964, except any part of that area which is having been informed of the purport of the Marine within a part of an exclusive economic zone or and Coastal Access Bill, have consented to place their Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by Ministers have functions.” the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes (6) In section 102 (definition of “interested party” etc)— of the Bill. (a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert— “(ba) the person is the Marine Management Organisation and the development for which the application seeks Amendment 1 development consent would involve the carrying on of any activity in one or more of the areas specified in Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath subsection (1A),”; 1: Before Clause 23, insert the following new Clause— (b) after subsection (1) insert— “MMO’s role in relation to applications for development “(1A) The areas are— consent (a) waters in or adjacent to England up to the seaward limits (1) The Planning Act 2008 (c. 29) is amended as set out in of the territorial sea; subsections (2) to (6). (b) an exclusive economic zone, except any part of an (2) In section 42 (duty to consult about proposed applications exclusive economic zone in relation to which the Scottish for orders granting development consent)— Ministers have functions; (a) the existing provision is renumbered as subsection (1); (c) a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a (b) in that subsection, after paragraph (a) insert— Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions; “(aa) the Marine Management Organisation, in any case where the proposed development would affect, or would (d) an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in Shelf Act 1964, except any part of that area which is subsection (2),”; within a part of an exclusive economic zone or Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish (c) after subsection (1) insert— Ministers have functions.” “(2) The areas are— (7) The Secretary of State must give guidance to the MMO as (a) waters in or adjacent to England up to the seaward limits to the kind of representations which may be made by the MMO of the territorial sea; under— (b) an exclusive economic zone, except any part of an (a) Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Planning Act 2008 (c. 29) exclusive economic zone in relation to which the Scottish (pre-application procedure), or Ministers have functions; (b) Part 6 of that Act (deciding applications for orders (c) a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a granting development consent).” Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions; The Minister of State, Department of Energy and (d) an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, except any part of that area which is Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food within a part of an exclusive economic zone or and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 22. A number Ministers have functions.” of amendments were tabled on Report with the aim of (3) In consequence of the amendments made by subsection (2) ensuring that the Marine Management Organisation’s of this section— role in relation to applications to the Infrastructure (a) the heading to section 43 becomes “Local authorities for Planning Commission is enshrined in primary legislation, purposes of section 42(1)(b)”, and rather than secondary legislation as the Government (b) the heading to section 44 becomes “Categories for had intended. purposes of section 42(1)(d)”. Noble Lords will recall that at the end of debate on (4) In section 55 (acceptance of applications), in subsection Report I undertook, given the importance of the (5), in the definition of “local authority consultee”— arguments made, to take the matter away to see whether (a) for “section 42(b)” substitute “section 42(1)(b)”; we could come up with alternative amendments that (b) for “section 42(c)” substitute “section 42(1)(c)”. would appropriately reflect the MMO’s important role (5) In section 56 (duty to notify persons of accepted applications)— in making representations to the IPC. The amendments (a) in subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert— that we have brought forward today are designed to “(aa) the Marine Management Organisation, in any case reflect the MMO’s role at three stages in the Planning where the development for which the application seeks Act process: first, the pre-application stage when a development consent would involve the carrying on of developer is considering putting in an application for any activity in one or more of the areas specified in development consent to the IPC; secondly, notification subsection (2A),”; that an application has been accepted by the IPC for (b) after subsection (2) insert— examination; and lastly, the examination process itself. “(2A) The areas are— Since it is important that the MMO, as a key player in 423 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][8 JUNE 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 424 the marine regulatory environment, is made aware of decisions about large infrastructure projects at sea. I all proposals which could impact on the marine area, also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Taylor of we are amending Section 42 of the Planning Act so Holbeach, who, with great foresight, raised this issue that developers must consult the MMO on any proposed during proceedings on the Planning Bill last year. development that would or would be likely to affect These amendments ensure that, as we hoped then, the the marine area. The MMO will therefore be made MMO has a statutory role in the decision-making aware of, and have the opportunity to input and process. We are therefore pleased finally to welcome comment on, such proposals at an early stage. Secondly, them. we are amending Section 56 of the Planning Act to However, we and noble Lords from all sides of this ensure that the MMO is formally notified of any House have eagerly awaited the establishment of the accepted applications in the marine area. Thirdly, we MMO for a long time now. At Second Reading last are amending Section 102 of the Planning Act to year, we welcomed the Bill as the vehicle for delivering make the MMO an interested party where the IPC has a champion of the sea. Unfortunately, as debates accepted an application in the marine area. progressed, it became clear that our idea of a champion The amendment to Section 102 ensures that the was rather different from that of the Government. The MMO is involved throughout the examination of those list of responsibilities that the Government intended applications and that therefore it will have a key role in to carve out from the MMO and either keep under advising on any necessary marine licences which the direct government control or leave with alternative IPC will deem as part of any consent issues. A organisations grew to include some six or seven major consequential minor amendment is made in my areas. DECC keeps control over all the land gas Amendment 22 to Schedule 8 so that the descriptions installations at sea and Natural England sets up marine of the various marine areas we are inserting into the conservation zones, to name but two. I will not list Planning Act are consistent with the existing language them all, but the IPC keeping control over large energy in that Act. In addition, the new clause we are inserting installations was another example and the one we are into Chapter 4 of Part 1 requires the Secretary of State discussing now. to give guidance to the MMO on the kinds of The amendments, therefore, do not go as far as we representations it may make under Parts 5 and 6 of would have liked. We would prefer the MMO to have the Planning Act. proper control over its waters. However, we appreciate Given that both the IPC and the MMO will be that the Government will not shift their views on that newly established bodies which must work closely and will accept the amendments as the best we can together on marine related developments in order to get for now. carry out their respective roles, we consider it appropriate to place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the MMO on its role in relation to Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord development projects subject to IPC consent. This Cathcart, made a few wide-ranging remarks there guidance will clarify how the MMO will need to use its about the Marine Management Organisation and its marine expertise; for example, to inform licence conditions, role, with many of which we have great sympathy, but make representations on the marine parts of coastal at Third Reading we are dealing with the specific projects, and ensure that proper enforcement can take amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of place. This is in addition to the general guidance Kings Heath. As this is a House of Lords Bill, I have which the Secretary of State can give to the MMO no doubt that there will be plenty of opportunity in under Clause 37, such as on enforcement and planning. the House of Commons further to discuss the role of the MMO, but it has been strengthened and clarified In our debates since Committee and on the Planning as the Bill has gone through this House not just by Bill there has been considerable interest in the respective some of the amendments tabled but in what has been roles of the MMO and the IPC. All noble Lords have said about it and the commitments that have been a desire to ensure that the two bodies should work given. It is clear that the Marine Management together and be seen to do so. We are confident that Organisation will be a major organisation in its own these amendments are an appropriate reflection of the right with a great deal of influence, so we have made key role the MMO will have as a centre of marine some progress, but there is opportunity for more progress expertise and the enforcement body for the majority of in the House of Commons. marine consents in advising both developers and the IPC on major infrastructure projects in the marine I welcome the amendment. It may not have gone as area. I beg to move. far as we would have liked, but it accurately and genuinely reflects the commitment that the Government made on Report. In particular, it sets out fairly clearly Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I should declare my the role that the Marine Management Organisation interests. I have been a local councillor for at least will have when applications for development consent 10 years and I am a member of the Game Conservancy are made to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. Trust, the Countryside Alliance, BASC, and other That is the minimum that we wanted in the Bill: to give organisations that I cannot remember as I have only the MMO that very clear role. That is there. When you just recalled that I had to declare my interests now, but are dealing with national quango-type organisations I can assure the House that they have not changed such as this, how much influence one has and how since last I gave them. much another has depends to a large extent on the I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments, people running the organisations and the credibility which are a result of meetings we had following the and influence that they carve out for themselves. There discussion on Report of the MMO’s formal role in is a lot to play for but, nevertheless, the amendment is 425 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 426

[LORD GREAVES] “(2A) If the activity in respect of which the application is welcome. I think that my noble friend Lady Hamwee being made is proposed to be carried on wholly or partly within has one or two other questions to ask, but, for the the area of a local authority in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, the appropriate licensing authority must give notice of moment, we welcome the amendment and support it. the application, or require the applicant to give notice of the application, to that local authority (whether or not notice has Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have one question been published under subsection (1)).” and two declarations of interest—as vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and joint president of London Councils. I apologise if, when I Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall move was distracted as the Minister was introducing his Amendment 2 and speak to the other amendments in amendment, I missed the point, but will he remind the this group, particularly Amendments 2 to 9. There was House whether the Marine Management Organisation extensive discussion in Committee and on Report on will be a statutory consultee, as it were, through regulations the people and bodies likely to be interested in a under Section 7 of the Planning Act in connection marine licence application and the way in which they with national policy statements? I think that he dealt should be made aware of, or consulted on, these with development rather than with the overarching applications. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the national policy statements, which are of course separate noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, voiced the feeling that from the marine policy statements under the Bill. licensing authorities should have a duty to make local Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I warmly authorities aware of the marine licence applications welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that they would be likely to have an interest in. My for this government amendment. I welcome him back noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath gave assurances to his place. We missed him very much in the concluding during those debates that relevant local authorities stages on Report and it is good to see him looking would always, as a matter of course, be made aware of so well. such applications by a licensing authority. It is very I know that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and his much the standard practice now, as far as the Marine noble friend have been concerned about the issue of and Fisheries Agency activities are concerned. the relationship between the MMO and the IPC and However, we agreed to reflect on the discussions would prefer the MMO to be responsible for all consents which we had in the preceding stages of the Bill and to in the offshore regime. We have disagreed on this look again at the provision before we reached this matter. We believe that, for nationally significant point. Amendments 2 to 9 are a reflection of our infrastructure projects, it is right that the IPC should further consideration. They provide that, where the be responsible, but I hope that this amendment will activity is carried on wholly or partly in the area of a provide some comfort to the noble Lords. Since it is local authority, the licensing authority must give, or likely that most offshore consents will still fall to the require the applicant to give, notice of the application MMO, because they will lie below the threshold of to that local authority. This new requirement is in 100 megawatts and less, the MMO will develop addition to the general requirement to publish notice considerable expertise in this area. It is also worth to any interested persons, and I hope that it will be pointing out that the MMO will then be responsible, seen as meeting the anxieties that were expressed when even when the IPC has consented, for ensuring that we debated this at earlier stages. conditions are met. The MMO can also, under certain The amendments will have the effect that the circumstances, issue additional requirements. There requirement to give notice to the local authority applies should be no doubt that the MMO, in relation to the even if notice has been published more widely under consent regime, will have a major role to play. subsection (1). As with the existing requirement to We have also debated the general role of the MMO, publish, the licensing authority may either give notice and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, expressed concerns to the local authority itself or require the applicant that the MMO was not going to be the champion of to do so. In practice, the licensing authority may the sea, which was required. However, I think that the decide to require the applicant to publish notice under MMO is going to play a very substantive role. We have subsection (1) but choose to give notice to the local also made the role of the MMO much clearer, thanks authority itself. Alternatively, there might be circumstances to the debates in Committee, and we welcome the in which the licensing authority would want notice to changes made at the beginning of the Bill in relation be given to the local authority in question even when to that. I am confident that the MMO will have a very notice of the application was not to publish more significant role to play and I am confident that this widely. One example of this might arise in licensing amendment will help it. The answer is no to the a burial to be conducted at sea. We believe that the specific question that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, amendments as drafted properly account for the raised. Other than that, I welcome the support given democratic responsibility which elected local authorities for the amendment. have for their areas while maintaining an efficient and flexible method of bringing applications to the attention Amendment 1 agreed. of all bodies likely to be interested in an application. Clause 67: Notice of applications However, the amendment does not reveal the full story of the close relationship that we intend the Marine Management Organisation to build with local Amendment 2 authorities in coastal areas and which will be of the Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham greatest importance to the delivery of much of the 2: Clause 67, page 44, line 10, at end insert— content of this Bill. We have heard adequate testimony 427 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][8 JUNE 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 428 both in Committee and on Report that there is a Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I feel I ought to wealth of experience, expertise and local knowledge in welcome my noble friend Lord Greaves as well. I coastal local authorities which the MMO will necessarily missed him, too. draw upon. In particular, local authorities will have a I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for sparing fundamental part to play in the development of marine time last week to meet the LGA special interest group. plans in coastal areas, particularly in recognition of As is so often the case, there was a large array of their continuing responsibility for granting development officials there, which was very helpful. We had plotted consents in the area between mean high water spring that I would use the amendment to ask the Government and low water mark. Their role in preparing shoreline to give a wider statement on how they viewed the role and estuary management plans as well as being of local authorities, but the noble Lord, Lord Davies, representatives of the local community on the development has rather pre-empted that. However, I invite him to of marine plans from the earliest possible stage to help say anything more that he feels needs to be said. interpret terrestrial plans will be of very great importance. Last week we discussed Clause 16, which deals with They will assist integration at the coast and enable the bodies to which the MMO can delegate functions. local interests to be fully reflected in marine plans. All I was taken aback by the technical reason bowled this is key to the success of the implementation of straight at us at the meeting as to why the MMO, marine planning as we envisage. which has delegated functions from the Secretary of To this end, we are working with the Local Government State, cannot itself delegate onwards. I understand the Association’s special interest group on coastal issues principle, but I had not realised that the MMO and the to ensure that the processes we put in place enable this Secretary of State were in that relationship. If the important level of involvement and participation for Minister can explain that on the record more coherently the MMO to work with local authorities. I hope that than I can, it will help those who refer to Hansard.I the House will feel that government Amendments 2 have already had an e-mail from someone who was at to 9 respond to the anxieties which have been expressed the meeting saying, “Could someone confirm what during the passage of the Bill. actually happened at the meeting because I feel pretty Amendment 10 relates to factors which licensing baffled by it”. authorities must have regard to when making activities Local authorities have expressed the feeling—and I exempt from the need for a marine licence using the agree with them—that they have an important role to exemptions order-making powers under Clause 73. play at the table, as they put it, with the MMO. The We had constructive discussions on this issue on Report, noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in particular, had some very and there was general agreement that the power to useful ideas as to how the importance of the involvement make activities generally or conditionally exempt from of local authorities can be recorded, as no one seems the marine licensing regime should not undermine the able to find a way of doing so in the legislation other purposes of the licensing regime itself; that is, to than in the licensing part. One idea was that the protect the environment and human health, and to Explanatory Notes, when the Bill becomes an Act, prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea should deal with the issue and perhaps give examples while taking into account any other factors and authority of local authority good practice. it thinks relevant. I thank the Minister and his officials for their In the light of the Government’s policy to this effect explanations and the time that they have given. I wait and in the wake of the clear agreement expressed with interest to learn what more can be done to across the House during our discussions on Report, confirm that essential role. we have tabled this amendment. It mirrors the wording used in Clause 68 and makes it a requirement in the Bill that all licensing authorities must have regard to Baroness Byford: My Lords, if I fail to welcome these factors when deciding to make an order exempting back the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, he might take it activities from the need for a marine licence. I beg in the wrong manner. I welcome his return to the Bill. to move. He has put a lot of work into it, and we welcome him back. I shall make one comment and ask one question. I particularly welcome Amendment 10; it is good to 3.30 pm have it written into the Bill. We discussed it at great Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I declare an length earlier and it is quite right that we should have interest as a farmer, grower and landowner, a member it. My question relates to “any local authority”. It may of the NFU and of various conservation bodies. Before well be that I have slightly misunderstood, but does I respond to the Minister’s introduction of the “local authority” include at parish council level, or amendments, I join him in welcoming back the noble does it refer only to tiers above parish council level? Lord, Lord Greaves, who is in his place today. We Clearly, if parishes are not included, it would seem missed him in our debates on the last two days of sensible that they were. I remind the House of my Report stage. interests, which are on the Register. I thank the Minister for tabling this important group of amendments. They reflect our debates in Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am very grateful for Committee and on Report about the useful role that everybody’s kind words. When I attended last night’s local authorities could play in support of the objectives counting of the European ballot papers in Pendle, a of the Bill. I am grateful to him for listening to our representative from the Conservative Party came up to concerns. me and shook my hand, saying, “I’m very glad to meet 429 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 430

[LORD GREAVES] without respecting the position of the coastal parishes you, Lord Greaves. I have been hearing good things within its framework that may be affected. Our points about you”. I said, “Oh—where does that come from”? about the more formal issues of consultation are “From Lord Taylor”, he said. directed to local authorities, although the noble Baroness accepts that we are concerned that notice is given to all Noble Lords: Oh! who might have an interest. In some cases, one can anticipate a particular parish council having possibly the most specific and even among the most important Lord Greaves: Being praised by Conservatives, my of interests. We would not expect anything other than Lords, is a bit like being approached by Greeks bearing them being involved in the exercise in those terms. gifts. Nevertheless, I am grateful and thank your Lordships very much, but I was following your proceedings closely On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady from over 200 miles away. When I last spoke, I was so Hamwee, Clause 16 allows further delegation of only keen to get involved again that I forgot to declare my the functions that are delegated to the MMO in the interests which are, as I have declared previously, Bill. That does not include planning and licensing, mainly my membership of recreational and conservation which are functions that the devolved authorities and organisations, particularly my involvement with the the Secretary of State have. The MMO cannot devolve British Mountaineering Council and the Open Spaces the responsibilities of the Secretary of State or the Society. devolved authorities; they cannot be devolved further. In all other areas, though, it is expected that the MMO On this amendment, all I want to do is thank the will be able to delegate extensively. I hope that she will Government for tabling it. Again, it is line with their accept that on the basis on which it is intended. commitments on Report. It effectively puts into the Bill—in their own words—what our amendments tabled She invited me to dwell further on the issue of the on Report said on the position of local authorities and contribution and role of the local authorities. With the their rights as statutory consultees in relation to licensing noble Lord, Lord Greaves, back in his place, does matters. We are grateful that the Government have anyone think I am going to dare to dwell on those recognised the special position that democratically matters? We have had intensive discussion about these elected local authorities hold, as opposed to all the issues. I know that the noble Baroness could pester me other organisations that will be consulted or may from now until a long time in the future about the appear in secondary legislation. Again, I thank the crucial position that the local authorities occupy with Government. regard to this legislation. I am not denying that; but I am shying away at this late stage from reopening the debate on how we could more effectively describe Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the role of local authorities. This legislation sets out the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for welcoming the the framework within which to operate, and, after the amendments, although he presumes too much. I am, discussions we have had in Committee and on Report, of course, pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, we now have a framework that safeguards the proper is restored in health, but it goes much too far to say interests of the local authorities while ensuring that that I welcome him back while deliberating on this the principal operations of the MMO and others Bill. It is all right for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor; the concerned with the implementation of the policy under noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has caused him marginal the Bill are also safeguarded. trouble. I assure him that that has not been the case as far as the Government are concerned, so I cannot fully Amendment 2 agreed. associate myself with such remarks.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, while not wanting to Amendments 3 to 9 cause any trouble at all, that is the greatest compliment Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath I have had for a long time. 3: Clause 67, page 44, line 11, after “The” insert “appropriate licensing” Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are in danger of forming an all-party alliance which, I guess, is only 4: Clause 67, page 44, line 11, after “unless” insert “(a)” possible for a day or so after elections have been 5: Clause 67, page 44, line 12, at end insert “(but see subsection (6)), conducted and certainly not before. I do, of course, and respect the contributions to the Bill by the noble Lord, (b) notice has been given under subsection (2A) to any local Lord Greaves. On the role of local authorities, we authority to which notice of the application is required were, as I indicated in my opening remarks, responding, to be given by virtue of that subsection (but see as constructively as we are able, to points that the subsection (7)).” noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, 6: Clause 67, page 44, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and had made in Committee and on Report. insert— “(4) If the appropriate licensing authority— On the particular points that were raised, on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the (a) publishes notice of an application, in pursuance of tiers above parish councils are defined in Amendment 9. subsection (1)(a), or The noble Baroness will appreciate that we are talking (b) gives notice of an application to a local authority, in about local authorities, but I understand her point pursuance of subsection (2A), about parish councils, and no local authority will be the licensing authority may require the applicant to pay a able to meet its requirements regarding these developments fee towards the reasonable expenses of doing so.” 431 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][8 JUNE 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 432

7: Clause 67, page 44, line 20, leave out “This section” and have been able to lay before your Lordships a number insert “Subsection (1)” of amendments in response. The question of commitment 8: Clause 67, page 44, line 25, at end insert— to a network that is ecologically coherent has exercised “(7) Subsection (2A) does not apply in the case of any particular your Lordships in a number of debates since Second application and any particular local authority if— Reading and Committee. We have explained why (a) the appropriate licensing authority considers that notice referencing the term “ecological coherence” in the Bill of the application should not be given to the local is not the most effective way to ensure that a network authority, or is delivered. Without revisiting those arguments, I (b) the Secretary of State certifies that in the opinion of the commend my Amendment 12, which responds directly Secretary of State it would be contrary to the interests of to the concerns raised by noble Lords. national security to give notice of the application to the The crux of the issue lies in the fact that noble local authority.” Lords were concerned that a lot of trust was being put 9: Clause 67, page 44, line 25, at end insert— into non-statutory guidance on the selection of marine “( ) In this section “local authority” means— conservation zones. While the Bill sets out conditions (a) in relation to England, a county council, a district that our network must meet, and the MPA strategy council, a London borough council, the Common and guidance underpinning the selection of marine Council of the City of London or the Council of the conservation zones sets out the principles of ecological Isles of Scilly; coherence in more detail, there is concern that the (b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county Government are not being clear enough about the borough council; overall guiding principles for the selection of marine (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, a district council.” conservation zones to ensure that these sites, together with other types of marine protected areas, deliver an Amendments 3 to 9 agreed. ecologically coherent network, based on our current understanding of that concept. Clause 73 : Exemptions specified by order 3.45 pm Amendment 10 For this reason, I have tabled a series of amendments Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath which will require the appropriate authority—Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State— 10: Clause 73, page 48, line 24, at end insert— each to lay a statement before the relevant legislature. “( ) In deciding whether to make an order under this section, The statement is to set out the principles that each will the appropriate licensing authority must have regard to— follow in contributing to the UK network and may (a) the need to protect the environment, also set out any other matters that they consider might (b) the need to protect human health, be relevant. The statement must be made within two (c) the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of months of the commencement date for the nature the sea, conservation provisions set out in this Bill and must be and such other matters as the authority thinks relevant.” kept under review and updated in accordance with any future changes to the design principles. Amendment 10 agreed. The Government would use this statement to set out their intention to use the principles of ecological coherence and to say what those principles are. The Clause 122 : Creation of network of conservation sites design principles are described on page 30 of the recently published draft strategy for marine protected Amendment 11 areas. The amendments ensure that if any changes are made to the design principles driving the network, Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath a revised statement must once again be laid before 11: Clause 122, page 80, line 9, leave out from beginning to the appropriate legislature. I am confident that the “the” in line 10 and insert “When complying with the duty amendments will allow scrutiny of the design principles imposed by subsection (1),” for the network. Most importantly, they respect the evolving nature of the concept of ecological coherence. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall speak They will allow us to ensure that the design and also to a series of government amendments grouped designation of the network can reflect the latest scientific with this one. Before I do, though, I return to the evidence and adapt with our understanding of ecological debate on the first group. When I said to the noble coherence. Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the MMO will not be a I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for statutory consultee under Section 7 of the Planning his input on the issue of recreational vessels and, more Act, that is the position at the moment. I am glad to specifically, for ensuring parity in the by-law restrictions report, though, that regulations will be made under placed on recreational and non-recreational vessels. I this clause in due course when they will then be promised to consider this point on Report and now consulted on. That probably gives the noble Baroness table Amendments 14, 15 and 16 to meet the concerns a better answer than the first effort. that were expressed then. We spent some time in Committee and on Report The Government are firmly committed to ensuring debating the Part 5 provisions and how they can be that marine conservation zones are effectively protected. further strengthened. We have listened carefully, and I It is important, as the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said 433 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 434

[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH] of a network is similarly crucial to the effectiveness of on Report, that MCZs can be defended from excessive the zones, but as debates have shown, there is still much recreational use if considered necessary. However, we uncertainty about the way this will be done. Indeed, as do not want deliberately to preclude other vessels the Minister reminded us, we spent a considerable from similar restrictions if they could also cause damage. amount of time seeking to bring the concept of ecological We have sought advice on the extent to which we can coherence to the designation of MCZs. prohibit all vessels entering marine conservation zones. The amendments bring some much needed Having carefully considered the advice, we believe that transparency and therefore some effective accountability the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea allows the to the whole designation process. Likewise, the later Government, in certain circumstances, to restrict entry amendments also assist the process of by-laws on all into or passage through marine conservation zones by vessels. We therefore welcome the amendments. all vessels and not just recreational ones. Amendment 14 to Clause 128 therefore removes Lord Greenway: My Lords, I think my maritime “recreational” from subsection (3)(b), ensuring that, if interests are generally well known around the House, the conservation objectives for a site require it, the but they are on the record and they are non-pecuniary. MMO can make by-laws which restrict all vessels I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for being as good entering into or moving within marine conservation as his word and agreeing to look again at the amendments zones, provided it complies with the UN Convention I moved at an earlier stage which aimed to meet the on the Law of the Sea. As we have removed reference concerns of the boating authorities that recreational to “recreational vessel” in Part 5, I have consequently vessels were being singled out above other types of tabled Amendment 16 to Clause 146, which removes vessel when it came to by-laws restricting their entry the definition of “recreational vessel”. into marine conservation zones. I am confident that these amendments address noble As the Minister said, he and his team have looked Lords’ concerns and ensure that we are not placing again at UNCLOS and have come round to my way of disproportionate restrictions or burdens on recreational thinking, and for that I am most grateful. In fact, the vessels. Instead, we have now ensured a system where Government amendments achieve very much what I we can focus on furthering the conservation objectives was seeking to achieve, and I am grateful for that. for a marine conservation zone and, where necessary, restrict all vessels entering sites. This could well be the last time I speak on this Bill. I must confess that when I was asked to chair the Joint I have also tabled Amendment 15 to Clause 140. Committee looking at the draft Bill last year, I never in Following the points made by the noble Lord, Lord a million years thought that I would still be discussing Greenway, in Committee, we have also looked again at it more than a year later. I must express my gratitude this aspect of the UN Convention on the Law of the to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Davies of Sea. Our analysis of the text is that it is only once we Oldham, for their unfailing courtesy and helpfulness have declared an exclusive economic zone that we can during the many long hours that we have discussed the apply the general offence to vessels from third countries. Bill. I can only commend their stamina and fortitude. The amendment therefore applies the general offence of deliberately or recklessly damaging a marine conservation zone to third-country vessels once the Lord Greaves: My Lords, I think we support that, UK has declared an exclusive economic zone. Part 2 of and may say so in greater detail later as I do not think the Bill gives us the power to declare such a zone. this is the last time I shall speak. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the amendments. They There are then a series of minor and technical are in response to the concerns of the noble Lord, amendments to Schedule 11. The effect of Lord Greenway, which we very much support. The Amendments 23, 24, 25 and 26 is to adapt provisions legal advice that the Government have received is on MMO by-laws and Welsh Minister orders for the welcome indeed. protection of European marine sites so that they could apply more logically to such sites. These amendments The network of marine conservation zones was one do two things. First, they ensure that by-laws may be of the major debating points as the Bill went through made for the protection of European sites, rather than your Lordships’ House. I have no doubt that it will for the furthering of conservation objectives which do also be one of the major debating points in the House not necessarily exist for these sites. Secondly, they of Commons, when it gets there. The amendments are more selectively apply the by-law provisions of Part 5 a very welcome move towards the kind of strengthening to the European sites. In particular, the power to make that my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer interim by-laws in Part 5 is not relevant in the European was asking for. Again, as with the Marine Management site context, and so is not needed. Organisation, I do not think it is just the changes that have been made in the Bill. The explanations that have I hope noble Lords will think that these are helpful been given and the understanding of how it is intended amendments, which very much respond to our debates to work have very greatly strengthened confidence on Report. I beg to move. that the system is going to work. We will see, but the debates that have taken place, the explanations that Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank the the Ministers have given and the briefings that have Minister for bringing forward these amendments. The been provided have been extremely helpful. successful establishment of an effective conservation We can send this part of the Bill on its way, with zone is one of the fundamental aims of this Bill and greater confidence that marine conservation zones—and perhaps the most difficult to achieve. The designation particularly a coherent network of marine conservation 435 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][8 JUNE 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 436 zones—will be put into place and will work. We have more confidence in that than we had when we started Amendments 12 and 13 the Bill some six months ago. I welcome that. Thank you again. Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath 12: Clause 122, page 80, line 12, at end insert— Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I warmly support “(5A) Before the end of the period of 2 months beginning the words expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, with the date on which this section comes into force, the appropriate in appreciation of the work of the Ministers in charge authority must— of the Bill. At the same time, I should also like to (a) prepare a statement setting out such principles relating extend congratulations to those who have laboured to the achievement of the objective in subsection (2) as behind the scenes in doing some extremely skilful the authority intends to follow when complying with the duty imposed by subsection (1), and drafting work, some of it fairly rapid, in bringing the amendments forward in the way that they have done. (b) lay a copy of the statement before the appropriate legislature. I am gratefully encouraged by these amendments (5B) A statement prepared by the appropriate authority under and by the words that the Minister used when he this section may also set out other matters relating to the achievement talked about the evolving nature of the concept of of that objective which the authority intends to take into account ecological coherence. It is important that the legislation when complying with the duty imposed by subsection (1). should contain sufficient flexibility to allow improvements (5C) The appropriate authority must— to be generated as further knowledge is gained from (a) keep under review any statement it has prepared under the experience of the establishment of the marine this section, and conservation zones. (b) if it considers it appropriate in consequence of a review, The Minister referred to one other thing that was prepare a revised statement of the principles referred to not totally clear to me. He talked about guarding in subsection (5A) and lay a copy of it before the against “excessive recreational use”. I wonder how appropriate legislature.” that is to be assessed. It seems to me that the most 13: Clause 122, page 80, line 13, at end insert— important thing is to have a very alert monitoring ““the appropriate legislature” means— system so that there is effective policing as life goes on, (a) in relation to the Secretary of State, Parliament; so that those who are responsible for adjudicating in (b) in relation to the Welsh Ministers, the National these matters or for policing in the operation of the Assembly for Wales; MCZs are ahead of the game and know when action is (c) in relation to the Scottish Ministers, the Scottish necessary, because in order to introduce the necessary Parliament;” action a certain amount of time will have to have passed. With those words about welcoming the amendments Amendments 12 and 13 agreed. and my slight concern about the interpretation of excessive recreational use, I again thank the Ministers very much indeed for the wholly constructive way in which they brought this measure to the House. Clause 128 : Byelaws for protection of MCZs in England Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for the generally warm welcome that they gave to this group of amendments. Amendment 14 I am also very grateful for their generous comments Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath about the officials working on the team. They very much appreciate those comments, which I of course 14: Clause 128, page 85, line 20, leave out “recreational” endorse. The noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, spoke passionately on these matters, particularly in Committee. Amendment 14 agreed. He still has one or two concerns but I think that we have gone as far as we can to reassure about our commitment to MCZs and to ecologically coherent networks. I think that he is right about flexibility. The Clause 140 : Exceptions to offences under section 138 construct of the Bill as it now stands allows flexibility or 139 for adjustments to be made as we gain more experience and as more scientific knowledge becomes available. I agree with him about monitoring, which is very important Amendment 15 indeed, and it will be important that the regulatory authorities can respond quickly and effectively in the Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath light of that monitoring. I absolutely endorse that. We 15: Clause 140, page 93, line 19, at beginning insert “Until the will ensure that the spirit of that is conveyed to those coming into force of the first Order in Council made under who will have the very grave responsibility of taking section 40 (the exclusive economic zone),” these matters forward in future.

Amendment 11 agreed. Amendment 15 agreed. 437 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 438

Clause 146 : Interpretation of this Chapter “(1B) Subsection (1A) does not have effect in relation to an Order in Council to the extent that it contains provision made by virtue of paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 (functions exercisable beyond Amendment 16 the territorial sea).”” Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath 16: Clause 146, page 96, leave out lines 27 to 29 Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, Amendment 18 corrects an unforeseen anomaly that has arisen in Amendment 16 agreed. connection with the transfer of functions in respect of the Welsh zone that will be created by Clause 42. The policy intent is that where a function in the area of the 4pm Welsh zone beyond the territorial sea is transferred to Welsh Ministers under Section 58 of the Government Schedule1:TheMarine Management Organisation of Wales Act 2006, the transfer will be restricted to functions connected with fishing, fisheries and fish health. This is spelt out in the amendment to that Amendment 17 section contained in paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 4. Moved by Lord Greaves However, that provision could be read as contradicting the existing provision in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to 17: Schedule 1, page 222, line 11, at end insert— the Act. This provision provides that the power in “( ) An order under sub-paragraph (1) must not amend Section 58(1)(c) to direct that functions relating to paragraph 3(1)(b) so that it provides that there may be fewer than Wales must be exercised after consultation with Welsh 5 ordinary members.” Ministers also applies in relation to certain specific environmental protection functions exercisable in relation Lord Greaves: My Lords, this comes back to a small to an area defined in the Act as “Welsh controlled but important issue—the size of the board of the waters”. “Welsh controlled waters”, like the “Welsh Marine Management Organisation. It is identical in zone”, include that part of the sea adjacent to Wales meaning to an amendment that I moved on Report. that is beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea, The only difference is that it uses words that Government and we want to ensure that our fisheries restriction is draftsmen prefer rather than those that I had written. not read as contradicting this separate power. To That seems to be perfectly reasonable. rectify this, an additional subsection (1B) is being We had a long discussion in Committee about the inserted into Section 58 of the Government of Wales size of the Marine Management Organisation. As set Act. Let me reassure noble Lords that this amendment out, there will be at least five and not more than eight is purely minor and technical. I beg to move. members, plus the chairman; so the total will be between six and nine, including the chairman. There was discussion about whether this was big enough, The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, this is a useful and what the right size was. The Government made tidying up amendment, as the current text might have clear their intention that the size will be eight plus the been interpreted as interfering with powers that might chairman, at least in the beginning. The amendment I be available to the Welsh Government beyond the moved on Report stated that the provision that the territorial sea. Secretary of State has in the Bill to change the range During the debate on amendments that the of five to eight, plus the chairman, should not be used Government introduced on Report, we were quite to reduce the size below five, which would not be involved with seeing that the Welsh Assembly Government satisfactory. That is the point I put forward on Report were given adequate powers, in particular relating to and that is what I put forward again in the amendment. the management of fisheries, some of which extend I thank the Government for their assistance in drafting beyond the territorial sea. This takes us into the area the amendment. I beg to move. of the different zones that have been determined as part of devolution under the Bill. Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, lest it be thought I thank the Minister for a very useful and lengthy that I was a little churlish earlier when referring to the briefing that I have only just received on cross-border noble Lord, Lord Greaves, let me say how delighted I powers and arrangements. It was phrased in relation am to see him in his place, moving an amendment with to the Solway Firth but must apply equally to the which the Government agree completely. Bristol Channel and the northern boundary of the Welsh inshore area. The point is clearly made that because the MMO, which will be operating in the Amendment 17 agreed. English sphere, is a “non-departmental public body”, whereas Marine Scotland is an arm of the Executive Schedule4:Exclusive economic zone and Welsh zone: of Scotland, and in Wales the Executive will also be consequential amendments taking charge, it is not appropriate for them to form a joint subordinate body. Perhaps the Minister can explain some of what that paper contains or make sure that its Amendment 18 content is contained in a paper available to all those who have to work with these cross-border arrangements, Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath as it goes into great detail of how it would all need to 18: Schedule 4, page 234, line 21, at end insert— be worked out. 439 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][8 JUNE 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 440

The introduction of the Bill has given a great deal that I see on the part of all Administrations, including more significance to the meetings that take place the Irish Government, to ensure that we protect our under the Joint Ministerial Council. I think we are all marine environment. I take great comfort from that. glad that there was much agreement at that level as there could have been trouble otherwise, but it raises Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I very much the question of what weight and authority we in appreciate what the Minister has just said. It reflects Westminster need to give to the deliberations of this the sensitivity with which he and his colleagues have body, and whether the Joint Ministerial Council itself treated the devolution settlement in Wales. The British- recognises that Westminster has overall control. Irish Council is particularly important for resolving matters to do with the Irish Sea. Indeed, the Minister Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I, too, welcome and his colleagues have moved this process forward to this amendment wholeheartedly. It is clear that some achieve a much deeper understanding and co-operation difficulties came to light in the debates that we had, between all those concerned with the Irish Sea. particularly on cross-border issues. This appears to me to put the record straight. Indeed, the Government of Amendment 18 agreed. Wales Act 2006 has been appropriately amended to take account of the developments in the Bill and I hope that this will satisfy the Welsh Assembly Schedule 6: Marine plans: preparation and adoption Government.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the Amendment 19 noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for commending the amendment, Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham which I believe clarifies matters. I say to the noble Duke that I am happy to circulate the paper more 19: Schedule 6, page 239, line 21, leave out “regional planning widely. Clearly, there is a problem in relation to the body whose area” and insert “responsible regional authorities desire to establish joint bodies and the conflict that whose region” thereby arises with the devolution settlement. However, we will do everything we can to ensure that the new Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall speak arrangements work well together. I referred to the also to government Amendments 20 and 21. The first meeting of UK Ministers that took place in the autumn, two amendments ensure that the Bill works effectively which was very helpful in resolving some of the issues with the Local Democracy, Economic Development in relation to the Bill. That was a very positive sign. and Construction Bill, presently undergoing scrutiny As regards the British-Irish Council, this matter in the other place. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the also concerns the Government of Ireland. Therefore, Bill requires a marine plan authority to notify a number one has to be cautious about where Westminster comes of “related planning authorities” when it begins to into play in that, but certainly I agree that it is important prepare a marine plan. One of these related planning that the outcome of those deliberations is reported authorities is a terrestrial authority responsible for back. The noble Duke raises a substantive point. As I planning at a regional level. Currently, that is the had the responsibility of chairing the meeting of regional planning authority defined under Section 2 environment Ministers, I shall be happy to reflect on of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. communicating the outcome of those meetings. The House will, of course, be aware of the proposals in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, does the Joint Construction Bill to replace regional planning bodies Ministerial Council include Ministers from the Irish with responsible regional authorities that comprise a Republic? I had understood that UK bodies were local authority leaders’ board and the regional involved. development agency. We therefore need to update the reference in the Bill to ensure that it continues to Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I must operate effectively once the Local Democracy, Economic distinguish between the meeting that took place last Development and Construction Bill completes its autumn between Ministers from the four UK parliamentary passage and comes into force. I hope Administrations, which specifically discussed this Bill that the House will support these minor changes to and was helpful in allowing us to reach a very sensible paragraph 1. outcome ensuring that there would be good co-operative The final amendment in this group, Amendment 21, relationships, and the British-Irish Council. I chaired is in response to the promise we made on Report to a meeting of the latter body in Jersey a few weeks ago consider an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, at which we discussed the marine environment and Lady Hamwee. It required a marine plan authority to where we had many helpful discussions about co-operative consider the extent to which matters raised in its approaches to tackling the marine environment. That representations have been resolved when deciding whether meeting had the advantage of bringing in the Isle of to appoint an independent investigator. At the time, Man, Jersey and Guernsey. As noble Lords will know, her amendment was commended from the Dispatch there is concern about that issue. Alas, the noble Lord, Box because it reflected our intention that this should Lord Wallace, is not here to enliven our debates on be one of the key factors in determining whether these matters. I think that he described it as a great an independent investigation should be held. The white area between Wales and Ireland in terms of Government have therefore tabled Amendment 21, regulation and enforcement. The outcome of the meeting which addresses this very point, although in slightly last autumn was very encouraging, as is the determination different terminology.It requires the marine plan authority 441 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 442

[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM] (c) the reference in section 128(3)(c) to hindering the to consider the extent to which any issues raised conservation objectives stated for an MCZ is to be read during the public consultation on the marine plan as a reference to damaging a European marine site.” remain unresolved following the consultation and, therefore, should inform the decision to appoint an Amendments 23 to 26 agreed. investigator. I beg to move.

Amendment 19 agreed. Schedule 19: Schedule 1A to the 1949 Act

Amendments 20 and 21 Amendment 27 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Moved by Lord Goodlad 20: Schedule 6, page 239, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert— 27: Schedule 19, page 300, line 35, at end insert— ““responsible regional authorities” has the same meaning as “(12) The determination of the Secretary of State must comply in Part 5 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and with the recommendation of the appointed person unless, in the Construction Act 2009 (regional strategy).” opinion of the Secretary of State, there are exceptional circumstances.” 21: Schedule 6, page 244, line 27, at end insert— “(c) the extent to which matters raised by representations Lord Goodlad: My Lords, Amendment 27 stands in falling within paragraph (b) have not my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I been resolved,” reiterate my gratitude to the Government and, in particular, the Minister, for their response to the Amendments 20 and 21 agreed. recommendations of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution on the right of those affected to Schedule 8: Licensing: Minor and consequential appeal to an independent person. Amendment 27—which, amendments I emphasise, does not reflect the unanimous view of members of the committee—seeks to enhance and reinforce the other safeguards now written into the Amendment 22 Bill to ensure that, Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath “the Secretary of State must comply with the recommendation of 22: Schedule 8, page 254, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert— the appointed person unless, in the opinion of the Secretary of “(c) an exclusive economic zone, except any part of an State, there are exceptional circumstances”. exclusive economic zone in relation to which the Scottish Otherwise, why have an appointed person? Perhaps Ministers have functions, the Minister might add a word about the future role of (d) a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a the Planning Inspectorate in this context. Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Amendment 27 would add transparency, fairness, Ministers have functions,” stability and an element of predictability, although Amendment 22 agreed. obviously not certainly, to the arrangements envisaged in the Bill and would accord with everyday common sense. The amendment would not of course dilute in Schedule 11: Consequential amendments relating to any way the accountability of the Secretary of State to MCZs Parliament. I beg to move.

Amendments 23 to 26 4.15 pm Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I support 23: Schedule 11, page 267, line 35, leave out “Chapter 1 of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, the chairman of the Part 5” and insert “section 128” Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, in 24: Schedule 11, page 267, line 36, leave out “(marine” and his thanks to the Government for agreeing that there insert “(byelaws for protection of marine” should be a right of appeal. That has been the consistent 25: Schedule 11, page 267, line 38, leave out “Chapter 1 of line of the Constitution Committee throughout, and it Part 5 of that Act” and insert “section 133 of that Act (orders for is of the utmost importance that a right of appeal is protection of marine conservation zones)” seen to be transparent. 26: Schedule 11, page 268, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert— Having gone that far, I fear that I cannot agree with “(3) The provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 5 of that Act relating the noble Lord on this amendment. The procedures to byelaws under section 128 or orders under section 133 apply, described in the clause state that, as in most planning with the modifications described in paragraph (3A) of this regulation, in relation to byelaws made by virtue of paragraph (1) of this considerations, a person is appointed to hear evidence. regulation or (as the case may be) orders made by virtue of That is the basis on which the bulk of planning paragraph (2) of this regulation. decisions are taken. Having heard admissible evidence, (3A) The modifications are— the planning inspector, in due course, makes (a) any reference to an MCZ is to be read as a reference to a recommendations to the Secretary of State for his European marine site; determination. It is the Secretary of State’s decision, (b) in sections 128(1) and 133(1), the reference to furthering and his alone. He is accountable, in general, to Parliament. the conservation objectives of an MCZ is to be read as a In particular instances, a rare procedure of having a reference to protecting a European marine site; parliamentary debate on the matter can be invoked. 443 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][8 JUNE 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 444

I got into a great deal of hot water as a planning I thank the Minister and his officials for their Minister for six years in Wales, when I determined, as considerable courtesy in discussing this matter with regards the future of industrial development in Ebbw the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and with me during Vale, following the closure of the steelworks, that I the past week. As I understand the departmental had to overturn the recommendation of the planning concern—the Minister will explain it more fully and inspector, who wanted to fill in various parts of the more eloquently—it is that the Secretary of State must area with the odd bit of industrial development. I have the power to take account of the general implications took the holistic view that the only way to give hope to for the coastal route. The person appointed is concerned that community was to ensure that particular land was only with the specific piece of land. The Secretary of designated on a sufficient scale to provide the basis for State, however, needs to have in mind the broader attracting industry, and that you would not achieve picture. that in the same way if you were merely in-filling I understand and accept that policy concern. I do pockets. not understand, however, why it justifies the breadth In those circumstances, the decision of the Secretary of the discretion conferred on the Secretary of State. of State would be limited, if this amendment were to On Report, the Minister told the House at col. 50 that be accepted, because he, it would be “extremely unlikely” that the Secretary of “must comply with the recommendation of the appointed person State would depart from the recommendation of the unless, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, there are exceptional person appointed. Since the Minister recognises and circumstances”. accepts that it would be extremely unlikely for the What on earth are “exceptional circumstances” in this recommendation of the independent person to be context? If the amendment were to be passed and if displaced, surely it is appropriate to include in the exceptional circumstances can be defined, the decision provision a sub-paragraph that recognises that matter would be taken away from the Secretary of State and and gives a degree of assurance to landowners and to his power would be extremely limited. First, this is not all other interested persons. workable, and, secondly, it abdicates the responsibility of the Secretary of State, because such matters should Our amendment therefore seeks to make the position be for his determination, and his alone. clear in this respect. If Amendment 27 were to be approved, the Secretary of State would still have ample power to overturn the recommendation of the person Lord Pannick: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, appointed in the type of case that the noble and Lord Goodlad. The background to Amendment 27 learned Lord, Lord Morris, envisages. That is a case will be very familiar to your Lordships. As originally where there is some policy concern and some general drafted, the Bill lacked an appeal provision for those issue relating to the coastal route which has not been affected by the coastal access duty. This was criticised adequately addressed by the person appointed. The by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, chaired noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, asks, “What by the noble Lord. In Committee, many noble Lords does ‘exceptional circumstances’ mean? It is a broad suggested that an appeal procedure was necessary. To and general phrase”. Precisely so. The purpose of the his great credit, the Minister listened. He and his amendment is to confer a discretion on the Minister to hard-working officials tabled on Report the detailed depart from the views of the person appointed but to amendments which are now Schedule 19 to the Bill, do so only if there is something unusual or exceptional creating a right to have the matter considered by the about the case and not simply because he disagrees person appointed. These provisions, however, have a with the person appointed on a matter of fact. serious defect. They leave it entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State whether to accept or to reject The Minister has tabled Amendment 28, which the views of the person appointed—indeed the factual goes a long way towards meeting the points that I have findings of the person appointed. There is no attempt raised. I am most grateful to him and his officials for in Schedule 19 to confine the power of the Secretary of listening and for acting on the points raised by the State to overturn the recommendation of the person noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and by me. However, I appointed to issues of policy or to cases where there have concerns about that amendment. It states the are broader implications of the recommendation. principle that the Secretary of State will be bound by the opinion of the person appointed but it makes this As often occurs in planning matters, as the noble subject to four exceptions. Exceptions (c) and (d) are, I and learned Lord, Lord Morris, suggested, the noble accept, principled exceptions. Of course it is right that Lord gave a very good example from his own experience. the Secretary of State should not be bound by a I entirely accept that in that type of case the Minister finding by the person appointed which is made, should have power to overturn the findings of the person appointed. Amendment 27 seeks to confine “by reference to irrelevant factors or without regard to relevant the discretion of the Secretary of State to overturn the factors”, recommendation of an independent person who has or a finding that is “perverse or irrational”. That is the statutory responsibility of considering representations entirely so. Exception (b) provides that the Minister is and doing so in a context concerned with a person’s not bound by the factual conclusion of the person rights—here the right to property. This is particularly appointed if there is, important when the Joint Committee on Human Rights has advised that a lack of an appeal to an independent “insufficient evidence to make the finding”. person with a power to determine questions of fact That, too, is principled if—and I should welcome the would be a breach of the European Convention on Minister’s assurance on this—it means that the Secretary Human Rights. of State concludes that the person appointed could 445 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 446

[LORD PANNICK] the Welsh Office, I came across cases where it was the not have properly made the finding on the evidence view of the Secretary of State and the department that available to the person appointed at the time that he the Secretary of State should have the right to overrule made his recommendation. That leaves exception (a), planning inspection findings of one kind or another. “that the finding involves an assessment of the significance of a I think that power must remain with the Secretary matter to any person with a relevant interest in land or to the of State. public”. The question is whether we should limit it in the way That causes concern because it allows the Secretary of Amendment 27 proposes, or in the way the Government’s State to conclude that, even though the person appointed Amendment 28 proposes. Given the fact that I, too, finds that the matter is of great importance to the am not certain how one would define “exceptional landowner and even though that finding cannot be circumstances”, I believe Ministers have responded to challenged under exceptions (b), (c) and (d)—in other the points made by the Constitution Committee, as words, there is sufficient evidence for the finding, it is represented by Amendment 27, and I find Amendment 28 based on relevant factors and is not perverse—he can very reasonable. It comes a long way to meet the still substitute his view for that of the person appointed concerns of most of the members of the Constitution on that factual matter. Committee. I, therefore, support Amendment 28 and, I therefore prefer Amendment 27. It is clear, it is sadly, if Amendment 27 is pressed, I shall not be sufficiently flexible and it accords with the Minister’s supporting it. assurance on Report that only in rare cases would the Secretary of State override the views of the person Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, on Second appointed. Reading I declared an interest as the owner of an Perhaps I may briefly mention two other matters. I estuary and some miles of Solent shore where for understand that the Secretary of State will be making years my family has given public access, including a regulations to ensure that, if he proposes to depart nature reserve. It did not feel right to intervene in from the findings of the person appointed, a fair Committee because of the extent of my knowledge of procedure must be followed which gives the landowner the situation. Now we are sending the Bill to another an opportunity to address the issues before the Secretary place, I want to say how delighted I am that progress of State. I should very much welcome the Minister’s has been made to make it a fairer and more workable confirmation that such regulations are intended to situation. At an early stage, the Government stated be made. that parks and gardens would be excepted, but later The second and final matter I ask the Minister to they retreated from this position and inserted the word deal with is this: I understand that, contrary to the “curtilage”. I fear that the reference to curtilage will expectation he stated on Report, it is no longer envisaged lead to many time-consuming disputes. I therefore that the person appointed will be a member of the urge the Government to provide in another place that Planning Inspectorate. Can the Minister clarify who that is replaced with “parks and gardens”, which is will now be the appointed person or persons to perform much more understandable. this important function, and can he assure the House The Government have made a very welcome concession that they will be independent, and seen to be independent, on the important principle of an independent appeal. of the Secretary of State? I am most grateful. I welcome that, but we must ensure that the Bill has clauses that give weight to 4.30 pm legitimate concerns, such as those of coastal owners Lord Rowlands: My Lords, I, too, am a member of and businesses. the Constitution Committee and during all our discussions The legislation has being drawn up on the on this Bill, I have emphasised the tremendous value assumption that rules and definitions of a coastal of coastal access. I happen to live quite near a coastline plan can be applied in the same way to a river valley. in south-west Wales, and I have witnessed the enormous That is oversimplistic. Rivers are very different benefit, both in health and recreational terms, of coastal animals. They are often lined with high levels of residential access. Like all members of the Constitution Committee, and commercial property, while in other places there I felt strongly that there should be some kind of are sensitive nature reserves. Where a coastal path planning appeal procedure, though I did not want the meets an estuary, for instance, I urge that the two sides old-fashioned kind, which has often led to interminable of the river are as much as possible joined by one delays and been extremely expensive. I believe Ministers existing right of way. Sometimes, these will be further have come forward with a workable alternative appeal inland, but such a scheme would be much easier to procedure, which I welcome and support. As other implement. members of the committee have testified, we are indebted Finally, I am deeply concerned that in the passage to the way in which Ministers have responded to the of the Bill the need to safeguard wildlife has been representations we have made. I am more than content largely ignored. Our coasts and estuaries contain some that an appeals procedure is in place that is of a very important havens for animal life, but their condition character which will not mean that coastal access is could well be threatened. Let us be honest and say that somehow continually delayed or prevented, while at there is a clash between nature and government policy. the same time protecting the rights of citizens and On the assumption that Natural England will decide property owners. on the route, it must make quite sure that it does On the last point, I share the view of my noble and nothing that would harm natural life. I fear that it will learned friend Lord Morris. Under his jurisdiction, be overruled by its political masters. At a time when when he was Secretary of State and I was a Minister in bird numbers are diminishing and birds are becoming 447 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][8 JUNE 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 448 extinct, it is very important that we apply the Sandford in creating the coastal route. I have been trying to principle, that nature should take precedence over relate that concept of fair balance to the fundamental humans. objectives of the coastal duty, as set out in Clause 289(2), which are the requirements to provide the route and Lord Greaves: My Lords, I oppose the amendment the coastal margin or access land. The Government in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad; we are are now doing that. They are setting the work of the prepared to support the government amendments. If inspector and the decision of the Secretary of State on we go right back to the Bill’s introduction to this the basis of the inspector’s report, firmly in the context House—and before, when we were discussing it in of the coastal duty. That is right and proper. Some of pre-legislative forums—a strong view was put forward that is not and cannot be factual. It is a matter of by Natural England, the recreational groups and everyone assessment, opinion and judgment. That is where, else that we do not want the precise system of appeals surely, the Secretary of State ought to have discretion. that we have under the CROW Act, because they have The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, referred been time-consuming, expensive and, in many cases, to planning appeals. He is absolutely right. In the have not produced the right results. They are based on ward that I represent on the local council, two or three the appeal system under the planning system; the years ago there was an infamous planning application system is almost exactly the same. That may be appropriate for a new housing estate, and the decision took about for planning, but it has turned out not to be too good three years. The local council turned it down, it went for CROW land. to appeal, the inspector found in favour of the appellants, The other side of the argument was that people it went to the Secretary of State, who at the time was with land rights ought to have a right of appeal to an the Deputy Prime Minister, and it sat on his desk for independent tribunal where they can put their views about two years. Eventually, he overturned the decision forward and where their objections can be independently and recommendation of the inspector. He did it, whether and objectively assessed in a fair, reasonable and right or wrong, for reasons of overriding public, transparent way. government and planning policy. Indeed, he did it for I believe that both those points of view were correct. reasons which did not exist when the appeal took I had arguments with my friends in the recreational place. If the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, user groups, for example, because it seems to me as a Lord Goodlad, were to be accepted in its present Liberal that not having independent system of appeal form, it would leave it wide open for any landowner to was quite wrong. I believe that the government seek to wreck the scheme and the coastal route proposals amendments that were agreed on Report go a long in any particular place. If we have an overriding way to providing a system that provides both those coastal access duty to provide the route, it ought not requirements. I also believe that the amendments that to be open to one particular landowner to block one the Government are putting forward today are a further part of the coastline simply because it is not for his step towards a system which is acceptable and workable. personal convenience. It clearly has to be both. I accept that cases will arise where people are I listened very carefully to the case that the noble aggrieved about the line of the route and the access Lord, Lord Pannick, put forward, which was persuasive land, but under those circumstances there must be an as usual. His amendment talks about exceptional overriding consideration that the route should go through. circumstances. The noble Lord said that it seeks to People cannot be allowed simply to block it because make the position clear. I do not agree that the words they do not like it, and that is what would happen if “exceptional circumstances” make the position clear we had CROW-type appeals. The Government briefing— at all, because there is no definition of what these are. again I run the risk of speaking to their amendment He went on to say that it is a “broad and general before they do—puts forward the case that the Secretary statement” as to what they would be. of State must have the right to look at a whole stretch The Government seem to be putting this forward of route and not the particular piece of land that is fairly specifically, and I welcome that. The noble Lord being appealed, which is what happens in CROW referred to four specific criteria. I find myself in a cases. The requirement that there should be consistency slightly difficult situation at the moment because I am when it comes to headlands, estuaries and so on must speaking to a government amendment that has not yet be right. It cannot be open to objectors in particular been moved by the Government, and I do not wish to places to argue a sui generis case for themselves do that for them. B, C and D seem to be cases where independent of what happens with the rest of the the decision of the inspector is wrong, for the reasons route. Consistency is important. The idea that one set out, and that can be clearly established, but decision narrow piece of land could be considered on its own A, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, did not like, and be binding on the Secretary of State is surely seems crucial because it introduces the concept of the wrong. If the movers of the amendment are saying public interest, as well as the private interest of the that these would be exceptional circumstances, they people with interests in the land. ought to propose the much clearer wording set out in the government amendment. It does what I have been trying to get the Government to do for some time, which they have been resisting in Committee and on Report—to relate the whole question 4.45 pm of fair balance, which is the criteria they have got, Facts are facts. Many of the decisions that will have between the perfectly proper interests of landowners to be made on where the access land should come and others with interest in land, the perfectly proper from and where the route should go will be matters of interests of recreational users, and the public interest judgment of the particular circumstances of the case. 449 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 450

[LORD GREAVES] to sound churlish when the great distance we have Attempts should be made to reach agreement between travelled on this issue has been a wonderful example of the parties, but where it cannot be reached, the overriding constructive debate. I thank the Minister and his consideration should be that the public interest and department for moving so far. that of this legislation must prevail. That is not the case in CROW appeals where the vegetation on the land is a matter of fact whether it is mountain, heath, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been moor or down. Opinions come into it, but the land is an interesting and apt debate on which to end our either heather or it is not, either crops are being grown deliberations on the Bill. Although we are disagreeing on it or it is natural grassland. Factual decisions are on the final wording in relation to the review process, much easier to reach, but they will be much more we should not underestimate the amount of consensus difficult to make on the coast. Therefore I am afraid that has been built. It is very important that, as the Bill that the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Goodlad leaves the House, we should reflect on that consensus. and Lord Pannick, although probably unintentionally, It has a further journey to travel in another place, is a wrecking amendment. I am astonished at how far where I am sure that our debates here will be reflected the Government have been able to go in order to upon. No doubt there will be considerable scrutiny satisfy the case put forward by the various committees there too, particularly in relation to the review process. on human rights and the constitution, and it is right I listened with great interest to the comments of the that they have done so. They have gone 95 per cent of noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and I know he is concerned the way and there comes a time when people should about damage to the environment. I understand that say thank you very much rather than try to push for concern. He made it clear that there is a real challenge the extra 5 per cent that, in my view, runs the risk of for Natural England to ensure that damage does not wrecking this great project. occur to the environment. I agree that the responsibility on Natural England is weighty indeed. I am sure it will Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank my be aided by the significant role that local authorities noble friend Lord Goodlad for tabling the amendment are to be given, as we have debated in previous stages and for giving us the opportunity to look at this point of the Bill. again. As chairman of the Constitution Committee, I shall deal with Amendment 27 before turning he has been extremely effective in pressing this issue. It to my amendments. I want to reiterate and assure was good to hear the contributions of noble Lords to noble Lords that the Secretary of State would not this debate, particularly the contribution of my noble depart lightly from the recommendations of the appointed friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who has a great person. Section 52 of the 1949 Act requires the Secretary interest in the coastal route and a great sensitivity of State, before reaching a determination on whether about the way in which it can be constructed. to approve Natural England’s proposals with As I made clear on Report, I share the concerns of modifications, to consult Natural England and such my noble friend Lord Goodlad about the possibility other authorities and persons as he thinks fit. that the Secretary of State would be able to ignore the Paragraph 16(3) to (5) of new Schedule 1A gives findings of the planning inspectorate and insist that the Secretary of State power to make provision in the route be imposed even in contravention of a fair regulations about the procedure to be followed where balance. The Government’s amendments in this group he is minded to approve proposals with modifications go some way towards alleviating my concern. I understand other than modifications made in accordance with the fully their desire to keep some flexibility, in the event a recommendation by the appointed person and to apply finding was perverse or otherwise fell into the reasons any provision of Schedule 1A. Any requirement proposed laid out in proposed headings (a), (c) and (d) of by such regulation is in addition to the duty to consult Amendment 28. As noble Lords have said, it is the under Section 52(1). I am happy to give an assurance Secretary of State who is ultimately democratically to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the Government accountable and he must take the final responsibility. intend to exercise that power so as to provide for I am still a little worried—and certainly much more consultation before the Secretary of State decides to worried by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord approve the proposals with modifications other than Greaves, who seems to have put his own interpretation any recommended by the appointed person. on the amendments—by proposed heading (a). I On the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Goodlad understand that the significance of the unfairness and Lord Pannick, I, too, reiterate the particular should be a contributing factor. A minor breach of thanks to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord fairness is obviously less serious than a major breach Goodlad, and to the work of the noble Lord, Lord and I can appreciate why such a consideration could Pannick, in enabling us to come more closely together, potentially make for a decision to be ignored. The even if we have not quite reached agreement yet. legislation would be better drafted to make it clear However, we have concerns with Amendment 27. First, that heading (a) is applicable only when the breach is there is the use of the word “exceptional”. I understand insignificant or minor. the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, saying that it was a The Government’s Amendment 29 reassures me a common-sense approach. Unfortunately, as my noble little. Proper transparency will help ensure sensible and learned friend Lord Morris has made clear, when decision-making but I would not be surprised if my it comes to legislation—indeed, as the Chamber has honourable colleagues in another place want to look filled up with noble Lords who are, I am sure, taking a carefully at these provisions once the Bill arrives there close interest in the Bill, the many of them who are from your Lordships’ House. However, I do not wish distinguished lawyers will know this—the problem is 451 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][8 JUNE 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 452 that we do not really know what that word means. It the appointed person and thereby unable to ensure could lead to actual uncertainty and disputes; that is that the proposals submitted for his approval fit together one of our problems here. properly and are broadly consistent in their overall Secondly, to preclude the Secretary of State from approach and with that taken in any other proposals reaching his own view on where the fair balance lies that he has previously approved. Again, that is a point would be inconsistent with his discretion to approve that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, commented upon. the proposals, with or without modifications, under That would be a recipe for unfairness and legal challenge the 1949 Act. Thirdly, the amendment would prevent to the overall result, in circumstances when the legislation the Secretary of State from achieving consistency of had in fact tied the hands of the Secretary of State in approach relating to Natural England’s proposals as a relation to any matter that had been the subject of an whole and to any other proposals. I think that was a objection and thus of a decision by the appointed point that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made. It is person. nice to have the noble Lord on my side, if only, alas, on Third Reading. None the less, it is extremely welcome. 5pm There may well be other parts of the route where The conditions in headings (b) to (d) mirror the similar considerations arise but which have not been standard criteria governing the limited circumstances the subject of objections. The question would then in which a court on judicial review can quash a decision arise whether the decision of the appointed person on a finding of fact: that there was insufficient evidence relating to an objection to one part of the route to make it; that it was based on irrelevant considerations constrained the Secretary of State from achieving or failed to take into account relevant considerations; consistency between that part and others where no or that it was otherwise perverse or irrational. Of objections had been raised, or constrained him to course, if the Secretary of State himself or herself achieve consistency only in the manner of the appointed makes an irrational decision in concluding that the person’s decision relating to the objection. It would be appointed person’s finding of fact was irrational in difficult to require the inspector to consider everything one of these ways, the Secretary of State would be that the Secretary of State takes into account. It liable to judicial review. would not seem appropriate to require the inspector to consider representations relating to other parts of the The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked me if the route that are not subject to an objection, but those exception in heading (b) means that the appointed representations might mention considerations relevant person could not properly have made the finding on to maintaining a consistent approach to the route the evidence available to the appointed person at the which is the subject of the report as a whole, or to the time. The answer is yes, that is exactly what it means. whole English coastal route. I hope that Amendment 29 further reassures the I am grateful to noble Lords who have discussed my House. It means that where the Secretary of State does amendments. Amendment 28 deals with what happens not follow a recommendation on a statement of fact—that when the appointed person considers a question of is, in the circumstances noted in Amendment 28 that I fact. It has been produced as a result of discussions have just described—the statement of reason required that have taken place with noble Lords after the noble by paragraph 17(4) of Schedule 1A to the 1949 Act Lord, Lord Pannick, made his comments on Report; must also include the reasons for not following the there have also been helpful discussions since then. recommendation. That paragraph relates to the statement The amendment means that where the report of an of reasons that the Secretary of State must provide for appointed person on an objection, his decision in relation to an objection when making a determination on a coastal access report. “contains a statement of a finding of fact, the Secretary of State in making the determination”, I hope that I can clear up any concern about the would be Planning Inspectorate. The reason why the Bill does “bound by that finding unless the Secretary of State is satisfied”, not make a direct reference to inspectors of the Planning Inspectorate is that we would not normally expect to either that it was be so specific in the Bill. I readily acknowledge the “perverse or irrational”, distinguished record of the Planning Inspectorate, but in one of the ways in which a court might find an that inspectorate might alter, disappear or change its administrative decision perverse or irrational on judicial name at some time in the future. The current wording review, and set it aside, or else that it, of the Bill preserves the ability to change the appointed “involves an assessment of the significance of a matter to any person in the future if necessary, and it is worth person with a relevant interest in land or to the public”. bearing in mind that the Planning Inspectorate is not a That latter condition is necessary to ensure that the body established by statute, so this flexibility is of Secretary of State is not precluded from reaching a particular relevance. view on the significance to the landowner or the public There may be cases where the Secretary of State of, for example, the proposed position of the route. It might decide that the most appropriate person to refer provides clarification that such an assessment is not to objections to is someone other than the Planning be treated as a simple “finding of fact” for the purpose Inspectorate. I acknowledge that the current wording of this schedule. It would be wholly inappropriate to gives us flexibility to do this, but, if that were to include provision which constrained the Secretary of happen, I am happy to assure noble Lords that we State’s discretion in relation to the essential question would expect that person to be of similar independence that he is required to decide—that is, where the fair and calibre. The intention, though, is that we would balance lies—so that he was bound by the decision of turn to the Planning Inspectorate. 453 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 454

[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH] I wish to thank noble Lords for their close attention At the end of the day, there is only a narrow gap to this vital Bill, which has been hugely enhanced by between us. The Government have listened carefully, the deliberations and changes that have been made which is why we now have a review procedure. I hope in your Lordships’ House. It is a tribute to the that my amendment provides some reassurance too. effectiveness of your Lordships’ House as a revising The Bill has quite a long way to go, but this is a Chamber. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, satisfactory outcome. I am grateful to noble Lords for Lord Greenway, whose committee made so many helpful their contribution. recommendations. I am grateful, as I have already said, to the noble Lords, Lord Goodlad and Lord Lord Goodlad: My Lords, I warmly support Pannick, and to other noble Lords who have represented government Amendments 28 and 29. I am extremely other Select Committees which have deliberated on grateful to the Government for coming as far as they the Bill. I thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the have, and I reiterate my particular thanks to the Minister noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, the noble Duke, the Duke for his unfailing courtesy during our proceedings in of Montrose, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—many of meetings and in correspondence. I hope that during whose amendments the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Bill’s further proceedings in another place, it may courageously took on—and the noble Lord, Lord be possible to produce further refinements to these Livsey. I am grateful also to my Bill team, who have proposals to take account of the considerations expressed been a magnificent support. in this helpful debate, particularly by the noble Lord, Believe it or not, it is World Oceans Day today. This Lord Pannick. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. was proposed in 1992 by the Government of Canada at the Earth Summit in Rio and has been unofficially Amendment 27 withdrawn. celebrated every year since then. However, as of today, the UN has officially declared it. I can think of no better day for this House to pass a Bill which I am sure Amendments 28 and 29 will enhance the marine environment in many years to Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath come. I beg to move. 28: Schedule 19, page 302, line 28, at end insert— “(2A) Where a report required to be considered under sub- Lord Greaves: My Lords, I echo a great deal of paragraph (1)(c) contains a statement of a finding of fact, the what the Minister said—I was going to make the Secretary of State in making the determination is bound by that six-month point before he pre-empted me. I think that finding unless the Secretary of State is satisfied— we have had 17 sessions, and there has hardly been a (a) that the finding involves an assessment of the sitting week when there has not been a day on the significance of a matter to any person with a relevant Marine and Coastal Access Bill. It has been an interest in land or to the public, extraordinary marathon. During the passage of Animal (b) that there was insufficient evidence to make the finding, Health Bill the Liberal Democrat Front Bench consisted (c) that the finding was made by reference to irrelevant of my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth and me, so factors or without regard to relevant factors, or I hope that the Government do not bring along any (d) that the finding was otherwise perverse or irrational.” more Bills for us in the near future. 29: Schedule 19, page 303, line 27, at end insert— I understand that the Minister is moving out of “( ) Where the Secretary of State was required under Defra and is taking on greater responsibilities in DECC. paragraph 16(1)(c) to consider a report and the Secretary of State We congratulate him on that and thank him—I believe, in making the determination does not follow a recommendation on behalf of the whole House—for his work during in the report, the statement of reasons required by sub-paragraph his time as a Defra Minister, which has not been as (4) must also include the reasons for not following the long as some. During my time here this House has recommendation.” benefited from some really good Defra Ministers, regardless of politics, and the Minister will go down in Amendments 28 and 29 agreed. the record book as one of them, if only for this Bill if A privilege amendment was made. for nothing else. I thank all Members of the House for their Motion co-operation, which has been so important. That includes the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the Conservative Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Front Bench as well as old sparring partners such as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. The Bill came to the That the Bill do now pass. House with great hope and expectation, but quite a lot of fear that the Government really did not mean what Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is worth they had said while the Bill was in gestation. It had a reflecting that we are one week short of six months huge amount of work done on it during the years spent on our deliberations. I had thought that this before it came here, including in the committee chaired might have been the longest-running Bill in the history by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on which I was of your Lordships’ House. Alas, I am informed that privileged to sit. I believe that while it has been here, the Animal Health Bill had its First Reading on we have given it a very thorough scrubbing down. It 13 December 2001 and its Third Reading on 4 November has also been significantly improved, which is a tribute 2002, but, although ours is not the longest-running to the whole House. I am very pleased that we on the Bill, my goodness me, we have certainly spent a long Liberal Democrat Benches have been able to contribute time at it. to that. I am very grateful indeed for the support I 455 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][8 JUNE 2009] Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case 456 have had from our team, which has made my life a Houses, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, great deal easier. I include my noble friend Lord Tyler, which has given an authority to much of what we who abandoned us after Committee stage for other discussed. places, as well as my noble friends mentioned by the The Ministers have listened to the debates with Minister. I refer in particular to my noble friend Lady respect and that respect is reciprocated. The noble Miller of Chilthorne Domer, whose expertise on the Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Davies of conservation side I found very valuable, and to my Oldham, have, as I said, responded to our debates and noble friends Lord Livsey and Lord Wallace of Tankerness listened to our concerns. The Bill is so successful for their Welsh and Scottish input. I will not say that because they have been prepared to listen and, more to my noble friend Lord Wallace is the predominant the point, to act. They and the Bill team will be expert on Scotland in the House; I will say that no one delivering the Bill in much better shape than it was is better than him. He knows as much about Scotland when it arrived. After the debates in this House the as anyone for obvious reasons. Bill will move on with the authority of this House and The ministerial team, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in a much better condition. It is a great challenge to and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who has establish marine conservation zones for the first time entertained us on a number of late evening sessions and to establish the right of access around our coast. with his wit and his ability to talk about anything at These are great challenges and the legislation has in any time of day or night in the hope that the rest of us some cases been very complex. I join other noble go to sleep and do not pursue it further—I say touché Lords in the thanks they have given. A long journey it to that—has been combative, has discussed and argued may have been, but it has been well worth while. the case, and has then listened, understood and come back with compromise and consensus and understanding 5.15 pm and explanation. They have been absolutely wonderful. Finally, I should like to say that the Bill team has been Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I should like brilliant. Of all the Bills I have been closely involved to respond to the kind comments of both noble Lords. with in the nine years that I have been in your Lordships’ On the importance of the legislation, it is unlikely, as House, this is the best Bill team I have ever come has often been said in our debates, that other marine across. It is a huge team obviously, because it is a huge legislation will be coming to your Lordships’ House Bill—but they really have been good. The amount of for many a year once this Bill is enacted. It was work, effort and discussion that they have been prepared therefore vital to achieve a consensual approach so to put in—beyond the call of duty, outside the formal that there was confidence in the shape of the legislation. sessions—has been superb. That has been a major I reiterate my thanks to all noble Lords who helped contribution to the fact that this Bill really is a good that to happen. Bill leaving this House. The Bill team has been magnificent; I very much When this Bill finally gets through the House of echo the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves Commons and becomes law, perhaps the Bill team and Lord Taylor. As for the six-month leave of absence, leader, Mrs Linskey, might take six months off and I doubt whether that is enough to write a treatise on write the definitive work on the relationship between devolution and the marine environment, although I devolution and the maritime environment. We send suspect that there is a PhD in there for someone. this Bill to the House of Commons with continued Finally, I have had my noble friend Lord Davies beside hope and expectation. All we can do is hope that the me. It is the first time that I have worked with him on a House of Commons will improve it further and then Bill in detail. He has been a magnificent support. He send it back to us for our final approval. does extraordinary service to the House and it is a real pleasure to have worked with him. Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I apologise to Bill passed and sent to the Commons. noble Lords who are here for the following programme for the delay but it is one of the delights of this House that, at the conclusion of the debates on the Bill, we have a chance to say thank you. I should like to start Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case with acknowledging the role played by the noble Lord, Statement Lord Hunt, as principal Minister on the Bill. We are very sorry that he is relinquishing the Defra brief but 5.17 pm he has been incredibly busy over these past few months, in particular with the responsibilities for this Bill. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, with permission, I I shall turn, if I may, to those to whom I owe the should like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in greatest debt—my own team. I have been really well another place by my right honourable friend the Lord supported, not only from the Front Bench but also Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. from the Back Benches. I am grateful for the support I have had from my noble friends Lord Kingsland and “With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to Lord Goodlad and my noble friend Lady Byford. I make a Statement on the case of Dano Sonnex. thank my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and my Last Thursday, Sonnex was convicted with Nigel noble friend Lord Cathcart for their particular support. Farmer of the brutal and sadistic murder of two Contributions from all parts of the House have greatly French students, Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez. strengthened the quality of our debates, built as they They were killed on 29 June last year at their flat in have been on the work of the Joint Committee of both New Cross in the London Borough of Lewisham. 457 Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case[LORDS] Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case 458

[LORD BACH] was a wholly unacceptable delay, and, tragically, too I know I speak for the whole House in sending our late for Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez, as it was deepest sympathies to the families of the two young the same day that the murders were committed. victims of this appalling crime. I have twice met the While responsibility for the murders lies with the families and have discussed the case with the French perpetrators alone, the successive failings that I have Ambassador. The families will continue to be given outlined meant that Sonnex was free to kill these every possible support in their time of grief. young men when he could and should have been Sonnex was a serious criminal. At the time of the locked up. This was not a question of poor resources, murders he could and should have been in custody. but of poor judgments and poor management within The background is as follows. In 2003, Sonnex was London Probation, as well as errors by the Metropolitan sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for multiple Police and the Prison Service. As Secretary of State offences. He behaved violently in prison and admitted responsible for the probation and prison services, I to a prison medical officer that his ‘reactions could take responsibility for their failings, and the Metropolitan kill’. He was released from prison on 8 February 2008, Police take responsibility for theirs. On behalf of each the latest date he could lawfully be held in custody, agency, I have apologised to the families of Laurent having twice been refused parole. He was on licence, Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez, and I do so again today. liable to recall, until 11 October. Let me now set out the action that has been undertaken On Sonnex’s release, there were serious failings by since these failures came to light in July last year. After prison and probation staff. Potentially crucial information the murders, London Probation held an immediate such as that from the medical officer, which I have just ‘serious further offence’ review into the case. This was quoted, was not shared between the prison, police and completed in October 2008. In light of its findings, a probation. Sonnex was never adequately assessed for more detailed NOMS investigation was established. risk, or considered for multiagency public protection Having considered this report, I determined with senior arrangements, both of which would have resulted in officials that the situation in London Probation warranted more intensive community supervision. the most severe intervention statutorily available to me, and that the chief officer of London Probation Within days of release, Sonnex and another individual would be suspended pending the results. were alleged to have tied up a relative and her partner and violently threatened them. The allegations were Having been informed of this decision and having subsequently withdrawn, so the police pursued the reviewed the investigation reports, the chief officer matter no further. Probation staff then judged that very honourably accepted responsibility for the failures this incident merited nothing more than a formal and resigned on 27 February. Pending recruitment of warning. This was clearly a further error. The seriousness a permanent replacement, I approved the appointment of the allegation warranted a revised risk assessment of an experienced former chief officer, Paul Wilson, to and referral to a multiagency public protection panel. lead London Probation from March. Meanwhile, London This did not take place. Probation conducted disciplinary investigations into In the event, Sonnex did comply with his licence the staff directly responsible for managing Sonnex, requirements until 23 April, when he was arrested for which determined that the failings were due to factors handling stolen goods and remanded in custody. On beyond their control. As a result, one individual received 3 May, his offender manager initiated the process to mandatory retraining, but no formal disciplinary action recall him to prison in light of the alleged offence. was taken. However, at a handling-stolen-goods court hearing on Separately, in July 2008 the Metropolitan Police 16 May, Sonnex was granted bail. From the record of referred the case to the Independent Police Complaints the hearing, it seems that the prosecutor believed that Commission. The Met has accepted both the IPCC’s Sonnex was being recalled to prison anyway, and subsequent recommendations, and the Home Secretary consequently did not oppose bail. But exactly what will ensure that they are urgently implemented by transpired is still not clear. What is clear is that every force. One police officer received a disciplinary Sonnex should not have been released onto the streets warning. The Met now has a unit in each borough that day. dedicated to arresting wanted offenders. It has also The recall process was then poorly handled and put in place revised systems, with other agencies, to subject to unacceptable delay by probation staff. In improve information-sharing and ensure the identification addition, the police failed to share information with and timely arrest of such offenders. probation that should have altered Sonnex’s risk In February this year I agreed, following the chief assessment. The recall was not submitted for approval officer’s departure, that London Probation’s performance to the NOMS Public Protection Unit until 12 June, should be subjected to the most intensive scrutiny which turned it around promptly and issued the recall available. London Probation is also taking steps to revocation notice to the police the next day. The provide far greater senior level scrutiny and prioritisation probation service labelled the recall as ‘standard’ rather of high-risk offenders. The new London Director of than ‘emergency’, which meant that the police target Offender Management will report monthly to my time to return Sonnex to prison was 96 hours instead honourable friend the Prisons and Probation Minister of 48. on progress, and my honourable friend will update The execution of the warrant was complicated by Parliament in the autumn. police concerns about whether Sonnex had access to In March, I asked Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of firearms. In the event, the police did not attempt to Probation, Andrew Bridges, to conduct a series of serve the warrant and arrest him until 29 June. This case inspections in London. Mr Bridges has completed 459 Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case[8 JUNE 2009] Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case 460 the inspection covering Greenwich and Lewisham, then said that there was underspend in London. I shall where Sonnex was managed, and has published his ask later whether that was a case of underspend in findings. Further reports will be published in the coming advance of further cuts in his department’s budget. It months. If I am not satisfied there has been significant also found wrong assessments and a whole series of progress, I will not hesitate to intervene again. systematic failures. Does the noble Lord accept that, Finally, every probation area in the country has faced with failings so wide and deep, it is inappropriate been instructed urgently to re-examine the way they to single out one official for blame? Does he recognise manage offenders presenting a risk of harm, in light of the succession of breaches for which Ministers have, in the failings in this case. the end, to bear the primary responsibility as a failure of government? All the investigation reports were published last Thursday as soon as the verdicts were known. Their The noble Lord gave some account of the career of recommendations have been accepted in full. Copies Dano Sonnex, a dangerous criminal who slipped through of the Serious Further Offence review, the NOMS every part of the system. His risk rating was mysteriously report, the Chief Inspector of Probation’s report and downgraded from high to medium. The probation a London Criminal Justice Board report are available officer in charge was overworked and overwhelmed. in the Vote Office and the House Library. Even at this stage, tragedy was avoidable. Sonnex The failings in the Sonnex case are a matter of then—as the noble Lord told us—tied up a relative profound sorrow and regret to everyone concerned. It and her partner, held a knife to her throat and threatened is, however, important in considering this case that we them with a hammer. Fortunately, they managed to do not unduly tarnish the work of all those dedicated escape. Can the noble Lord explain just how, after professionals who deal every day with some of the that, Sonnex only received a verbal warning? He was most dangerous and unpredictable individuals in our then arrested for handling stolen goods. Obviously, society. But nor were these failures the result of a lack these are only the crimes that we know about; there of resources. Probation funding has increased by may be more. He was inexplicably bailed. We understand 70 per cent in real terms since 1997. London Probation that prosecution counsel did not oppose this because underspent its £154 million budget by £3.5 million last Sonnex was not expected to get bail. Recall proceedings year. Rather, this was a failure to use resources effectively. were initiated by the probation service but took over a month just to be processed. As the noble Lord admitted When serious offenders are released into the community in his Statement, this is wholly unacceptable. By this having completed their sentence, there will always be time it was too late. I will not repeat the horrific trail some risk that they will offend again. However, the of events that followed. criminal justice system has a duty to manage and minimise that risk. Where the system failed in this These failings span our courts, the probation service case, action has been taken. I will personally be monitoring and the Prison Service. Does the noble Lord accept progress until I am satisfied standards have improved. that they are the direct result of an overcrowded The safety of the public and the memory of the two prison estate, which has led Ministers to put concerted young men whose lives were so brutally taken demand pressure on the courts and probation staff not to use no less”. custody, even when, as here, it was vital to protect the public? That is the primary duty of the Government. I commend this Statement to the House. That Does he accept that the failure to deliver on yet completes the Statement. another IT system—namely C-NOMIS, which links the courts, prisons and the probation service—left staff ill-equipped to cope? The failure of IT systems is 5.28 pm quite a constant complaint against the Government. Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for Would the £40 million or so squandered on C-NOMIS repeating the Statement. I join him in expressing—as I have been better spent on strengthening front-line think everyone in the House would want to—our officer capacity? Does the Minister accept the independent deepest sympathy to the families of Laurent Bonomo review’s finding that the local probation service was and Gabriel Ferez. All of us were deeply shocked at inadequately staffed, diluting the supervision of such the horrendous murder of those two young students a high-risk offender? Does he also accept its finding by Dano Sonnex and Nigel Farmer. I think all of us that the probation service focused on Sonnex’s agree—as the Minister made clear in the Statement—that employment and accommodation needs, when its number nothing can excuse or detract from the personal one priority, as I said earlier, should have been public responsibility of the perpetrators of these murders. protection? This is yet another symptom of the However, no one can ignore the serious and systematic Government’s confused priorities, paralysis and lack failures across the entire criminal justice system that of direction. led to those tragic deaths, nor this Government’s gross Now we have the Government’s response, which is dereliction of their first duty—to protect the public. merely to engage in further procedural tinkering. That Having said that, I am grateful that at least we had is precisely the approach that the Secretary of State for from the Secretary of State for Justice—as repeated by Justice has adopted today. For example, probation the Minister—a full acceptance of responsibility. officers will get new guidance and a new template for The independent review into this case found errors managing high-risk offenders. Such is the gulf between of judgment, failures of communication and inadequate the challenges facing the probation service and the staffing levels. I say in passing, that the noble Lord Government’s capacity to meet them. I come now to told us that this was not a matter of resources and the question of increased resources. The noble Lord boasted, as always, of an increase in resources, but said that there was an underspend in the London 461 Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case[LORDS] Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case 462

[LORD HENLEY] resources that are made available to the criminal justice region. We understand that there will be some £30 million system have been slanted not towards the probation of fresh cuts to front-line probation services. Can the service but towards the creation of more and more Minister confirm that? It is the equivalent of losing prison places. This is a matter about which we have around 800 probation officers. Back-room bureaucracy constantly complained from these Benches and we will bloats that even further. do so again during the Bill that will start its Committee With the Justice Department issuing directions for stage tomorrow. probation reports on those released on licence for life The problems are not rooted in individuals. Indeed, to be reduced from every three months to every six only one individual was criticised in the report and months, how can the Justice Secretary give the House was disciplined simply by being given a written warning. and the public the unequivocal assurance that these It is not an individual failure; it is a failure of a chaotic tragedies will not be repeated? I have put several prison policy and, in this case, a failure to implement questions to the noble Lord. No doubt others will be effective IT systems. Chronic staff shortages have put to him, but I very much hope that, in the course of contributed to the failures that have been identified the afternoon, he will take the trouble to answer mine. and the errors were not of judgment. The key error was inexperienced and inadequate supervision of Sonnex’s probation officer. That, of course, arises from a lack 5.34 pm of resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, pointed Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, thank out, London Probation’s budget had not been completely the Minister for his Statement. I concur with the used up. It is clearly a question of putting more sympathy that he has expressed towards the families of resources into the probation service and reducing the these two young men. In April 2008, Sonnex was pressure on the resources required for prison. There arrested and charged with handling stolen goods. He has to be a complete rebalancing of the way in which was remanded in custody until 16 May 2008. The we deal with offenders. Certainly, offenders who are probation service told the court that a recall was in dangerous should be retained in custody, but many process and requested that remand continue. It appears more could be released from prison without danger to that there was a misunderstanding. The court assistant the public; that would release resources for preventive thought that the recall would commence immediately work in the wider sense. and that there would be no need to deal with the I have only one question for the Minister in relation question of bail, since Sonnex would already be in to the report of the IPCC investigation. That does not custody. Bail was not opposed and was technically and appear to have been released. The Minister said in the actually granted because of that mistake. Statement that one police officer has been disciplined, The nub of the matter is that Sonnex was assessed but we were told nothing more. The report has not, as as high risk in custody but the probation officer’s I understand it, been put into the public domain. assessment, as recorded, was that he was medium risk. The result of that discrepancy was that Sonnex was 5.40 pm allocated to an offender management unit, rather than Lord Bach: My Lords, on that last point, as I the higher level public protection unit. What was the understand it, headlines on the main points of that reason for that? First, his probation officer had only IPCC report have been published in the usual way, but been qualified for nine months and had a caseload not the full report. That is the usual way that these of 127, which she inherited on appointment from an things are done. Before I continue, I thank both noble officer who was on sick leave. Immediately, on Lords from the Front Benches very much for what appointment, she was given 127 cases to handle. Her they had to say about this terrible case. immediate superior was acting up and subsequently I do not wish to be long in responding, but a failed the assessment for permanent promotion. Levels number of points clearly need answering. The noble of sickness and vacancy in the boroughs of Lewisham Lord, Lord Henley, asked about the assault allegation and Greenwich are much higher than elsewhere and made against Sonnex days after he had been released. staff at all levels reported that they were overwhelmed The complainants in that case withdrew their allegations with work. The most experienced probation officer and, consequentially, the police felt that there was no had been qualified for just two years. These staff were case against Sonnex. But of course, in the circumstances, put in charge of a person who had been assessed as that should have led the relevant probation service presenting a high risk of dangerous behaviour. people to realise that something urgently needed to be Secondly, probation officers were discouraged from done in terms of this man. That was one of the failings classifying offenders as high risk unless it was absolutely in this case. necessary, due to overstretch in the public protection As far as the prison estate is concerned, it is not unit. Such was the degree of overstretch that staff in right and proper to say that this tragic double murder the local public protection unit had issued a joint took place because too many people were in prison. grievance statement in September 2008. The probation The fact is that at least one person should have been, service was under conflicting pressures to recall cases but was not, in prison on the day when Sonnex committed speedily to ensure public protection on the one hand, this murder. Nor is it right to say, in our view, that but to avoid recalling them unless it was absolutely resources were at the heart of this matter. The truth is, necessary on the other. They had to be sure that it was as the director-general of NOMS said the other day, absolutely necessary because of prison overcrowding. that, It is wrong, then, to say that resources had nothing to “This particular office was running very badly, there were very do with this. One must look at the wider system. The high levels of sick”. 463 Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case[8 JUNE 2009] Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case 464

The average number of sick days taken off was 27 per an unprovoked stabbing of a young man known to the year. That was much higher than the overall average. accused. The victim received injuries to his chest and The director-general continued: back, and he sustained a collapsed lung. On 13 September “staff were therefore dealing with too large a caseload. It wasn’t 2002, various robberies were committed by Sonnex. being managed properly, which is why I think there were serious He was in possession of a blank firing pistol and a management failures”. knife, both of which were used. He was then arrested He went on to say: and remanded in custody three days later, before coming “We are sorting out those management issues and joining up before the court on 13 March the following year, 2003, prison and probation better to make sure information passes and given a total of eight years’ detention. At that better”. time he was under 21. I am afraid I am not in a The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked why an position to tell the noble and learned Lord what the underspend was recorded in 2008-09. London Probation facts of the offence of handling stolen goods were, frankly should have aimed to make full and effective except to say that until that time Sonnex had been use of the budget that was allocated for that year. We clever enough not to breach the terms of his licence—he do not recognise the figure that has been suggested of had turned up weekly. After that hearing he was £30 million in cuts. Indeed, it is important to point out bailed. the amount of money that has been poured into the I know that the Statement is hard on the probation probation service over the past number of years—not service—the noble and learned Lord is right. My right just nationally, but into the probation service in London. honourable friend was careful to say—I repeat it now— I should point out to noble Lords that in 2001-02 the that the point is not to unduly tarnish the work of figure was £94 million; in 2008-09 it was £153 million. those many dedicated professionals who deal each day The number of probation officers nationally has increased with very dangerous and unpredictable individuals in by a large amount in the past 12 years or so. In the probation service. The noble and learned Lord particular, the number of probation service officers points out that one of the worst aspects of this case has increased by a huge amount in that time. There was the delay between the police being told that this has been a lot of investment in the probation service. I man should be picked up and his being picked up. We am afraid that these tragic events happened because agree with that, although other important errors had this particular part of the probation service in London been made before that time, not the least of which was just was not managed well in any sense at all. the granting of bail on 16 May, and also the wrong The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that staff were description of him as being medium rather than high discouraged from assessing offenders as high risk, due risk when he left prison. to resources. We do not accept that for a moment. This Why was there such a long delay before his arrest? has never been the case. We have been looking hard to The recall notice about Sonnex was classified as make sure that appropriate risk assessments are made “standard”, which means that action is dealt with in every case. when resources allow. The target time for this response I think I have dealt with the questions that have is 96 hours. The matter should have been brought to been raised. This remains an absolutely tragic case and the attention of the daily management meeting, however, it is very important that everyone who has responsibility for a decision. This did not happen due to confusion for it should take responsibility for it. That is what the about responsibilities and misinterpretation. There is Secretary of State has done and that is why he came no excuse for what happened. before the other place to make this Oral Statement about this case. Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could help the House on two 5.46 pm matters. First, is it generally the policy of the police, and particularly the Metropolitan Police, that if serious Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, can the noble allegations are made and then withdrawn, so far as Lord tell us a little more about the nature of the they are concerned generally speaking that is the end offences for which Sonnex was sentenced to eight of the matter? There may be a number of reasons why years’ imprisonment in 2003? The offence for which he such allegations are withdrawn and threats are certainly was arrested on 23 April 2008, and subsequently recalled, a possible explanation. Secondly, in relation to the was not one of violence, but of handling stolen goods. grant of bail, that was presumably a decision of the Can the Minister say more about the circumstances court. I am not sure who, under present arrangements, of that offence, and whether there was any suggestion is responsible to account to Parliament for that. Has of violence at that time? The Statement is very hard on that been investigated and exactly what happened in the failings of the probation service. No doubt, there that particular grant been identified? were serious failings on its part, but does the noble Lord agree that the critical failure was the failure of Lord Bach: My Lords, as far as the police were the Metropolitan Police to execute the recall warrant concerned, I do not know whether they passed on the between 13 and 29 June 2008? Can he say more about fact that this particular allegation had been made and the reasons for that apparently unexplained delay? then withdrawn. I can tell the noble and learned Lord that, as part of his seemingly good conduct towards Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall do my best to assist his licence, Sonnex was clever enough to tell his probation the House on the questions that the noble and learned officer that there had been this allegation made against Lord properly asked. The original crime committed him and no doubt went on to say that it was completely on 13 May 2002, when Sonnex was 16 years old, was false and that it was proved to be false because the 465 Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case[LORDS] Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case 466

[LORD BACH] officer of London, in accepting responsibility for this police were not continuing with the action. That is one case and resigning. I am sure he will know as well that, way in which the probation service knew that this in addition to being chief probation officer of London, allegation had been made. David Scott was elected by his peers to be head of the As far as why bail was granted, as the Statement National Association of Probation Officers, which says, it is not absolutely clear, but it sounds as though was founded collectively to give a voice to the probation there was a confusion between the prosecution service, service which was denied to it when the post of director which was under the assumption not to oppose bail of the National Probation Service was removed under for the comparatively minor offence of handling stolen the latest NOMS agency directive. This meant that goods, because it presumed he was going to be rearrested there was no professional head of the service. as soon as he left the dock, and the fact that that did In that statement, he drew attention to some of the not happen. When he was formally granted bail by the problems that he was facing. Before I ask my direct court, he left the court a free man. It was an inexcusable question, I must make two challenges to the Minister mistake. on what he said. Talking about budgets, I have already quoted in this House the statement made by the Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, my noble auditor of the London probation service that trying to friend has said that Sonnex was never adequately manage that budget was akin to trying to land a assessed for risk or considered for multi-agency public jumbo jet on a postage stamp because of the frequent protection arrangements, both of which, he has said, changes of rules, the late arrival of money and so on. would have resulted in more intensive community Therefore to just say it was an underspend is unfair to supervision. Is not the sad fact of this case that, even if the probation system, which was always working under there had been more intensive community supervision, considerable problems, put on it by NOMS, to enable the tragedy could still have happened because, however it either to know how much money it had got or how it intensive, it would still not have been comprehensive, could spend it. 24-hour supervision? It is so easy to criticise members As far as officers are concerned, the National of the probation service who work in very difficult Association of Probation Officers stated at the same circumstances and with very difficult individuals. There time that, despite all the money that has been put in seems to have been a hint in what my noble friend said and all the extra probation service officers and bureaucrats, that perhaps the probation service was rather more there has been a 9 per cent reduction in the number of concerned with the welfare of the offender rather than probation officers. It is probation officers who should with public protection. We see the fact that he was be dealing with people of the capability of Sonnex. assessed as medium risk, as standard rather than My question reverts to particularly to David Scott, emergency, and so on. a very senior, highly regarded, widely respected person. However junior the front-line individual, or however The decision was taken that he should either be called shortly after their training this happened, was the upon to resign, or something else should happen. I failing in part a failure to refer up to someone who was think the Minister said in the Statement that this was more experienced? Were there failures of management some time between October when he submitted his in that sense, which could have produced a more report and February. Was the encouragement to resign mature judgment in respect of this individual? given to him personally by the Secretary of State or by the chief executive of the National Offender Management Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Service, or was it left to some subordinate? when he talks about the marvellous work that the probation service does in general. I accept that in any Lord Bach: My Lords, I recognise the expertise of case, however intense supervision is, you may get the noble Lord in this field. Unfortunately, I do not people committing terrible crimes when they are on know the answer to the direct question he asked me licence. That is true. In this case, this particular defendant, about how it came about that Mr Scott resigned. I at the time the murder was committed, should have accept that the remarks of Mr Scott are dignified, as been in custody. That did not happen, however. The he describes them, and it is no part of my function reason why he was considered high risk in prison was here today to make that position any worse. because he was seen by a doctor some years before, I know that there are genuine arguments about not long after he had started his long sentence, who, as probation between the noble Lord and others and the I quoted in the Statement, had said that Sonnex thought Government, but some facts are indisputable: many he was capable of killing. Obviously, therefore he resources have gone into probation over a number of would have been considered high risk. When he came years and the number of probation officers is higher. out of prison, because he was then an adult over 21, he That there were considerable problems in London, was for some reason described as just a medium risk. and in particular in Greenwich and Lewisham, has to Events followed on from that. be acknowledged. However, sometimes the fault is not The very junior or very inexperienced probation a lack of resources but is just managerial failure, and I officer who had the misfortune to have control of this think that that is what it was on this occasion. case, along with many others, sought advice from those above her. I am afraid that the advice she got Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder whether my was not good advice. noble friend can help me on one main point. It seems to me that the two failures that caused this dreadful Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I am sure that the affair were, first, the one raised by the noble and Minister will have read the very responsible and dignified learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and, secondly, the granting statement made by David Scott, the chief probation of bail. I do not understand how bail was granted in 467 Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 468 this case and I should be very grateful if my noble planned to make a Statement about the future training friend could say what level of court granted it. Presumably of probation officers. As I understand it, it will be probation officers were present and no doubt they made tomorrow, although it may be delayed. gave the court information about Sonnex’s previous convictions and offences. Perhaps the Crown Prosecution Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the Minister Service thought that it did not really matter because it not agree that there are two ways of approaching this knew that he would be rearrested as soon as he came terrible tragedy? One is to examine in detail each and out of court. Is that normal practice? If so, it seems to every mistake and omission and to say, “There is the be extraordinarily dangerous. Finally—I think that amalgam of coincidences that has brought about what I am really asking here is something that I am this outrageous situation”. However, another way of not supposed to ask—once the application for bail approaching it is to look at the heart, core and kernel had been made, why did the judge come to the conclusion of the underlying situation, which, I suggest with great that he did? I do not know whether my noble friend respect to the Minister, is one of resources. I understand can help me on any of those matters. that in the London probation area the average caseload for a probation officer is 90 cases, which is much too Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall do my best but I high. Secondly, as we heard, the officer in this case cannot help my noble friend too much because, as the had been in post for nine months and was dealing with Statement said, in the end the granting of bail is 127 cases. In the circumstances, it is not utterly unrealistic inexplicable. It took place in the magistrates’ court. I to say that this is not a resource matter? Although I do not believe that the probation officer was present in appreciate that Her Majesty’s Government have generously court, but on that day there was communication between added to the budget of the probation service over the the probation officer and the Crown Prosecution Service, years, they have also generously added to the service’s and so, as I understand it, the Crown Prosecution responsibilities on a massive scale. In the circumstances, Service was aware that this man was wanted on licence. will the Minister undertake to look at this central No doubt the defence solicitor made the application feature and to approach the issue directly and swiftly? on the basis that this was a clearing-up exercise and that there was no point in remanding this man in custody for handling stolen goods when there were Lord Bach: My Lords, we maintain that resources much bigger issues involving him, and therefore bail were not the central issue here. Other high-performing was given. I am in danger of employing guesswork, areas had similar budget pressures, both inside and which I must be careful not to do, but I think that my outside London, and they continued to deliver a much noble friend and I can agree that the giving of bail was better service than that delivered by this area of Greenwich a dreadful mistake. and Lewisham. Of course we take into account what the noble Lord says about the general issues concerning Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, there the probation service, but I think that we sometimes seems to be an inference that a lot of the problems have to accept that disasters and tragedies of this kind were associated with the probation service, but I think happen because of managerial inefficiency and not that it is getting a slightly hard hearing because, looking just because there are insufficient resources. Here, we at this in the round, it would appear that the failings maintain that the amount of money that the London went right across the board. Indeed, I would argue probation service and, in particular, the Greenwich that some of them were strategic failings. and Lewisham probation service received was sufficient for them to do the work that was necessary.Unfortunately, The Minister has told us repeatedly that the underspend that work was not well managed. of the budget almost proves that the resources were not being managed, and that therefore the issue was not resources but the mistakes made in the system. I recall that in a debate on 14 May the noble Lord told Business Rate Supplements Bill us about the cuts that the Ministry of Justice had to Report make in this area. I reminded him that Napo says that some 50 per cent of the 400 probation officers being 6.07 pm trained will not be given assignments at the end of their training later this year. Can the Minister tell us whether, looking forward, he is now reassessing the Clause1:Powertoimpose a BRS impact of those budget cuts on the caseload of the probation service, particularly when such junior people are given so much responsibility? Amendment 1 Moved by Baroness Hamwee Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. 1: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, at beginning insert “Subject to the There were failings across the board, and I hope that provision of section 4,” neither I nor the Statement has suggested that they were purely down to the probation service. They were Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I welcome the noble not; the failings, which led almost inevitably to this Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who is a veritable and tragedy, were much more widespread than that. valiant Pooh-Bah, taking up this Bill at what I assume It is right that until now training has not always was very short notice. I should say almost in the same matched the number of jobs that are out there. However, breath that I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, I can tell the noble Baroness that the Government had Lady Andrews, is not here to see it through this stage. 469 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 470

[BARONESS HAMWEE] knowing what is good for them. It fails the test of what She described the Bill as “pristine” when she first is right. She said that one third was “a fair point” introduced it. We are hoping that it will become a little because the business rates supplement is, grubbier as we go through today. “a smaller player in terms of the overall funding of a project”.— I should declare an interest as one of three joint [Official Report, 11/5/09; col. GC 329.] presidents of London Councils. I was also a member Whatever the proportion of the total cost, the effect of the London Assembly, part of the Greater London on the individual ratepayer of that BRS will not vary. Authority, and the London Borough of Richmond In the case of the other contributors to a project upon Thames. when there are a number of funders of a package, As well as moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also each contributor or investor will take a decision as to to Amendments 6 to 9, 20, 21 and 25 to 28. Amendment 1 its own contribution—its loan or whatever it might be. is a paving amendment and, I accept, not a very subtle In the case of BRS, it will be the local authority, not one at that. This is the way we do things here. The the ratepayers, which will take the decision about the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on behalf of the Conservative “smaller contributions”. The CBI and others have put Benches, has put his name to all the amendments in forward arguments in support of a mandatory ballot this tranche. I am grateful for that. The Bill provides on the basis of its practical benefits because business for a ballot if more than one third of the total cost of has better experience and understanding of investment the project is to be raised from the business rate than local authorities. They may have a point, but for supplement or if the levying authority decides to hold us this is a matter of principle. Describing a mandatory a ballot. For us on these Benches—and, I believe, for ballot, as the Minister did in the Commons, as giving all the Opposition—it is a point of principle that all business a veto, is, as I have said before, offensive. those who are being asked to contribute should have I should make clear that the amendments would their say, whatever the proportion of the BRS to the not bring Crossrail within the ballot provisions because total cost of the project. Their view may, of course, of the amendment to Clause 27 agreed in Grand not prevail—that is in the nature of voting—but they Committee. Crossrail is very different. It has been the should be given the opportunity to exercise a vote. We subject of discussion, publicly available information are well aware that the Local Government Association and legislation over a long period, as has the contribution is not enthusiastic about having a ballot in all cases. I of businesses with a high rateable value. suspect that this has something to do with a mixture of My amendments are not an attack on local amour-propre and pride, confidence in how local government. If a local authority has the confidence to authorities operate, and, no doubt, the cost of holding propose a project and put together a funding package, ballots. I explained in Committee that, although I it should have the confidence that local business will would normally be heard to be supporting local support it. It will have to put it to local business if authorities, that support is not without a critical approach. business is to contribute more than a third. After all, I believe in this case that the claim of the business what is appropriate for BIDs is appropriate for the organisations for a ballot and, more importantly, our bigger schemes which are likely to be the subject of the own values and the strength of our own feeling about business rate supplement. I beg to move. the necessity of allowing for a ballot should prevail. At the previous stage the Minister quoted the LGA’s claim that no authority will make a decision that has a 6.15 pm detrimental effect on its local business community. Of course not, but that is not quite an accurate description. Lord Bates: My Lords, I support this amendment No authority will make a decision which it thinks will and endorse the remarks so ably made by the noble have a detrimental effect on its local business community. Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I want to put on record our But that is not the point. What is proper is that thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for the business should be able to express its view via a ballot way in which she has conducted the negotiations and and affect the outcome. Views will have been expressed discussion, trying to keep us informed throughout this before a ballot through consultation. The two stages process. We have appreciated it and it has helped of consultation and ballot are complementary, not enormously, even if we have not always been able to alternative. The Minister defended the provision that agree. In that respect, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord there should be a compulsory ballot if one third of the Davies, to this part of the debate. costs are to be met by the BRS and said: We start with an issue which has been rightly identified “I would ask noble Lords to think about whether it would be as one of principle. The objective of the Business right, democratic or fair that an entire project of some significance Rates Supplements Bill, we are led to believe, is to that was being marshalled by a balance of partners should be put encourage a genuine partnership between business in jeopardy due to uncertainty over a relatively small but critical and local authorities. How can there be a genuine element of a funding package. I would argue that it unbalances the partnership and introduces an avoidable degree of uncertainty. partnership if one argument is that business has a veto It is not worth taking that risk if the BRS is contributing only to a and the other is that local authorities have a veto relatively small proportion of the overall funding package, which about consulting with local businesses? The noble is one that would genuinely help business because it will be the Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already referred to a test to be applied”. particularly interesting exchange in Committee when A relatively small proportion which would genuinely the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked noble Lords help business? This is a top-down approach. I am sure to think about whether it would be right, democratic that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, did not mean or fair to consult with businesses. That seems in many this. It quite honestly just dismisses businesses as not ways to give away the myth of what is going on here. 471 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 472

What has been proposed is not really a partnership and which is notionally presented as for their benefit is but a tax. Therefore, there is no desire to involve unacceptable. I am therefore very happy to support businesses in the decision. the amendment and hope that it is secured. There is a problem with the notion of the threshold: where the proposal for a business rates supplement Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I did not take exceeds one-third of the total cost being put forward, part in the debate in Grand Committee. I have of that gives rise to a ballot. That leaves it open, given course received the briefing from the Local Government that there is such an arbitrary strike of where that Association suggesting that there should not be ballots boundary should fall, for local authorities to so manage in all cases. When I told someone who was arguing their affairs in putting forward these proposals that a that there should be ballots in all cases that the Local ballot does not actually take place. The simple way of Government Association does not want that, they starting off on the right footing towards making this a gave the Mandy Rice-Davies answer: “Well, they would genuine partnership is to say that business involvement say that, wouldn’t they?”. That is the position I have is essential from the outset. After all, if the objective come to. The argument advanced by the noble Baroness, of the business rate supplement is to promote economic Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend on the Front regeneration, surely businesses will have nothing to Bench is right as a matter of principle. There should fear from a referendum. All businesses will benefit be ballots in those circumstances. from it. That is why business improvement districts It is not enough for the local authority to say, “We work: because the people with a clear vested interest in believe that it is in the interest of the business community an improvement in their area attracting more customers, that we introduce these improvements and charge more trade, must be totally signed up and committed. property holders and occupiers with more than £50,000 If the business rate supplement is genuinely additional, rateable value the business rate supplement to pay for for economic regeneration in an area, and is crafted in it”. They should go to those people to ask them, not a way focused on the needs of business, when business just as a consultation but to say, “If you support this, is invited to contribute to it, most businesses will want do so in a ballot”. If the majority both by value and by to support it. Therefore, why not test that opinion number of occupiers of votes yes—as it is put in the from the outset? clause, if A is greater than B—it would go ahead. If The other benefit has been identified by the CBI in more than a third are involved, there will have to be a its helpful briefing on the clause. It states that it would ballot anyway, but where less than a third are involved, deliver an improved relationship between local government I think the authority should ask the occupiers in a and business from the outset—a point already made—and ballot whether they approve of and will vote for it. that it would mean better investment decisions, because That is the same principle—no doubt we will come businesses’ experience would mean that only projects to this later—as we had for business improvement with demonstrable benefits to local economies would districts. In the BIDs, there was always going to be a proceed. Again, that is a very important and valuable ballot of the occupiers. We now know that that can be point. It would also enable levying authorities to have extended in certain circumstances to the owners as greater flexibility, because business communities are well. The ballot was an essential part of that mechanism. likely to accept greater flexibility in the knowledge So should it be in the business rate supplement. that they will really be able to influence the final outcome. That is only fair when it will lead to firms I support the amendments and I hope that, on paying higher taxes for projects—above and beyond reflection, the Government may feel able to accept what they already pay. The CBI states that that is them. not a business veto but a judgment about whether businesses actually expect to see value for money when Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I declare an interest as a they pay more tax in order to support a project. We chartered accountant and as a director of companies very much support those sentiments on behalf of that pay business rates, and I have been a councillor business. If the Government were to accept a compulsory for more than 10 years, so on this amendment, I ballot, that would be a clear way to settle down some probably have a foot in each camp. I cannot see the of the sceptics about the Bill, because it would logic of the Government’s position in not giving businesses clearly state that it is a genuine partnership between a vote in all instances. That seems to defy all logic. business and the local community for the benefit of all Last night, while listening to the European election concerned. results, I heard Harriet Harman saying time and again My final point relates to the size of business involved. that the Government must listen to what the people We are not talking about a ballot that involves hundreds are saying, that the Government must address their of thousands of businesses in a local area. The threshold concerns. Here is the ideal opportunity for the Government proposed is of a rateable value of £50,000. I am sure to do just that. All business organisations are saying that the figures for central London will be higher, but that there should be a vote in all instances where a outside London, that points to an office or retail space business rate supplement is charged. In fact, most, if of between 3,500 and 4,000 square feet. There could not all, submissions from lobby groups that I have be 35 to 40 people in there. In a given area, there will received argue that there should be a vote in all instances. be relatively few of those businesses, but they will be a That is, except for the Local Government Association. significant part of that local community and the local As my noble friend Lord Jenkin has just said, “They economy.The notion that they may somehow be excluded would say that, wouldn’t they?”. If, as Harriet Harman from decision-making and discussion—having a voice—on says, the Government are going to listen to and address something to which they may be asked to contribute the concerns of business, this would be a good place to 473 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 474

[EARL CATHCART] Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates. I am start. After all, the Government and the Prime Minister sure we will miss the contributions of my noble friend, keep telling us that they want to support business. who worked so assiduously on these matters and with Here is their opportunity. such great precision. No one will miss her more than The second piece of logic in the Government’s me as far as the Bill is concerned. I will do my best to position that I do not follow is that of consistency. The respond to the issues that were raised. I appreciate that Government are prepared to give business a vote if its these are matters of concern but I do not think that total contribution is greater than a third of the total there is a huge difference between the Government’s cost of the project. I cannot follow the logic of not position and that of the noble Lords who have contributed giving the vote below one-third. What is the significance to this debate. I give way to the noble Lord. of the percentage to businesses? None at all, really—a 2 per cent charge is a 2 per cent charge as far as Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I apologise for business is concerned. In addition, as my noble friend intervening at such an early stage in the proceedings Lord Jenkin just mentioned, the Government allow on this amendment, but the noble Lord said that we voting in all instances under the BID schemes, whatever will all miss the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. What the percentage contribution from businesses, so why has happened to her? Why is she not here? not now with the business rate supplement? If the Government want to be consistent, they should allow voting in all instances for the business rate supplement, Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am in some as they do for the BID schemes. difficulty because no announcement has been made, The whole point of the Bill is to raise money for but let me assure the House that my noble friend Lady local infrastructure projects that will benefit local Andrews will be fulfilling a role in the public service of businesses. Local authorities are expected to work in great significance and she will, I have no doubt, in due partnership with local businesses. There will be course earn the commendations of the House on that consultation but, as the Bill stands, that can be ignored. fact. However, the announcement has not been made Local government can press ahead with a pet project and that is why I am constrained. It was not clear just despite the wishes of businesses. Business may not when the announcement would be made and therefore consider that the local authority’s chosen project is the to my enormous joy I was drafted in over the course of right or best project for business in that area, but as Friday and the weekend to deal with the Bill. That is things stand the local authority can override its wishes. why I am delighted to be before the House now. If all What would concentrate the minds of local government the questions are going to be as difficult as the one the is the knowledge that, at the end of the day, the project noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has just addressed, I am will be subject to a vote from the business community going to have a very difficult time indeed. I hope I am in all instances. It would also ensure that both parties not going to be so evasive on all the other points. really worked in partnership to ensure that the right I emphasise that, although I recognise that it is a project was selected. key issue of the Bill, I do not think that there is a great deal of difference between the position adumbrated 6.30 pm by noble Lords who have spoken and that of the Government. The issue is more a question of emphasis Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, this than one of principle. None of us thinks that businesses is my first contribution to any stage of this Bill, so my should not be involved in a BRS. We recognise that the remarks will be extremely brief. I represented a policy will not work unless there is effective, constructive constituency in central London where, for many years partnership between local government and businesses. before we reached the stage which we have now reached, The whole premise of this concept of any such project and generally under the supervision of Mr Tony Travers, is based on that position. We have said that we of whom a number of noble Lords will known personally, course expect levying authorities to engage with businesses I discussed the particular issues which we are embracing early on in the development of any proposals and we today. would expect that dialogue to continue as the proposals Since everything that could be said on this subject, are developed further. We are at one with the sentiment other than perhaps what the Minister is about to say in that is behind this amendment, that progress cannot reply, has already been said, I will not go on at length; be made unless business is involved in the development I will simply rely on two things that have been said of the proposals and has a real say in these matters. before but are very brief. Neither exactly matches the How this happens, we believe, should be left to the case we are dealing with, but their spirit certainly does. levying authority to decide. We do not see the case for The first is the old saying that help is always better being overly prescriptive with regard to local authorities defined by the receiver than by the giver. The second is but we have strengthened the statutory guidance by the remark by that great Ulsterman, CS Lewis, that if encouraging levying authorities to think about how you hear about somebody going around doing good they will engage with businesses over and above the to others, you can always tell the others by their necessary statutory consultation which is already envisaged hunted look. in the measure. By engaging in this way, the levying authorities will be able to gauge how businesses feel Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to about the emerging proposals before they are complete all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and and to reflect feedback from businesses as the project particularly grateful for the kind remarks about my moves on towards that more formal consultation stage noble friend Lady Andrews from the noble Baroness, which is involved in the process. 475 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 476

We should be able to leave local authorities to work of this new power provided that a link to economic responsibly with businesses to develop projects to development can be demonstrated. It is for the authority benefit the economic development of the local area. It to decide the extent to which BRS revenues should be surely cannot be the case that the levying authority used to fund a project, but it is probable that BRS will needs a ballot in every case. We have indicated that feature as just one part of an overall funding package. ballots are important where businesses are making a Surely, therefore, a local project backed by a range of contribution above 33 per cent to the total position, funding partners should not be put at risk because of but the approach we have adopted is that ballots must the uncertainty surrounding what might be a relatively be proportionate and reasonable, bearing in mind that small contribution to the overall funding package. By BRS revenues will contribute the lion’s share of project the same token, we do not want unnecessarily to funding in some cases. In other cases, it may well be constrain levying authorities in their use of BRS; we that the business rate supplement is a very small part want them to use this power flexibly. However, there is of the project envisaged. The fact that we are not a real danger that financial institutions and funding requiring a ballot in all cases does not mean that this partners will not be willing to commit themselves gives levying authorities carte blanche to bulldoze where business has a vote on an element, even a small through their pet projects. Businesses will have a vote element, of the overall project. In effect, the BRS if they are involved in more than 33 per cent of the would then be used where it forms the lion’s share of expenditure, levying authorities will be required formally the funding so that the whole project would stand or to consult with businesses on top of any preparatory fall on the outcome of a ballot to which the funding dialogue they have, and with all proposed projects partners do not have to be signed up. That is not what they can be held to account if they fail to carry out we are looking for. We want authorities to have a this consultation. broader range and a degree of flexibility, and that is It is surely recognised that it is in authorities’ best why we are against the constraints that would be interests to ensure that they consult businesses effectively, imposed by ballots. but if I have followed the position which has been put We have provided many safeguards in the Bill for forward by noble Lords—it was certainly the burden the interests of business, lest it be suggested that just of the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord because I am arguing about the universal ballot in this Jenkin, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart—that even case, we do not have the interests of business at heart. where the proportion to be funded is fairly small, the A ballot on a scheme is necessary where the BRS danger is that this would put undue emphasis on one provides more than one third of the funding, and an aspect of a project. I accept the point that talk of a overall limit of 2p per pound of rateable value is veto is somewhat excessive, but noble Lords will recognise established in the Bill. The BRS cannot be used to that a ballot for business, when it may be contributing fund statutory services. It must be used for additional as little as 10 per cent, certainly puts very considerable developments for the benefit of the economic development emphasis on a contribution which is relatively marginal of an area. Mandatory consultation is required in all to it. We have guaranteed that the authorities will have cases and we have provided that the details should be already engaged with businesses that are contributing set out in a prospectus, including a cost-benefit analysis. 10 or 15 per cent and the development of the project So business has safeguards built into the legislation will have had the benefit of businesses’ responses to when it enters into consultation with a local authority the local authority consultation. I give way to the about these possibilities. It is right that such safeguards noble Lord. have been included, but requiring a ballot in all cases runs the risk that projects will be put in jeopardy or Lord Bates: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister that local communities will miss out on opportunities for giving way. He says that 10 per cent or 5 per cent of enhancing areas because of the difficulty of securing are small figures. Does he consider 30 per cent to be broader financial backing for much-needed developments. inconsequential? I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was somewhat guarded in her criticism of local authorities; Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not, but a indeed, all noble Lords who have spoken have shown line has to be drawn somewhere. If the noble Lord some degree of respect for the position of local concedes a contribution of 10 per cent ought not to government. Local authorities are democratically elected occasion a ballot, then having listened to my careful bodies, so surely we should trust them to work responsibly arguments, he will not support the amendment before with businesses on local projects and not shackle them the House. If I say 33 per cent and he responds by with unnecessary requirements that are not needed saying that 32 per cent is only 1 per cent below and the given the other safeguards in the Bill. Accordingly, ballot will be denied, logic dictates that one is faced having listened to my case that this process will not with the same problem wherever the line is drawn. I work and opportunities will not be exploited unless merely indicate that there is a strong case for such a local authorities work in close partnership with business, line to be drawn because where the contribution is I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment. relatively small, it cannot be logical or proper that local authorities which have carried out a consultation then have to go to ballot. 6.45 pm The business rate supplement provides a new Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to all mechanism for local authorities to work with businesses noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I have on projects that will enhance the development of local to say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, that areas. We want authorities to be innovative in their use I did not think he was at all evasive in his response to 477 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 478

[BARONESS HAMWEE] Fowler, L. Noakes, B. the first question. I expected to hear that the noble Garden of Frognal, B. Northesk, E. Baroness, Lady Andrews, has a diplomatic sniffle, but Gardner of Parkes, B. Northover, B. Garel-Jones, L. apparently not. The noble Lord has been very honest Norton of Louth, L. Geddes, L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. and straightforward. He has been dealt a difficult—indeed, Glasgow, E. Onslow, E. I think impossible—hand. Goodhart, L. Patel, L. I shall pick up on a few points. The noble Lord Greaves, L. Patten, L. Hamwee, B. Ramsbotham, L. talked about the importance of engagement with the Hanham, B. Redesdale, L. business community. A vote in a ballot is the greatest Harris of Richmond, B. Rennard, L. form of engagement and is complementary to a preceding Henley, L. Higgins, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. consultation but different from it. He said that a ballot Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. should be left to the levying authority and that the Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. Rogan, L. Government do not want to be overly prescriptive, so Hooson, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. why put in anything at all about it; why pick on one Howe, E. Ryder of Wensum, L. third? He also said that if the BRS is a small proportion, Howe of Aberavon, L. St. John of Bletso, L. the whole agony would be irrelevant. It would have to Howe of Idlicote, B. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. be a necessary part because of the extraordinarily Howell of Guildford, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L. Jenkin of Roding, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. stringent tests to prove additionality that we know Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Seccombe, B. [Teller] about from the guidance fleshing out the statutory Knight of Collingtree, B. Shephard of Northwold, B. requirement for additionality which has been issued so Lawson of Blaby, L. Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] far. He said that BRS would be relatively marginal, Lee of Trafford, L. Skelmersdale, L. which I think is the same point. It may be proportionately Lindsay, E. Skidelsky, L. Liverpool, E. Steel of Aikwood, L. small for a particular project, but it will not be marginal. Livsey of Talgarth, L. Stewartby, L. By definition, it has to be important. Luke, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L. The noble Lord said that banks might not be willing Lyell, L. Taverne, L. to fund if a project is dependent on a ballot. I cannot McColl of Dulwich, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. MacGregor of Pulham Tebbit, L. see banks being particularly happy if they know that Market, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. there is going to be an uprising among the business McNally, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B. community, with all the dangers that would present. Maddock, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. He also said that we are showing a level of distrust of Marlesford, L. Tonge, B. local authorities. That is simply not the point. As the Masham of Ilton, B. Tope, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Tordoff, L. noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, this is a point of B. Trenchard, V. principle. We are told that the line has to be drawn Monson, L. Trimble, L. somewhere. I do not believe that there needs to be a Montgomery of Alamein, V. Ullswater, V. line. I beg to test the opinion of the House. Montrose, D. Valentine, B. Morris of Bolton, B. Verma, B. Moynihan, L. Waddington, L. 6.48 pm Neuberger, B. Walmsley, B. Neville-Jones, B. Walpole, L. Division on Amendment 1 Newby, L. Warsi, B. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Wilcox, B. Contents 132; Not-Contents 125. B. Williamson of Horton, L.

Amendment 1 agreed. NOT CONTENTS Acton, L. Cohen of Pimlico, B. Division No. 1 Adams of Craigielea, B. Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Adonis, L. Crawley, B. CONTENTS Ahmed, L. Cunningham of Felling, L. Amos, B. Davies of Abersoch, L. Addington, L. Colwyn, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Davies of Coity, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Cope of Berkeley, L. Archer of Sandwell, L. Davies of Oldham, L. Ashdown of Norton-sub- Cotter, L. Bach, L. Dubs, L. Hamdon, L. Courtown, E. Bassam of Brighton, L. Elder, L. Astor, V. Craig of Radley, L. [Teller] Elystan-Morgan, L. Attlee, E. Cumberlege, B. Berkeley, L. Evans of Parkside, L. Barker, B. De Mauley, L. Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Bates, L. Dholakia, L. Best, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Blackwell, L. Dixon-Smith, L. Billingham, B. Filkin, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, D’Souza, B. Bilston, L. Ford, B. B. Dykes, L. Blood, B. Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Eccles, V. Borrie, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Bridgeman, V. Eccles of Moulton, B. Bragg, L. Gale, B. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Eden of Winton, L. Brett, L. Gibson of Market Rasen, B. L. Elton, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Giddens, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Erroll, E. Brookman, L. Golding, B. Caithness, E. Falkland, V. Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Gordon of Strathblane, L. Cathcart, E. Falkner of Margravine, B. Campbell-Savours, L. Goudie, B. Chidgey, L. Flather, B. Carter of Coles, L. Gould of Brookwood, L. Clement-Jones, L. Fookes, B. Clark of Windermere, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Colville of Culross, V. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Clinton-Davis, L. Graham of Edmonton, L. 479 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 480

Griffiths of Burry Port, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. “the impact of the supplement on the local economy, and the Grocott, L. Patel of Blackburn, L. potential economic benefits of the spending they”— Harris of Haringey, L. Prosser, B. the local authority— Hart of Chilton, L. Puttnam, L. Haskel, L. Quin, B. “propose to finance from the revenues generated”. Haskins, L. Radice, L. That is not quite the same thing. Haworth, L. Rea, L. I would argue that environmental and social Henig, B. Rendell of Babergh, B. Howarth of Newport, L. Richard, L. improvements in any event contribute to the economy Howells of St. Davids, B. Rooker, L. of an area. When I was chairing the London Planning Hughes of Woodside, L. Rosser, L. Advisory Committee—I think it was in about 1991—we Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Janner of Braunstone, L. Rowlands, L. commissioned some wide-ranging and deep research Jones, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. into the world-city status of London, and asked, “What Jones of Whitchurch, B. Sawyer, L. makes a company decide to locate to a particular Jordan, L. Sewel, L. city?”. The quite clear answer was quality of life, Kilclooney, L. Sheldon, L. something very wide that clearly encompasses King of West Bromwich, L. Simon, V. environmental and social aspects. Is it not rather arrogant Kirkhill, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Lea of Crondall, L. Soley, L. of us to say that businesses are only interested in Leitch, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. economic development in a narrow manner? I do not Lipsey, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. know, of course, whether the Government will seek to Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. overturn the amendment that your Lordships have Low of Dalston, L. Temple-Morris, L. just agreed, but if we can retain the ballot it seems to Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Thornton, B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Tomlinson, L. answer the issue of what the statutory purpose of BRS L. Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller] should be. I am not proposing an immediate extension, McKenzie of Luton, L. Uddin, B. but it would be dotty not to facilitate that extension if Mandelson, L. Vadera, B. the mood or climate is such that it should be extended. Massey of Darwen, B. Wall of New Barnet, B. Maxton, L. Warner, L. My amendments are facets of the same issue. Mitchell, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Amendment 2 would require consultation leading to Morgan of Drefelin, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. regulations. Amendment 5 is one that we debated at Morgan of Huyton, B. Whitaker, B. the last stage, requiring, Morris of Aberavon, L. Whitty, L. Morris of Handsworth, L. Wilkins, B. “a periodic review of the use of … BRS”, Morris of Yardley, B. Woolmer of Leeds, L. and that amendment has important provisions for Myners, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. representations to be made by anyone who is interested are. That amendment and what the review will report 7pm should come first, before any regulations provided for in Amendment 2. The Minister may tell us that such a review will happen in any event. The noble Baroness, Amendment 2 Lady Andrews, whom I met last week to discuss this Moved by Baroness Hamwee stage of the Bill, said that she was going to explain to your Lordships that, under other legislation, there 2: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert— would have to be a review. I hope that the Minister, if “(2A) Regulations may amend subsection (2) so as to add to he is to pursue that line, can tell the House whether, on or to vary the purpose of projects for which money may be raised by a BRS. such a review, alterations to legislation can be made (2B) The appropriate national authority shall consult the without more. I suspect not, which is why I am seeking, following on the draft of any regulations proposed to be made if not to require regulations, to allow for them. under subsection (2A)— In the last stage, the noble Lord, Lord Best, had an (a) representatives or membership organisations of persons amendment—promoted in that case by the Local who are non-domestic ratepayers; Government Association—that would have allowed (b) representatives of local authorities; for the variation, if not necessarily the increase, of the (c) such other persons as the national authorities think 2p limit. Again, my Amendment 29 would require appropriate.” consultation to precede any regulations that provide for such a variation—and my argument about the Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move ballot is obvious. If this legislation is to support Amendment 2 and shall speak to Amendments 5 and Crossrail, which is its major aim, by definition it must 29, which are grouped with it. As we discussed in the apply for some decades. We believe that it should be previous stage the Bill is, by definition, one for the flexible enough, with the safeguards that my amendments long term. Amendment 2 would allow there to be include, to cater for those decades, not just for the variation in the purpose of projects to be funded by present. the business rate supplement. Under Clause 1, a project has to be one which the local authority, Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I listened “is satisfied will promote economic development in its area”. carefully to the noble Baroness, and I have no doubt In the current climate, I accept that focus, although in that with an attachment, which I also have, to the Committee I think that we agreed on all sides that London Councils she has taken fully into account its one could attribute almost anything to “economic general support for these amendments. I have some development”. Sir Michael Lyons himself, in the sympathy with it, because it is pleading, over a long recommendations to his report, refers to, period, that the Bill needs to be a little more specific 481 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 482

[LORD GRAHAM OF EDMONTON] There are various reasons why businesses might about precisely how consultation shall take place. locate in a particular area. People might want to use Now, I know it is a common view in Committee that, the funds raised through the business rate supplement as regards consultation, there should not be a long list to discount the cost of business rates, which are an of interested bodies that are entitled to be consulted. incredible burden on many businesses, particularly as However, I would simply say that London Councils a result of the increases that have already been levied clearly have a deep interest in this, not only from the this year. Although the 5 per cent increase has been point of view of the councils’ size, stature and importance deferred for a year, that additional 3 per cent will be but because of their potential rate-levying powers. levied on businesses next year. Next year there will As regards Crossrail, which will be a long-time also be the rating revaluation, so this is becoming a involvement, if it is not already clear in the Bill, it is bigger issue. not unreasonable to ask the Minister to explain to us We would have thought that in those circumstances, the mechanism that the Government have in mind to being able to say to people, “Listen, you can raise provide bodies like the London Councils, and any funds through the business rate supplement and you others which have a big interest, with the methods can actually use them to discount the cost of locating and manner in which they can be consulted. These and operating in your particular area” would be a amendments are not talking about a prescriptive power sensible use of that facility. If the aim is to promote to be placed in the Bill, but asking that due note be economic regeneration, we on this side of the House—and taken of the great importance. The Minister would we would expect there to be some sympathy on the also help the House and many outside if he could other side of the House, given the body of evidence for spend a little time on precisely how wide the raising of this—suggest that lower tax rates tend to stimulate a business rate can go. In other words, will it be open exactly that. And if that is the aim, anything that to separate councils? Will it be more widely available lowers tax rates has to be a good thing. than it appears to be in the Bill? The Minister could From that point of view, we are basically sympathetic help the House and London Councils there. to the spirit of these amendments, although in the case of Amendment 29 we would have serious reservations. Lord Bates: My Lords, I am sympathetic to at least If there were an additional level of flexibility, allowing some of these amendments. While beginning this process, it to be used to cut the excessive burden of business at Second Reading and in Committee I put on record tax, we would be minded to support it more than we my interests as director of a number of businesses that shall be. pay business rates. I probably should have done that with the first group of amendments, for which I apologise; I certainly put that on the record now. Lord Best: My Lords, I moved amendments to similar effect in Committee and I support these, On the amendments that we support, anything that particularly those in Clause 14. I made the point on improves communication and information on business behalf of the Local Government Association, of which rate supplements clearly has to be welcomed. We have I am proud to be president, that although the level of a problem with Amendment 29, which contains the 2p in the pound will raise a fairly large sum in pound notion of varying the cap on the business rate supplement terms, it will raise quite a small proportion of revenues of 2 pence; we already think that a very high burden for local government—something like 5 per cent of on business. I know that the Minister, in responding to the money raised by the business rate alone, not 5 per the first group of amendments, made the point that cent of all the revenue raised for local authority potentially relatively small sums will be involved, but spending. I see the supplement not so much as a tax the Local Government Association has calculated that burden as a collective means of paying for goods, if every authority used the 2p levy, then the total tax services and projects that the local community wants. take would be in the region of £750 million, and If this mechanism for raising money for important possibly even more than that in 2010 after the rating local projects turns out to be successful—we hope that revaluation takes place. These are significant sums. It eventually it will be, although we know that at present is in the nature of taxation that when someone applies no local authorities are planning to move swiftly forward an upper limit, there is a tendency to go up to that with these measures—it will be helpful if one does not limit. One also needs to remember—I am sure that the need primary legislation to raise that amount of 2p in Minister will want to make this point—that the figure the pound to a higher sum at a later stage. The is a maximum, not a minimum. amendment would create something in advance of its There is an issue that we feel strongly about, and I requirement and well in advance of anyone wishing to want to put it on the record. The noble Baroness, Lady share this load with the business community, and is Hamwee, talked about what attracts businesses. Business helpfully trying to ensure that legislation puts it on the rates are either the second or third biggest charge record now. faced by most businesses, and we know from experience in the 1980s and 1990s, with initiatives such as enterprise 7.15 pm zones and the like, that when you offer a business-rate-free zone, that becomes attractive to businesses. Given that Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to business rates have a major impact on businesses all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. I locating in particular areas, we would have liked the noticed one or two cross-currents in the debate: I Government to consider the notion, which we would heard the noble Lord, Lord Bates, say that he was have supported from these Benches, that funds from broadly in favour of the spirit of the amendments, but the levy could be used to discount business rate bills. he then produced some hefty reservations about 483 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 484

Amendment 29 which I actually share. Noble Lords I agree with the sentiment behind Amendment 5. It have argued, though, that there should be potential in is vital that legislation is reviewed so that if something the future to use BRS funds to invest in a wide range is not working as well as we had hoped, identified and of community interests, which is what Amendment 2 appropriate action can be taken. As the noble Baroness, seeks to do, rather than simply being limited to economic Lady Hamwee, was generous enough to indicate, the development, although, as noble Lords appreciate, Government are already committed to post-legislative “economic development” can cover quite a wide range scrutiny, so that all Acts must be reviewed between of possibilities. three and five years after Royal Assent. This requirement applies to all Acts that received Royal Assent during It has always been the aim that the business rate or after 2005, and this Bill when it becomes an Act will supplement would be a pool that could be used to fall within that framework. promote the economic development of local areas, hence the link to business rates as opposed to other The review will involve considerable activity on the forms of rating revenues. That is a clear theme that part of the department submitting a memorandum to runs through the Government’s subnational review, the relevant Commons departmental Select Committee. the White Paper that preceded this legislation and now It will include a preliminary assessment of how the the legislation itself. The link to economic development Act has worked in practice, relative to the objectives provides an important reassurance to local businesses identified in the Bill. Following consideration of the that BRS will not be used to fund services that have memorandum, the Select Committee could then decide little or no relation to them. BRS is intended as a tool that a fuller post-legislative review of the Act was that can be used to fund joint projects between local required, which would be carried out in the same way businesses and local authorities. It will be a means of as other Select Committee inquiries. So we do not raising additional revenue from businesses. need an amendment to scrutinise Bills subsequent to their enactment. I accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Best, As I indicated, I did not think that the support of made: it is not a tax but the raising of funds for joint the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for Amendment 29 was enterprise in which all wish to share and the outcome whole-hearted and nor is mine. The amendment seems of which is meant to be for the benefit of the locality. reasonable enough. It would allow the Secretary of It is logical that the BRS should be linked to the aspect State to vary the supplement’s upper limit to reflect of the local community that will be of most interest the state of the economy. During the good times, to local businesses, which is, inevitably, economic businesses might be expected to pay higher BRS than development. That is the premise behind the Bill. during a recession. However, the Bill needs to balance The concept of “economic development” is clearly protecting the interests of business with the ability of understood. It has been explored in the subnational levying authorities to raise meaningful sums of cash. review and, subsequently,when appropriate implementation The 2p limit strikes a balance between reassurance of the actions put forward by that review was being and meaningful practical application, bringing necessary considered. We should not overlook the fact that the resources forward. A set limit guarantees businesses term “economic development”gives levying authorities the maximum that they can be expected to pay. If the and local businesses adequate scope for innovation, amendment were accepted, businesses would no longer which is what we want to see from the Bill. Outside the have the assurance of a maximum level, as the upper core services that levying authorities should provide, limit would potentially be subject to change over time. BRS can be used flexibly and constructively to promote What about projects already under way? They might economic development in the local area. We did not be subject to the potential for flexibility in resources limit the use of BRS to only one kind of project; available to them, increasing uncertainty. I therefore instead, we have acknowledged that what is necessary hope that the problems with that amendment are will depend on the judgments of the local area, so appreciated. there is considerable flexibility behind the concept of My noble friend Lord Graham asked about the legislation. consultation, which I dealt with in an earlier amendment. He will know that provision for statutory consultation Amendment 2 would risk distorting the unique is written into the Bill and how important that is. He is purpose of BRS. Depending on the regulations laid right: local authorities are the actors in this situation, under the amendment, BRS could be used on projects which is why we need to make sure that they are fully for aims more aligned to cleaner, greener or safer apprised of their opportunities. However, we are going agendas which, while they would bring some indirect beyond that by producing additional guidance to economic benefit, would not in the normal sense of strengthen consultation to ensure that local authorities the term be “central” to economic development, which know what their obligations and opportunities are is the thrust of the legislation. Of course businesses and that they consult adequately with the interests already contribute to the provision of services such as whose support they need to attract. Inevitably, very social services and street cleaning through the national important among those is the business community, business rate, but BRS is meant to be a new tool for because it is being asked to contribute the business raising revenue to invest in local areas over and above rate. I want to give my noble friend reassurance on the provision of services and projects already provided. that score. The Bill already provides local authorities, working with local businesses, flexibility in how they use these These are interesting issues, which I know are being resources to tailor the project to maximise economic raised as part of a constructive approach to the development for their local area. opportunities that the legislation envisages, but we 485 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 486

[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM] A number of areas of government funding used to think that we have got the balance right. I hope that deal with economic regeneration and, to an extent, the noble Baroness now thinks that the Government still do. The local authority business growth initiative, have thought about these issues and that she can safely for example, provided about £1 billion per year to withdraw her amendment. improve and stimulate economic regeneration in the many of the areas in which it is claimed the business Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the amendments are rate supplement is now needed. That £1 billion over indeed intended to be constructive, and the Minister the past three years has been reduced to just £150 million should read into them our support for the Bill generally. over the next two years. We are already seeing the I understand the wariness of the noble Lord, Lord invisible hand of the Treasury at work, because, on the Bates, of Amendment 29. One is accustomed to hearing one hand, the local authority business growth incentive that rates can go up as well as down; in this case, they scheme is being wound down by an amount close to can go down as well as up—that is the point of the £850 million while, on the other, we see, miraculously, terminology. the business rate supplement being ratcheted up and rolled out more widely to provide potential funding of The noble Lord, Lord Best, expressed my intentions up to £750 million. extremely well. I thank him and all other speakers for that. I say in response to the Minister that the ballot This is a great concern that we have: when this will be the safeguard. particular measure was considered and conceived, it was in a wholly different economic environment and The Minister referred, as I knew that he would, to climate to the one that we are now in. Now, businesses the statutory requirement for a review and post-legislative up and down the country are struggling for breath to scrutiny. Can he refer us to the legislation which keep afloat in very testing economic times indeed. The requires that? If he is not able to do it today, perhaps it business rates that are already there—whether it is could follow this debate—he nods at that. It does not, non-domestic rate revaluations, the increase of 5 per however, wholly answer my point, because, as I understand cent, albeit spread over two years, congestion charging, it, primary legislation will still be needed when there is parking charges; all of these taxes—stealth taxes—which post-legislative scrutiny, even if the scrutiny recommends were levied by the Chancellor to raise revenue from the kind of changes that I am proposing. businesses during the good times are now very much However, I am realistic enough to know what the the ones which are sinking many businesses, including government response to these amendments would be other iniquitous taxes, such as empty property rates. were we to win them when the Bill goes back to the Commons. I shall therefore pause while we are ahead This is in the same genre as empty property rates. It on Amendment 5. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. is one of these initiatives which were conceived in times of economic boom—so the Chancellor and the Amendment 2 withdrawn. Prime Minister would have us believe—and are now being levied in times of bust in this country. Therefore, a very strong case is represented in these amendments, Clause 2 : Levying authorities which we wish to pursue. This is a piece of legislation which should always have been linked to a specific, major, vitally important infrastructure project in the Amendment 3 capital city and should not be levied outside it. I beg Moved by Lord Bates to move. 3: Clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out paragraphs (b) to (d) 7.30 pm Lord Bates: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 4, 10, 14 and 38, standing in my name Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not think that and that of my noble friend Lord Cathcart. The the noble Lord will be surprised that I am not with amendments highlight concern on this side of the him on this one—as we were not in the Commons. House about the legislation full-stop. Our argument is Actually, I wrote against the first of his amendments, that the legislation should have been restricted to “So you don’t support the Lyons review”. I am not London. It was designed and conceived as a mechanism sure whether that is an entirely fair response—or for bridging the funding gap for Crossrail. Crossrail’s perhaps it is a fair but incomplete response. We have £15.9 billion of funding was calculated, in negotiation made it clear throughout the debates on this Bill that no doubt with the Treasury, to include a business rate we support the concept; were that not so, I would not supplement in the region of £3.5 billion. We on this have been seeking to extend the provisions of the Bill side of the House and the Mayor of London, whom in the way that I just have. we are happy to support in his ambitions for the This is not just about London. One gets rather capital city, see Crossrail as a major infrastructure weary of people outside London thinking that those project which should have been commissioned far of us who live in this particular bubble are really only earlier and desperately needs to go ahead. It requires concerned about London. I do not want to be London- some additional support from businesses. It was subject centric on this one. This Bill provides a mechanism to debate during the mayoral election, where it was a which may not be used next week or next year by local principal part of a manifesto commitment. This legislation authorities outside the capital—sadly it is not available should therefore have been wrapped in, isolated and to be used by the London boroughs because of the linked totally to the Crossrail project, because to move way this is constructed, but there we are—but a mechanism out beyond it looks suspiciously like an additional tax. which I hope local authorities will find ways that 487 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 488 perhaps none of us has thought of to use the BRS for Of course I respect the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the benefit both of their business community and their with his enormous commitment to the City of London, wider community. I think that the amendment goes and I recognise therefore that he latches onto London- against the whole concept of the Bill to confine it in centric legislation in its genesis. I just remind the noble the way that the noble Lord suggests. Lord, Lord Bates, if he did not notice, that I have endured over the past 24 hours the Conservatives Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I extolling the fact that they have scored the largest shall be very brief. I hesitate to say this in the absence number of votes in Wales. Here is a piece of legislation of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, whom I wish which relates to Wales in a constructive sense—and extremely well in whatever unknown circumstances what is the stance of the Conservative Opposition? It she now is, but I recall, as the noble Baroness, Lady is to say, “We do not think you should have any Hamwee, will recall, having attended the Committee opportunities; the only opportunities are those which and remaining stages of Bills over which the noble are reserved for London”. That is a splendid way of Baroness, Lady Andrews, presided, that at the time of rewarding the people of Wales for their, I hope, short-term the housing Bill, I allowed myself the comment on the perspective in which they have given some support to very day that the Governor of the Bank of England the Conservative Party. It will not take them long to was suggesting for the first time that there was a learn the wisdom of their ways. possibility that we might be in a recession, that those I say this as far as this legislation is concerned. The remarks sat somewhat forbiddingly over the optimism legislation is enabling legislation: no local authority is which the noble Baroness, Baroness Andrews, was compelled to take action. It is enabling. It gives local expressing about the economy at the present time, and authorities the opportunity where a local development we returned to it later in one of the Bills this year. I do can take place—economic development in which business recall on that occasion that her defence of her position can play its part and wishes to play its part. That is the was that there was not a recession occurring at that whole point about the necessary consultation and moment. support. I maintain that even in the darkest days, it I entirely endorse, therefore, the remarks of my is still the case that enterprise shows its desire for noble friend Lord Bates that in so many of these areas opportunities. Local authorities should spend a great we are looking at legislation which was being carved deal of their time concerned with enterprise, business out and conceived in much more favourable economic development and economic development in their localities. times than we are now enjoying, and it is a mistake if They all ought to direct their attentions there, particularly we carry on thinking that in fact all is going to be well, in these difficult times, when we need to recover. This when at the moment there is still no dramatic evidence legislation will assist. That is why, on this occasion, I that that is so. am asking the noble Lord, who has tried to persuade the Government of the virtues of the legislation, to Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if we constructed withdraw the amendment. legislation on the basis of any immediate stage of the economy, we would have some very interesting legislation indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will readily Lord Bates: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his recognise that the process of legislation, from the invitation. On the subject of Wales, the point which initial concept to gestation and actual completion is a seems to be at odds here as we bask in our position of prolonged one. The idea that under normal circumstances having secured the greatest popular vote for the one could cope with the vicissitudes in the economy is Conservative Party in the Principality of Wales since a little unrealistic. 1918 is that— I recognise the point that he makes—that this Bill is about economic development and therefore that requires Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, my a degree of optimism. We are not going to deliver this noble friend should not ignore the fact that the last Bill, nor are local authorities going to respond to this occasion on which the Conservative Party gained a Bill, in the next three months; it will take time. It is majority of parliamentary seats in Wales was in 1859, right, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, indicated, that exactly 150 years ago. It is therefore a very good omen the concept behind the Bill, the original concept, for coming events. related to Crossrail—a very important project and a very important concept—which is at the heart of this Bill, but the Government would be failing in their duty Lord Bates: My Lords, my noble friend’s grasp of if they did not, even in difficult circumstances, enact history and his wit and insight are the things that we legislation that constructs opportunities for local look forward to. I would add only this. The thing that authorities and for communities. After all, I hope will secure our position not only among the Welsh noble Lords are not saying that, because there is a people but in the other parts of the country and also recession on at the present time, they have given up on in the north of England is that we are protecting them every conceivable initiative in business, and that they from a tax increase. We reject the notion that the best cannot think of a single area in which any development way of advancing our newfound prominence in those or progress is being made. If they do suggest that, they regions outside London—in the south-west and in the have got a rather more blighted view of this recession north; in fact, it is difficult to think of a region where than any economists I can think of. So I am not going we did not make advances—is to levy a tax on those to accept that; I am going to state that of course it is people, when there are many other vehicles by which entirely right that the Government should be constructive that economic regeneration could be happening. For about this legislation. example, there is the money going from the central 489 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 490

[LORD BATES] Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Morgan, L. Exchequer into the regional development agencies. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. There is the business rates levy. There are business Gale, B. Morgan of Huyton, B. Garden of Frognal, B. Morris of Handsworth, L. improvement districts. There is a local authority business Giddens, L. Morris of Yardley, B. growth initiative. Business taxes many and plenty are Gilbert, L. Myners, L. being levied to promote economic regeneration, which Golding, B. Newby, L. is desperately needed at this time. Gordon of Strathblane, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. Goudie, B. Prosser, B. I found the Minister’s response less than convincing. Gould of Potternewton, B. Quin, B. As such, I should like to test the opinion of the House Greaves, L. Radice, L. on this issue. Grocott, L. Redesdale, L. Hamwee, B. Rendell of Babergh, B. Harris of Richmond, B. Rennard, L. 7.42 pm Hart of Chilton, L. Richard, L. Haskel, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Division on Amendment 3 Haskins, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Hattersley, L. Rosser, L. Haworth, L. Rowlands, L. Contents 59; Not-Contents 122. Henig, B. Sawyer, L. Hollis of Heigham, B. Scotland of Asthal, B. Amendment 3 disagreed. Hooson, L. Sewel, L. Hoyle, L. Sharp of Guildford, B. Division No. 2 Hughes of Woodside, L. Sheldon, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Shutt of Greetland, L. Janner of Braunstone, L. Simon, V. CONTENTS Jones, L. Soley, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller] Mar, C. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Steel of Aikwood, L. Attlee, E. Marland, L. Jordan, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Bates, L. Marlesford, L. Kinnock, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Montrose, D. Kirkhill, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B. Bridgeman, V. Morris of Bolton, B. Lea of Crondall, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Northbrook, L. Leitch, L. Thornton, B. L. Norton of Louth, L. Livsey of Talgarth, L. Tomlinson, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. O’Cathain, B. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Tordoff, L. Byford, B. Onslow, E. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller] Caithness, E. Patten, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Tyler, L. Cathcart, E. Rogan, L. L. Uddin, B. Colville of Culross, V. Rotherwick, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Vadera, B. Colwyn, L. St. John of Bletso, L. Maclennan of Rogart, L. Wall of New Barnet, B. De Mauley, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L. McNally, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Dixon-Smith, L. Seccombe, B. [Teller] Massey of Darwen, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Eccles, V. Sheikh, L. Maxton, L. Whitty, L. Fookes, B. Shephard of Northwold, B. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Wilkins, B. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Shrewsbury, E. B. Young of Norwood Green, L. Fowler, L. Skelmersdale, L. Garel-Jones, L. Skidelsky, L. Geddes, L. Stewartby, L. 7.53 pm Hanham, B. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Howard of Rising, L. Trenchard, V. Jenkin of Roding, L. Trimble, L. Knight of Collingtree, B. Ullswater, V. Clause 3 : Use of money raised by a BRS Lawson of Blaby, L. Verma, B. Lindsay, E. Waddington, L. Amendment 4 not moved. Luke, L. Walpole, L. Lyell, L. Wilcox, B. Mancroft, L. Williamson of Horton, L. Amendment 5 not moved.

NOT CONTENTS Acton, L. Blood, B. Clause 4 : Conditions for imposing a BRS Adams of Craigielea, B. Borrie, L. Addington, L. Brett, L. Ahmed, L. Brookman, L. Amendments 6 to 9 Amos, B. Campbell-Savours, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Carter of Coles, L. Moved by Baroness Hamwee Archer of Sandwell, L. Clinton-Davis, L. Ashdown of Norton-sub- Cotter, L. 6: Clause 4, page 3, line 25, leave out “where there is to be” Hamdon, L. Crawley, B. 7: Clause 4, page 3, line 25, after first “ballot” insert “has been Bach, L. Davies of Abersoch, L. held of the relevant persons” Barker, B. Davies of Oldham, L. 8: Clause 4, page 3, line 25, leave out “the ballot has been Barnett, L. Donoughue, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. Dubs, L. held” [Teller] Elder, L. 9: Clause 4, page 3, line 26, after “approved” insert “by a Berkeley, L. Elystan-Morgan, L. majority as set out in section 8” Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Evans of Parkside, L. Billingham, B. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Bilston, L. Ford, B. Amendments 6 to 9 agreed. 491 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 492

Clause5:Prospectus 8pm Lord Bates: My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 10 not moved. the amendments. I do not have a great deal to add to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. However, Amendment 11 I will make a few points about easily understood explanations. Moved by Baroness Hamwee The amendments take on a new significance in the 11: Clause 5, page 3, line 37, after “prospectus” insert “and a light of Amendment 1, which has been passed, because summary of it together with an easily understood explanation” we now hope to find that businesses will be asked their opinion on all of the schemes that are put forward. Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I will speak also to Therefore, they will need an easily understood explanation. Amendments 12 and 13. The amendments are retabled The discussion in Committee was well informed, contained from Committee with an addition inspired by the lots of ideas and was genuinely constructive in coming noble Lord, Lord Bates, which I will come to in a forward with proposals. The point was made that, moment. in tough economic times, officials in government They are mild little amendments, and I have been departments, and even officials in local authorities, very surprised at the resistance that the Government may have the time to construct, read and digest the have shown to them. They simply provide that, under implications of a 100, 200 or 300-page document and Clause 5, when prospectuses are published, either in prospectus, complete with various legal and contractual hard copy or electronically, they should be accompanied requirements and the financial statements that will be by a summary and what I have described as an “easily there alongside the details of the scheme. However, if understood explanation”. This was inspired by the you are a business person who is struggling to make noble Lord, Lord Bates, who said that it would be ends meet and to get through very difficult times, you sensible if local authorities produced FAQs—frequently are unlikely to want to print off 300 pages and read asked questions—and their answers. I thought that the through them. Therefore, the requirement to provide a PPO might have a seizure if I used the term “FAQs” in succinct summary that communicates the essential an amendment, so this longer group of words is the elements of the proposal seems to us an eminently synonym. sensible idea which most people would support. Amendment 13 provides that copies should be made When we discussed this in Committee, the noble available not only at the principal office of the levying Baroness, Lady Andrews, gave as one of her arguments authority—that would be City Hall in the case of for not accepting the proposal the desire not to prescribe London, county halls elsewhere—but also locally at to local authorities how they should conduct this whole the principal offices of the relevant billing authorities. process of communicating with business rate supplement In London, this would be at the main offices of the payers. However, Clause 5, headed “Prospectus”, contains London boroughs. In other areas, it would be the several statements about what should be contained in district offices. the prospectus and how it should be presented. It states that electronic copies should be provided on the The Minister at the previous stage said that the website and that a levying authority should, Government did not want to overprescribe, and in “make copies of the published prospectus available for inspection general we support that. However, the Bill must look at its principal office at all reasonable times of the day”. first to the interests of the consumer—the ratepayer. That is quite a micro-level of stipulation as regards The arguments against these amendments in the what should happen with the prospectus. Therefore, I Commons were not persuasive, and our Minister, if I do not think that the Government’s arguments as may put it that way, had to defend something that was presented in Committee stand up to careful scrutiny. not only indefensible but frankly not worth defending. These are very sensible amendments. I should have The reference to summaries is included because the thought that if the Government want to ensure that prospectus will be a technical and probably pretty these business rate supplement schemes are successful, heavyweight document, and should be accompanied the best way to do so is to ensure that people have the by something that is short and with which ratepayers right information in the right proportion which answers can get to grips without difficulty. the questions about which they are concerned. I should The third amendment concerns its availability more have thought the Government would want to accept locally. It will still not be available in many places. these amendments in a sense of enlightened self-interest There will be the web—I dare say that most businesses rather than refuse them. They are perfectly reasonable liable to the BRS will naturally look to the web for amendments and I am very happy to support them. information. However, if a hard copy is required—and the Government seem to think it is, because they are Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to providing for hard copies—its availability should be noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. Of more local than the Government seem to think is course, the Government wholeheartedly support the necessary. It really is a token gesture to have a hard principle behind this group of amendments; namely, copy available at the principal office of the levying that levying authorities’ prospectuses must be easily authority, given the distances that in most cases would available and clearly understood. As my noble friend have to be travelled. set out in Committee, the Bill contains a minimum These are modest and mild amendments. It is beyond framework of requirements on levying authorities in me to understand why they have provoked such resistance. terms of their prospectuses to leave room to make the I beg to move. right arrangements locally. We continue to believe that 493 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 494

[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM] “A description of any work” this is the right approach but nevertheless we have no which the local authority has undertaken on the feasibility hesitation in subscribing exactly to the principles that of the project. This amendment would require that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord emphasised in work to be undertaken. Paragraph 5 deals with the speaking to these amendments. We continue to believe authority’s assessment of the impact of the BRS, its that it is right that the Bill sets down a minimum benefits and the relationship between the information standard. We undertake to review all the debates, given about the impact and the benefits. However, including this one, which is an important contribution. these assessments do not extend as far as the provisions We had an extensive debate in Committee and these of my amendments; they do not quite cover the issue. issues were also debated in the other place. We will In Grand Committee, the Minister said that if the look at all those debates and at the representations we levying authority plans to use the BRS for maintenance have received on the issue and consider the guidance and operation, it will need to set that out in the which should be given to authorities under the Bill prospectus. I accept that but that is not the point of about the responsibilities to which they must have my amendments and is not what I am driving at here. regard in relation to their prospectuses. I hope that the Amendment 17 would provide for an explanation noble Baroness will accept that we have responded as of the proposed project management—something that positively as we can to the points that she made, and I think most businesses would be interested in—and of that she will feel content to withdraw the amendment. how the project, when completed, is to be managed and its governance arrangements. The amendment Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it must be such a that I tabled in Grand Committee was obviously not difficult job being a parliamentary drafts person, and sufficiently clear as it was answered as if I was proposing a Minister defending a draft and not wanting to have that there would always be a special purpose vehicle. the ignominy of giving way, even on a little point such I am not proposing that. Sub-paragraph (b) of as this. I suppose that I have been there in another life. Amendment 17 states: That is a pity but I am very grateful to know that “the governance and management … (if any dedicated guidance should extend to this. The noble Lord did arrangements)”. not quite confirm that but said that the Government Amendment 18 states: would look at the points. This is not a party political “A description of the arrangements to … keep ratepayers point. I am not trying to cause the Government to fall informed … and to enable them to make representations to the over it. It is simply common sense, but common sense authority”. also tells me that I had better beg leave to withdraw The arrangements about making representations are the amendment. crucial and would be a significant addition. A good local authority will allow that anyway. This is more Amendment 11 withdrawn. than can be covered by guidance about the provision of information. Making representations and allowing Amendments 12 to 14 not moved. for them have different requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, will speak to Amendment 16A. I am flattered by the replication of Schedule 1 : Information to be included in a prospectus some of my terminology, but not quite flattered enough for a BRS to be able to support the requirement for the representation of ratepayers on the governing body. That is not Amendment 15 appropriate. At the previous stage I likened ratepayers to shareholders. I accept that shareholders vote on Moved by Baroness Hamwee who is on the board and can make representations. In 15: Schedule 1, page 21, line 11, at end insert— this model, one would expect that, if investors or third “The authority’s estimate of the costs of maintaining and parties are involved, they would have contractual rights operating the project and how they are to be funded.” but would not be part of running the show unless that is part of the deal that they have made to give the loan, or whatever form their investment might take. Baroness Hamwee: I wish to speak also to Amendments 17 and 18 standing in my name in this I also wonder whether it would be possible for an group. Amendment No. 16A in the group stands in the individual to act as a representative, or even a delegate, name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates. of all businesses in the area. I hope that the noble Lord can cover this. There will be quite a range of These amendments deal with the contents of the interests concerned and this will not be easy. Indeed, it prospectus in Schedule 1. Amendment 15 would require may have the seeds of something a little dangerous if the inclusion in the prospectus of information about one is persuaded that, by this sort of arrangement, the the costs of maintaining and operating the project and interests of ratepayers can be hived off in some way the funding of that. These are important matters for and represented by a board member, or even two rate payers. They are likely to want that information in board members. The interests of ratepayers should order to assess the project. Their assessment of its run through all decisions and not be regarded as viability must extend beyond simply, in the case of a something tacked on, with lip service paid to them. I capital project, something material and concrete—I beg to move. do not necessarily mean that literally—to something beyond the construction of it. A project will not work Lord Bates: My Lords, I support the amendments unless its operation has been thought through. Paragraph 3 that have been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady of Schedule 1 says that the prospectus must include: Hamwee, and will speak to Amendment 16A, which is 495 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 496 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cathcart. how strongly he feels by suggesting a possible Division I will deal with the broad principle of what we are of the House on his amendment and I hope that I can looking at here. Having businesses involved in the assuage his anxieties on that score. process from beginning to end, at every stage—and We have considerable sympathy with the sentiments not only in the consultation process, which will take of both noble Lords. The issue is whether the Bill place before a ballot of businesses—is important for needs to be amended to give effect to their points. The two or three reasons. Government have thought seriously about these issues First, it is just good practice for people to contribute and the way in which we envisage the legislation being to the scheme. The Minister referred to giving comfort enacted meets noble Lords’ points. Of course levying to banks if capital-raising was involved in the scheme. authorities will need a wide range of information in The banks might take comfort from various aspects of the economic assessment of their proposals to be the difficulties involved in raising additional funds. I included in their BRS prospectuses. I am happy to put would have thought that the banks would certainly be it on record that we expect that assessment to include comforted to see strong representation on the board of consideration of the long-term viability of projects— the body—whether it is a committee or council—of something that businesses will be and should be only the business community. This shows that it is not just too ready to press authorities on. It cannot be expected paying lip service and that they are there not only as that businesses conduct themselves without being token representation but to give meaningful input. reassured about the viability of the project and its The business community brings great expertise in the longevity. I can also reassure noble Lords that ongoing whole area of financial management, project management running costs will, under the guidance which we have and procurement. If the objective of this legislation is issued, be included in the assessment of total project economic regeneration, as the Government keep costs for the purposes of determining whether a ballot reinforcing, surely there are no better people to articulate is required. Business will be fully informed on that what will work in improving the business environment front. I want to provide reassurance on Amendment 15 than the businesses themselves. We would like to see that. in those terms. 8.15 pm Amendment 16A, to which the noble Lord spoke, We had a detailed debate on this in Committee. and Amendments 17 and 18, which revolve around the Several points were raised. Essentially, they distilled same areas, require the levying authority to set out down to the purpose of this amendment. The Minister in the BRS prospectus the proposed management gave pretty categorical assurances, as the record will arrangements for a project’s lifetime, and for when it show, that there would be absolutely no question but has been completed. It is crucial that businesses feel that businesses would be expected to be involved from that they can have confidence in the running of the start to finish. She reiterated at col. GC 521 on 18 May project, but I do not consider the amendments to be 2009 that this was the case. Her expectation was that necessary to provide this assurance. In fact, the businesses would be involved at every stage. Our response amendments are overly restrictive and do not reflect was, perhaps, a fraction prescient. We said that, although the fact that each BRS is likely to be unique. After all, a clear assurance was given by the Minister at the time we considered an amendment a moment ago which and she is absolutely trustworthy on these matters, sought to restrict the BRS to London and Crossrail. Ministers move from time to time, at the behest of the The noble Lord thinks that the BRS has unique factors. Prime Minister and to other opportunities in government. In fact, he would have restricted it to one feature. No, Therefore, one of the advantages of having such a we want the BRS to be more available than in that provision in the Bill is that it will give some continuity. example, as I indicated in my response to the proposal In many ways, that concern has been reinforced in at that time. However, we recognise that each BRS is light of the events that we have heard about. likely to be unique and, therefore, it is difficult to be Amendment 16A recommends two things. First, it prescriptive about what information is required in mentions accounts being made available for the project quite the way that the noble Lord and the noble as a whole and to keep the budget in check. That Baroness suggest. would be sensible. Those elements are really the only The use of the BRS is likely to vary in terms of two that add anything to the amendments that have the type of project that the supplement will fund and been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. the proportion that the BRS will contribute towards As well as the financial statements, it recommends the total cost of the project. Requiring levying authorities representation on the board, which should be regarded to set out the proposed governance arrangements, as entirely helpful. It is something that, in Committee, once a project is completed, appears to assume that the Minister gave the warmest possible support to, in the BRS will always be used to fund, or part fund, principle. Perhaps, when the Minister responds, he will infrastructure projects. However, in some cases, it is make similar warm noises. I am afraid that for the important that infrastructure built by use of the BRS reasons I have outlined, the structure for the engagement be maintained. There is no point in building the of the business community in the project throughout infrastructure in the first place if there is no maintenance is so important that it should be in the Bill, and I give in the long run. That is the burden of the noble Lord’s notice that if the Minister’s response to Amendment 16A anxiety. However, we envisage that the BRS may be proves unsatisfactory, I will test the opinion of the House. used for entirely different projects, including revenue projects and for training. They may not necessarily Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to have a legacy that involves ongoing project management both noble Lords for moving and speaking to their and governance arrangements. Why should we be so amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, indicated prescriptive that local authorities can undertake with 497 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 498

[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM] Earl Cathcart: My Lords, before the Minister sits business partners only a narrow range of projects? down, I am not sure whether he addressed proposed Surely we want to make this Bill succeed and to give sub-paragraph (d) of Amendment 16A, which refers to, some flexibility on that front. “those paying BRS to be represented upon the governing body of any organisation set up for the purposes of delivering the objectives Therefore, determining what, if anything, will be of the BRS”. the ongoing needs for the management of the project can be decided only on a case-by-case basis. We need to provide levying authorities with the ability to respond Lord Davies of Oldham: Projects will vary. That will flexibly to the needs of individual projects and that is inevitably be the case in most projects we can envisage why we have eschewed the concept of being overly because it is quite clear that businesses will have an prescriptive in the legislation. I hope that noble Lords interest in the management. They will have a right to opposite who have moved and spoken to their leadership in the management. After all, they will be amendments in good faith—I respect their concerns making a contribution, and we would expect that to be about these issues—will also respect the Government’s the case. We are asking the noble Lord to accept that if position and why we need to preserve flexibility. we are prescriptive in the Bill, we will set up a particular form of management structure which may not obtain The BRS prospectus will make it clear how those in all cases, particularly as we are not prescriptive paying the supplement can expect to be kept informed about the level of contribution that the BRS might about how much revenue has been raised in the BRS make to the overall project. The moment we get into and how it has been spent. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 any attempt at definition of participation in that formal requires levying authorities to make it clear in their sense, therefore, we are involved in being prescriptive prospectus how those liable for the supplement will be in a way which the Government seek to avoid. It is not informed about the expenditure incurred on a BRS because we cannot see how partnerships could develop project. The obligations on the levying authorities are without a recognition of the role of governance in quite clear, therefore, and we have them in the legislation. most cases, but if we put it in the Bill, we have to cover Local businesses will also understand how they will every case in circumstances where a wide variety of be kept abreast of the progress being made. We intend projects is likely to be put into effect. to ensure that, which is what the amendments seek. We are fully seized of the necessities that the noble Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am obviously glad Lords have suggested. The fact that the arrangements to hear about guidance. With regard to my Amendment 15 will be set out in the prospectus provides local businesses about the costs of maintenance and operation, any with an opportunity to give feedback on the proposed authority with its wits about it will include that information arrangements for sharing information about the progress and take the consequences by way of the businesses’ of the project. response if it does not. We expect that successful BRS projects will be I was seeking hard to preserve flexibility, which is developed in partnerships. That is the best guarantee why my Amendment 17 refers to, of the flow of information between the partners and “arrangements (if any dedicated arrangements), that all those who are playing their part are fully and to reflect the case-by-case nature of these apprised of what is involved. The appropriate level of arrangements, to which the noble Lord has alluded. I managerial involvement with any project will depend am certainly not envisaging the BRS funding only on the specific circumstances of each individual project. capital construction. The noble Lord said that capital To attempt to control the Government’s arrangements programmes would not be embarked upon without could lead to an overemphasis on the BRS aspects of the maintenance being thought through. Oh dear, I do a project. This could result in other aspects of project wish that were the case but sadly that is not always so. government related to other funding streams not being as good as they might be. 8.30 pm I understand the concerns. It is not that the According to my reading, the schedule is not sufficiently Government have not thought about these issues extensive to cover the points that I have made. I do not very seriously indeed. We want, however, to avoid want to use the word “nannying” but the noble Lord overprescription and, although I cannot agree with was very protective of the amount of work that ratepayers the amendments because I believe that the Bill makes would have to do in getting to grips with the prospectus adequate provision, I agree with the logic and principles and he urged me not to add to it. However, I think that underpinning them. The Government intend to signal the prospectus will inevitably be complex—it will not in guidance that levying authorities should clearly be adequate for its purpose if it is not. share their information in an open, timely and clear As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord manner throughout the project and consider the right Bates, although he did not directly answer my question role for business in the delivery of the project. These, about whether one or two individuals could represent after all, are based upon partnership and business will all businesses, I think that the implicit answer to my in many instances have a crucial role in governance. I question was, “Yes, they can”. The noble Lord is do not think, however, that in legislation which covers nodding and that is on the record. I am interested in a range of projects which we cannot foresee in detail the Minister’s response. He castigates the noble Lord and which might embrace a range of concepts, we can for envisaging only a single governance model, but the or ought to be prescriptive. I hope that the noble noble Lord’s amendment—I am arguing against myself Baroness will therefore consider that she can safely here—refers to the, withdraw her amendment. “governing body of any organisation”. 499 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 500

It does not say “the organisation”but “any organisation”. contribution of this kind would be substantially influenced It then goes on to talk about being involved in by their expectation—if they had an expectation—that the oversight of the delivery. I leapt to the defence of it would be tax deductible. the noble Lord’s drafting but I do not agree with the When we debated the amendment in Committee, underlying concept, which is a pity because I obviously the Minister confirmed that business rates supplements agree with other bits of the amendment. Therefore, if anticipated by this Bill would be treated as business he divides the House on it, although I hate doing this, expenses and, therefore, would be deductible. The I think that we have little option, as we would like to position of additional voluntary financial contributions, go a bit one way and a bit the other, but to stay put. which are, of course, also supplementary to the rates However, I hear what the noble Lord says on my which businesses pay, was something which the noble Amendment 15 and I beg leave to withdraw it. Baroness quite reasonably wished to reflect on in Amendment 15 withdrawn. consultation with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It was that which gave rise to the undertaking to write Amendment 16 before Report. Moved by Lord Jenkin of Roding I will now refer to the letter, which a number of noble Lords have also seen. It starts by making two 16: Schedule 1, page 21, line 18, at end insert— perfectly reasonable points. First, it points out that the “(d) the likely impact of the imposition of a BRS on those question of deductibility cannot be pronounced on as contributions towards funding public transport works that are treated as allowable deductions. a generality because the position is complicated. Individual In this Schedule— business circumstances will vary and any question of “public transport works” means works undertaken to provide deductibility has to therefore be determined in relation services on which members of the public rely for getting them to an individual business’s circumstance. Secondly, it from place to place when not relying on facilities of their own; points out—again quite properly—that, other than for “allowable deductions” means expense occurred in the course capital expenditure, the test is whether the expenditure of carrying on a business under Schedule A or Schedule D is incurred, (Cases I and II) of the charge to tax under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c. 1).” “wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business”. Having set out that background and specifically referred Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, noble Lords who to the question of deductibility as being dependent on took part in the Grand Committee will recognise that the circumstances and not amenable to a general this is the same amendment that was tabled then—on assertion, the letter goes on to make a general assertion, that occasion by my noble friend Lord Brooke, and I albeit hedged: added my name to it. In the event, my noble friend was “Therefore, whilst I am advised that it is impossible to give a unable to move it and I did so myself. definitive answer in general terms rather than on a case by case basis, it remains unlikely that a voluntary contribution would be I tabled the amendment again late on Thursday, tax deductible”. shortly before five o’clock, because I was expecting to receive a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I find that a surprising conclusion and I think we It had been promised by her private office but by a deserve a further explanation. It may be that HMRC—I quarter to five it had not arrived and, as the noble was a Treasury Minister responsible for the Inland Lord will be aware, the rules of the House require that Revenue when it was a separate department—mindful if this amendment was to appear in the first Marshalled of the precedent which might be claimed to have been List to be published on Friday, I had to get it in before set, has advised in generality and not by reference to five o’clock. That is the only reason that I tabled it—it Crossrail—in which case, perhaps one can understand was due to the circumstances. However, I subsequently that rather sweeping statement. But this amendment is received the letter and, having read it, I am extremely aimed specifically at the very special Crossrail scheme, glad that I retabled the amendment. The letter was which was the subject of a government hybrid Bill very unsatisfactory, as I shall explain in a moment, which took a number of years to get through Parliament and I think that we need an opportunity to examine but eventually reached the statute book. There is a the matter further. wide measure of agreement that the scheme is essential The amendment seeks to clarify the extent to which in order to improve and enhance the transport of a voluntary financial contribution made by a business people in and around London—not just on the line of to infrastructure schemes is tax deductible as the business the rail but over a much wider area. Of course, it is expands under the Income and Corporation Taxes widely agreed by business in London because of the Act 1988. As I explained in Committee, this amendment advantages that that extra mobility will bring to the is primarily aimed at the Crossrail project, which has conduct of business. long been supported by the City of London Corporation In ordinary circumstances, I can understand why and for which the City agreed, as part of the overall businesses would not contemplate making voluntary financing mechanism for Crossrail, to seek voluntary contributions to a scheme of that sort. It is not in the contributions from businesses totalling £150 million. nature of businesses to do that. They may make charitable At the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill, I asked contributions. They may decide to offer a bonus to the Minister what would happen if that money did not their staff—out of the goodness of their heart, as it come in. I did not get a very satisfactory answer. This were. Charitable contributions will have certain tax is in addition to the £200 million which the City agreed consequences, and bonuses are certainly tax deductible, to provide from its own resources. As noble Lords will because they are clearly seen to be incurred for the realise, the readiness of any business to make a voluntary benefit of the business. Businesses are already earmarked 501 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 502

[LORD JENKIN OF RODING] Lady Andrews, arising out of Committee. I recognise for a business rate supplement, which the London that she was being guided by HMRC, and I share my mayor will be entitled to levy under the Bill, and the noble friend’s regret that the Government’s position is proceeds of that will be going to Crossrail. as the letter he referred to implied. I appreciate that There is a Treasury paper on that, to which I drew HMRC has to interpret the legislation that it is asked the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. to enforce, and the legislation is our responsibility in She was not aware of it at the time, but no doubt she Parliament. went back to ask, “Why haven’t I been shown this?”. It In the circumstances of Crossrail, which underlay is a Treasury document on business rate supplement my noble friend’s contribution in Committee and today, guidance, published last month. Paragraph 2.1 is I hope that sensitive interpretation, in terms of the interesting. It states: case-by-case formula, will apply, and I will briefly “There are a number of funding mechanisms available that enlarge on that hope. To go back to those days when enable local authorities and their communities to raise revenue Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise were separate, locally to invest in the local area, for example Business Improvement some identified the difference between them in their Districts”— character as revenue departments. The difference was to which we will come later— that Inland Revenue was preoccupied with the precise “and the Community Infrastructure Levy”. letter of the law, while Customs and Excise, in dealing It is now nine months since the Planning Bill reached with business, was capable of taking a broader view the statute book. What has happened to the community and of seeking to maximise revenue by simplifying infrastructure levy? It was contained in Part 11 of the procedures more roughly and readily on the time- Planning Act. We were supposed to have had regulations. honoured grounds that the best deal in business is one Nothing has been heard of it since. I have been postponing which is good for both sides. meetings with local authorities because they tell me, I left my responsibilities for Customs and Excise “We know no more about it than you do”. Perhaps we two precise centuries after Pitt the Younger invented might have an answer on that. the Consolidated Fund and simultaneously slashed Business improvement district contributions are excise duties in a manner which dramatically raised deductible. The community infrastructure levy, in so the proceeds from the duties which remained, because far as it is a revenue payment, as it may be in some of course smuggling disappeared overnight. Of course, circumstances, will be deductible. One therefore has to I recognise that deductibility will involve a subsidy ask why a voluntary contribution of the sort being from HMRC, but common sense sends us back to Pitt. made to Crossrail is not also deductible. After all, in Crossrail, as my noble friend alluded, is going to need making such a voluntary contribution, business is at all the help it can get to make sure that it actually has the same time making a robust statement about the the funds to carry out this enormous project. I have importance of the project for its own business interests. composed my notes for this speech around a draft of Therefore, I am quite unclear why, at least prima the speech which my noble friend has just delivered, facie, voluntary contributions should not be regarded so I have to pause for a moment while I recover as wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the my place. business. As the noble Baroness said, I understand If non-deductibility prevails, there is the risk that that this is not straightforward, but we are entitled to a voluntary contributions will not come in. If, however, fuller explanation of why the Inland Revenue seems to the response is sensitive, the chances improve that take the view that, business will support the obvious arguments that exist “it remains unlikely that a voluntary contribution would be tax for Crossrail and put their hands in their pockets deductible”. disproportionately.There are good precedents for believing We ought to have that explanation before Third Reading. that bread being cast on the waters does produce a I well understand if the noble Lord is unable to give us return after many days. I have no hesitation in supporting that assurance today. I leave him with this thought. A my noble friend’s amendment. BID payment is tax deductible, as I said a few minutes ago. A BID payment is, in a sense, a voluntary payment, because it must be voted on. There has to be a vote of Lord Bates: My Lords, I support the amendment in all the businesses that will be liable, so it has very much two particular regards, and I seek some clarification. the characteristic of a voluntary payment. Why, therefore, The points that have been made have been perfectly are voluntary payments made to a project of the presented by my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding enormous importance to London of Crossrail not, at and Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, and I have least prime facie, tax deductible? I beg to move. two points to add. I draw on similar experiences under 8.45 pm the previous Conservative Government, in which I had the joy of occupying the position of Paymaster Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, like General in looking after such matters, albeit temporarily my noble friend, I was once a Treasury Minister. It is in the final days of that Administration. 22 years since I gave up being the Minister responsible To a degree, I can buy the careful wording used in to Parliament for Customs and Excise, long before the this letter on the point of not wanting to bind or have marriage of Customs and Excise with the Inland the issue of precedent before us. However, the final Revenue in their new and present form as HMRC. I sentence of the fourth paragraph states: mention this because, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin “Therefore whilst I am advised that it is impossible to give a said, the guts of this matter is the attitude of HMRC as definitive answer in general terms rather than on a case by case expressed in the letter to which my noble friend has basis, it remains unlikely that a voluntary contribution would be alluded, which has come from the noble Baroness, tax deductible”. 503 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 504

In many ways, that is the issue. I could understand if Lord Davies of Oldham: That I understand, my the sentence finished at “on a case by case basis”. One Lords. The Government are going to have to address could accept that as a reasonable response from the themselves to the issue irrespective of the timing of Treasury. However, to add, the letter. However, there is a sincere apology on that “it remains unlikely that a voluntary contribution would be tax front which my noble friend wishes me to convey. deductible” It would have helped if the issues had been made seems to bind the hands in a way it sought to avoid. clear earlier. Once the City of London comes to realise, particularly Crossrail is an important dimension of the Bill, but those businesses which have offered a total of £150 million, it is not the Crossrail Bill. We are constructing legislation that this sum will not be tax deductible, the consequence for schemes in which local authorities will be in partnership will be that it acts as a huge disincentive for future with business for the economic development of areas, schemes that may be offered elsewhere in the country and Crossrail is a striking illustration of that. Noble and for those who may still be considering a voluntary Lords opposite have suggested that Crossrail in London contribution to Crossrail. The issue needs to be dealt should be the sole purport of the Bill, but it is not. with. We are familiar with this kind of test in standard Therefore it will not do to suggest that the Government’s wording such as “wholly and exclusively in pursuit of response to the issues raised in the Bill should be the interests of the business”. If the contribution was constructed solely in terms of Crossrail. As a consequence, not wholly in the interests of the business, why on in defence of the HMRC, the response in the letter earth would it be made in the first place? It is bizarre quite properly talks about a wider generality than the to argue that a business might give 100 per cent for the specifics of Crossrail. sake of getting relief on 20 per cent. That is a non I have listened very carefully to the case presented sequitur. by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, which was ably supported Of course such contributions are made wholly in by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who has a keen pursuit of the interests of business; that is why interest in this matter, and I recognise what the noble organisations make such investments. It is also the Lord, Lord Bates, offered in the way of support from reason why this letter, albeit that it has been guided by the Front Bench. Of course the issue will be pursued the hand of the Treasury, is entirely wrong to suggest and examined further. The letter is constructed against that such matters should be judged on a case by case the generality; noble Lords have emphasised specifics. basis. In the case of contributions made to Crossrail, I cannot at this stage go any further than I have with the answer should most certainly be that they are tax regard to the letter, which makes it absolutely clear deductible because they are expenses incurred wholly that I can offer no comfort in relation to the deductibility in pursuit of the interests of the business. of voluntary contributions in a general sense but that the Inland Revenue will consider the issues on a case- Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I congratulate the noble by-case basis. Lord, Lord Jenkin, on pursuing this matter with such doggedness. In response to the last point made by the Noble Lords are saying that the case-by-case basis noble Lord, Lord Bates, I would have thought that if a is particularly strong in relation to Crossrail and ought contribution is not in the interests of a business, it is to commend itself to the Government. They have likely to be ultra vires and the directors in the case of a argued that point strongly today and I understand the company would be acting in breach of their fiduciary strength of the argument. But they will respect that I duties. am defending a Bill which concerns not only the issue I have one question for the noble Lord, Lord Davies. of Crossrail but has a general import. Will it be possible or practicable—I am particularly concerned about “possible”—for the local authority Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the to assess the impact on contributions when dealing Minister will be the first to take the point that for a with a variety of taxpayers? Within the drafting of the Bill which is intended to be of benefit to the nation as provision and the requirements of the prospectus, is it a whole, as was confirmed by the vote which we had possible to assess the likely impact when the position earlier, the arguments for pursuing this particular may vary between different taxpayers? method would be dramatically enhanced if Crossrail is a success, and will be damaged if it is not. Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on his persistence with regard to this important issue. I vouchsafe the opinion Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is certainly that had he received this letter a little earlier—the so. However, there is a wider public interest in the apologies are heartfelt; he will recognise that my noble benefits contained in the Bill which may derive from friend had limited powers over its construction and Crossrail’s success because, as an economic project in therefore over it arriving when it did—I venture to itself, it is vital to the capital city. We all recognise the consider that had he received it 24 or 48 hours in advance, necessity for the success of Crossrail. it would not in any way, shape or form have caused I shall take away from the debate the importance of him to deviate from his chosen course of tabling this the representations that have been made. The noble amendment, because it is such an important issue. Lord, Lord Jenkin, has indicated that it is unlikely that we have heard the last of his representations in regard Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I rise to say only to this issue. But he will accept that today I am briefed that I might have put down a different amendment. in relation to the general consideration of the Bill and All I am doing at the moment is trying to pursue the that that is why I am in no position to do anything argument. more than identify the key elements which HMRC has 505 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 506

[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM] However, the issue remains: the word “unlikely” put forward in its letter about how it will consider has caused a good deal of unhappiness in the House. these issues. It might be that progress can be made It is good that the Minister has said that the issue will regarding Crossrail, but I emphasise that the Bill is be pursued and examined further. I wonder whether, designed to cover wider issues. Therefore, it is bound in the course of that examination, he or whoever it to express itself in generalities that are bound to be would be might receive a deputation from the City of reflected in the kind of response that HMRC puts London—accompanied, perhaps, by some companies forward. When it talks of a case-by-case basis, that is that have been asked to make and have considered how the matters are likely to be advanced. The Bill, making voluntary contributions to Crossrail—so that however, is bound to come into the category of generalities this could be discussed not only with Ministers in the and the issue of it being case by case must be fought DCLG but, perhaps, with officials from the Revenue. on those individual aspects. There may be a framework That would be a helpful way forward, and it might in which that can be achieved, but the Bill does not help the Minister to achieve the objective that I think provide that opportunity. he is anxious to achieve, without prejudicing the generality of the fiscal treatment of companies in these circumstances. 9pm I am happy to give way if the Minister says that he I venture that noble Lords will also appreciate that, would be prepared to do that. on a matter of such importance regarding taxation, there are real issues with how the other place will take Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as ever, the the perspective that this noble House might adopt. noble Lord puts these issues in persuasive terms. He The noble Lords who spoke in this debate are so will appreciate that, given the particular position that experienced on these matters that I do not need to I occupy today in coming late to the Bill, I am reluctant develop that point, but the debate has been constructive to engage in a response that puts obligations on others and interesting. It is clear that these issues need to be rather than on myself. I recognise the strengths of the thought about deeply, and that the Revenue was obliged points that have been made today, though, and there is to respond in the context of its general position. no doubt that further discussions would be valuable. I Those generalities are bound to obtain with legislation will do what I can to facilitate those. where neither I nor my noble friend Lady Andrews—nor anybody else—can translate the Bill into one specific case in those terms. I hope that noble Lords will Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I realise the appreciate the limitations I have in responding constraints that the Minister feels himself under, and constructively. no doubt if I were in his boots I would have said much the same. I have some sympathy for him, being confronted immediately by three former Treasury Ministers arguing Lord Bates: My Lords, on the generalities, my point this point. He has been good enough to say that this about contribution was that it was certainly not general. matter will be pursued, and I am sure that if a request The final sentence of paragraph 4 of the letter dated is made, a delegation will be received and these good June5says, things can be discussed with those who are directly “it remains unlikely that a voluntary contribution would be tax concerned. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the deductible”. amendment. That is very specific, not general. Amendment 16 withdrawn. Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is general in the sense that it applies to all the issues that the Bill raises. The noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Brooke, Amendment 16A were saying—and I think that the Front Bench supported Moved by Lord Bates them—that there was a special position regarding 16A: Schedule 1, page 21, line 27, at end insert— Crossrail. It may well be that it is in the interests of the Government, of the nation and, certainly, of London, “( ) A description of the arrangements for— that the Crossrail project should be advanced by this (a) the proposed project management, special consideration. However, when defending legislation (b) the governance and management arrangements (if that is, by definition, wider than Crossrail and seeks to any dedicated arrangements) for the project when cover a range of possibilities, it is unreasonable for me completed, to be asked to do more than indicate that this is the (c) the mechanisms by which those paying BRS shall be kept general position that we are bound to defend at this informed of what monies have been raised in pursuance of the BRS and how they have been expended, and point. I regret that I can go no further this evening. (d) those paying BRS to be represented upon the governing body of any organisation set up for the purposes of Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am extremely delivering the objectives of the BRS, or, if such an grateful for the support that I have had for this amendment organisation is not to be set up, how such persons are to be involved in the oversight of the delivery of such from all parts of the House, except of course from the objectives.” Government Front Bench. I start, at once, by being most grateful for the apology that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, gave; I realise that Ministers Lord Bates: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment may, in the past few days, have had other things on to which I have already spoken, and I wish to test the their minds than following up points from Committee. opinion of the House. 507 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 508

9.06 pm Division on Amendment 16A Amendments 20 and 21 Contents 41; Not-Contents 69. Moved by Baroness Hamwee 20: Schedule 1, page 22, line 35, leave out from “to” to end of Amendment 16A disagreed. line 37 and insert “the requirement under section 7 to hold a Division No. 3 ballot” 21: Schedule 1, page 22, line 38, leave out from “to” to end of CONTENTS line 41 and insert “the result of the ballot held under section 7” Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller] Knight of Collingtree, B. Attlee, E. Lindsay, E. Amendments 20 and 21 agreed. Bates, L. Luke, L. Blackwell, L. Lyell, L. Clause 6 : Consultation Bridgeman, V. Mancroft, L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Marlesford, L. L. Montrose, D. Amendment 22 Brougham and Vaux, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Moved by Baroness Hamwee Cathcart, E. Northbrook, L. 22: Clause 6, page 4, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert Colwyn, L. Norton of Louth, L. “consult those persons who the authority thinks might become Craigavon, V. O’Cathain, B. De Mauley, L. Rogan, L. liable to pay a chargeable amount before the end of the chargeable Fookes, B. Seccombe, B. [Teller] period of the BRS and whom it would be appropriate to consult” Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Sheikh, L. Gardner of Parkes, B. Strathclyde, L. Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall also speak to Geddes, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Amendments 23 and 24. Amendment 22 revisits Hooper, B. Tebbit, L. Clause 6(5), because I believe consultation is important Howell of Guildford, L. Trenchard, V. and Clause 6(5) does not in my reading actually require Hunt of Wirral, L. Ullswater, V. it. It says that, Jenkin of Roding, L. Waddington, L. Kingsland, L. Williamson of Horton, L. “a levying authority must ... think whether it would be appropriate to consult persons who the authority thinks might become liable”; in other words, it must think whether consultation NOT CONTENTS would be appropriate. At Grand Committee, the debate Acton, L. Hughes of Woodside, L. turned on the difficulty of identifying those who may Adams of Craigielea, B. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. be above or below the threshold—in other words, who Amos, B. Jones, L. might become liable—which was not the point of the Anderson of Swansea, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Archer of Sandwell, L. Jordan, L. amendment. Thinking whether it is appropriate to Bach, L. Layard, L. consult is not the same as thinking who might become Bassam of Brighton, L. Lea of Crondall, L. liable. Our amendment—this is the crucial point—applies [Teller] Macdonald of Tradeston, L. the term “appropriate” to ratepayers, whom it would Bilston, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Blood, B. be appropriate to consult, not to consultation. The L. Borrie, L. consultation itself would be required. I hope that that McKenzie of Luton, L. Brett, L. explanation is clearer than we managed to achieve at Brookman, L. Maxton, L. the last stage. Meacher, B. Campbell-Savours, L. Amendment 23 would require the levying authority Carter of Coles, L. Morgan, L. Chandos, V. Morgan of Drefelin, B. to publish the result of the consultation, once it had Crawley, B. Morris of Handsworth, L. been conducted. Oddly, this is where even the best Davies of Oldham, L. Morris of Yardley, B. local authorities slip up too often. My noble friend Dubs, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. Lord Tope, who has had to go back to Sutton, as he Elder, L. Paisley of St George’s, B. says, to be a councillor, has volunteered that this is too Elystan-Morgan, L. Quin, B. Evans of Parkside, L. Radice, L. often a problem. The best consultation can be carried Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Richard, L. out to really high standards, but the authority forgets Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. to feed back the outcome of that consultation—the Gale, B. Rosser, L. results of it. Gilbert, L. Sawyer, L. Amendment 24 would flesh out Clause 6(6). The Golding, B. Sewel, L. Gordon of Strathblane, L. Simon, V. Minister may tell me that this is a detail too far but I Greaves, L. Soley, L. think that it is important that when a revised version Grocott, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. of the prospectus is published, the revisions are clearly Haskel, L. Thornton, B. indicated. I am thinking here of the mechanisms so Haskins, L. Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller] readily available to us in computer programs that Haworth, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Henig, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. indicate the alterations which have been made. It will Hollis of Heigham, B. Whitty, L. not be helpful with a complicated document to issue a Hoyle, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. revision without pointing ratepayers to where those revisions have been made. I beg to move. 9.16 pm Lord Bates: My Lords, I support this group of amendments as they seem to make an awful lot of Amendments 17 and 18 not moved. sense. We had a very good debate on this issue in Committee. Clause 6 currently provides that the authority Amendment 19 withdrawn. has only to think whether it might be appropriate to 509 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 510

[LORD BATES] The Bill as drafted gives flexibility for dealing with consult. That seems an odd thing to include in a Bill. marginal situations—for example, determining whether The consequence is essentially that the levying authority it is necessary to consult those with a rateable value of must consult those whom it thinks might be liable for £30,000 in an area where the BRS might be relatively the BRS before the end of the chargeable period of the short-term, and therefore it would be highly unlikely business rate supplement., This amendment is almost that such businesses would move into the category in consequential on our acceptance of Amendment 1, as such a short time. It enables the levying authority to there will be a mandatory ballot and they will be take a reasonable and proportionate approach to consulted at some stage. However, that is a wider consulting those who might become liable for the consultation than the one being aimed at here. supplement. However, the amendment, by requiring Amendment 23 is consequential on that. It states: authorities to consult those who might become liable “The levying authority shall publish the result of the consultation”. for the supplement in future, runs the risk that they An additional point here is the timely publication of will have to consult absolutely anyone who has the the results of consultations with busy business people. remotest possibility of becoming liable for the supplement, In Committee we discussed whether there were more lest they open themselves to a potential legal challenge. immediate, real-time ways of engaging in consultation I am sure that that is not the intent of the amendment, so that members of the business community could but that is what the local authority is likely to feel track what people said. We also discussed such exciting obliged to do if the amendment is carried and we do activities as blogging which could be used to give the not have the flexibility that we envisage in the Bill as it business community a more immediate sense of what is presented. other members of the business community were thinking Amendment 23 requires levying authorities to publish about an issue, rather than having an extensive written the results of consultation on their initial prospectuses. consultation and then finding that businesses do not Amendment 24 would require levying authorities to have the time to read or digest results stretching to publish a revised initial prospectus following the several hundred pages. consultation but before the publication of the final Amendment 24 currently provides that the levying prospectus. Of course any consultation process on the authority has only to publish a revised version of the BRS needs to be transparent, and businesses need to initial prospectus if changes are made after the have confidence that their concerns and comments consultation and it believes that it would be necessary will be taken seriously and will be reflected in the final and appropriate to do so. We therefore strongly support plans for the project. For these reasons, levying authorities this amendment which provides that the authorities will be required to publish a final prospectus. This will must publish a revised version of the initial prospectus. set out how the BRS will work and the details of the It is almost unthinkable that there could be circumstances project, taking account of the comments and views in which consultation took place on complex schemes expressed during the consultation. In line with best aimed at economic regeneration and feedback was practice, the authority should also consider publishing received but then not one change at all was made to a summary of the consultation responses, setting out the prospectus. Therefore there ought to be an updated how the project has changed as a result. prospectus. The concept of a Green Paper moving to a I emphasise best practice. We are certainly prepared White Paper is sound and ought to apply to the way in to emphasise in guidance what we expect to see in best which these prospectuses are issued. The prospectus practice and levying authorities should follow that. should perhaps be issued in draft Green Paper form However, to require a revised initial prospectus in all and then in a final document to be published when the cases surely goes further than what will be needed in results have been collated and sorted. Our view is that many cases, resulting in unnecessary delay and excessive the amendments would be nice to have in ordinary bureaucracy. Instead of taking a standardised approach, circumstances, but, given the decision of the House on which in many cases may not be appropriate, we Amendment 1, they are now essential. I very much should give levying authorities the flexibility to decide support the amendments. what is right for their area and for their proposal. That is the basis of the Bill as it stands. Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having both noble Lords for their constructive approach to identified issues that need serious consideration. I these issues. Of course local businesses should have know that they reflect discussions held in Committee. confidence that they will be consulted if they are likely I merely wish to emphasise that we considered these to have to pay the supplement. That is why Clause 6 matters in drafting the Bill. We are seeking to avoid requires levying authorities to consider whether they being overly prescriptive where we do not need to be, should consult those persons that they think will but we certainly agree—as has been emphasised this become liable for the BRS in future. evening—that best practice on consultation needs to be followed. We are happy to signal in guidance that The discretion allowed for in Clause 6 is not a levying authorities should indeed refer to existing best get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to consulting practice. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness those who might become liable for the supplement. will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendment. The levying authority will have to be able to justify any decision it takes not to consult those who might become liable for the supplement. For example, where properties 9.30 pm with a rateable value of £50,000 are liable, it would be Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not sure whether very difficult for the authority not to consult ratepayers the Minister answered Amendment 23. Perhaps it whose properties had a rateable value of £49,999. was wrapped up with Amendment 22. As regards 511 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 512

Amendment 24, publication is really very easy. The properties. I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady prospectus will have to be revised if there are changes. Andrews, that I would table this amendment in order That follows; otherwise people will not know what to give the Government an opportunity to explain they are talking about. Publication is really not difficult. what the position is. I beg to move. I am so tempted to divide the House but I shall not do so despite a noble Lord saying “Go on”. Lord Bates: My Lords, I support the amendment. It My Amendment 22 preserves flexibility as regards concerns reliefs, which can apply widely. They can the consultees. It requires consultation but retains the apply to sports clubs and other such organisations. term “appropriate” as applied to the consultees. The However, the noble Baroness is seeking clarification clause does not say what Ministers say that it says. I regarding empty property rates. This issue is a sore completely disagree with the Minister on that. However, point for business. The concept of empty property I shall probably do better to rely on guidance than by rates was introduced when businesses and the economy polarising the position and having Ministers decide were doing well but has been implemented when businesses not to explain in guidance that the clause means are doing badly. The idea was originally conceived to something slightly different. On that basis I surrender dissuade property owners from sitting on properties and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. that should be redeveloped. Now many businesses and Amendment 22 withdrawn. landlords are certainly not sitting on properties waiting to be redeveloped as their tenants are going out of Amendments 23 and 24 not moved. business at an alarming rate. As a result, business premises are empty when their owners would wish for Clause 7 : Holding of ballot anything other than that, and they still have to pay this iniquitous tax of empty property rates. We will listen Amendment 25 carefully to the Minister’s response on how he will Moved by Baroness Hamwee deal with reliefs. 25: Clause 7, page 4, line 35, leave out from “BRS” to end of line3onpage5 Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for keeping their contributions brief because Amendment 25 agreed. my response is somewhat lengthy, given the complexity of the issue and the importance of getting on the Clause8:Approvalbyballot record exactly how the provisions on reliefs are intended to operate. I hope that the House will be tolerant of Amendment 26 me. There are different strands to this issue and I will Moved by Baroness Hamwee deal with them under three main headings. First, there 26: Clause 8, page 5, line 14, leave out from beginning to is how Clause 13 is intended to work. Secondly, there second “the” is the intention behind Clause 15, entitled “BRS relief”. Thirdly, I will deal with the issue of empty properties, Amendment 26 agreed. which both noble Lords raised and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, emphasised. Clause 10 : Variations Clause 13 sets out the method for calculating the BRS liability for a ratepayer. The method varies depending Amendments 27 and 28 on whether the ratepayer already receives one of the Moved by Baroness Hamwee existing mandatory or discretionary reliefs from national 27: Clause 10, page 6, line 18, leave out from beginning to non-domestic rates. In framing our proposals for BRS, second “a” in line 19 we want to apply the same approach as currently 28: Clause 10, page 7, line 5, leave out from “BRS” to end of operates in the non-domestic rating system. The effect line 18 of Clause 13 is that if a ratepayer receives relief on their rates bill, the same level of relief will be applied Amendments 27 and 28 agreed. when assessing liability for BRS. I emphasise how Clause 13 works. For instance, charities that receive Clause 14 : Chargeable amount: supplementary just the 80 per cent mandatory relief will therefore Amendment 29 not moved. have an 80 per cent reduction in their BRS liability. Where a charity receives 80 per cent mandatory relief Clause 15 : BRS relief and a further 20 per cent top-up relief on its rates bill, it will be entitled to the full 100 per cent relief and will Amendment 30 pay nothing. Moved by Baroness Hamwee I realise that Clause 15 on BRS relief may have given rise to some confusion and I will attempt to 30: Clause 15, page 11, line 19, leave out from “BRS” to end of explain how this clause differs from Clause 13. Clause 13 line 20 and insert “shall apply in relation to BRS reliefs that are no less favourable to ratepayers than the most favourable reliefs deals with reliefs under the existing non-domestic applied by the relevant billing or levying authorities” rating system. By contrast, Clause 15 covers reliefs specific to BRS. It enables levying authorities to reduce Baroness Hamwee: This brief speech on my part the impact of BRS, not by reference to any reliefs might require a rather longer answer. On reading payable under the non-domestic rates system, but by Hansard, I realised that I am very unclear—I may be setting out its rules for levying BRS. We make clear alone in that—about the position regarding empty that those properties with a rateable value below £50,000 513 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 514

[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM] issues than she does. I realise that I have gone much will not be liable for BRS. Clause 15 enables levying wider than the focus of the specific amendment, but authorities to set the threshold for liability above the noble Baroness invited me to clarify the issue. I £50,000—say at £65,000—so that properties with a hope that that helps the House. rateable value below this would not be liable for BRS. It would be up to the discretion of the levying authority. Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that was admirable. I Alternatively, levying authorities may wish to use Clause hope that the noble Lord did not have to spend more 15 to set a differential rate for properties with different than about five hours on that over the weekend. Seriously, rateable values. An example would be a levy of 0.5p that was extremely helpful. I am sure that I will for properties with a rateable value of between £50,001 understand it even better when I have read it, but after and £70,000, a 1p levy for properties with a rateable that final point about the order under the 1988 Act, as value of between £70,001 and £85,000, and a 2p levy amended, not having been made, suddenly everything for properties with rateable values above that. That is slots into place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. the import of Clause 15. Finally, I turn to empty properties. The starting Amendment 30 withdrawn. point is how the non-domestic rate system works in relation to empty properties. Owners of empty properties are liable for 100 per cent of business rates liability Clause 16 : Interaction with BID levy unless they are specifically exempted. The exemptions are set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State. These include, for example, listed buildings. In Amendment 31 such cases, those ratepayers have no liability for non- Moved by Lord Bates domestic rates. Levying authorities can choose whether their BRS should apply to empty properties. If they 31: Clause 16, page 11, line 37, leave out subsection (1) and insert— choose to do so, the same rules apply to the application of BRS liability as to non-domestic rate liability. That “(1) Where a person is, by reference to a hereditament, liable for BID levy in respect of all or part of a financial year in respect means that empty properties that are exempt from of which the person is, in relation to that hereditament, subject to liability for NDR will also not be liable for BRS. a BRS imposed by the authority, the chargeable amount payable However, for empty properties liable to 100 per cent in relation to the BRS shall be offset in accordance with subsection (2).” NDR, those of more than £50,000 rateable value will have 100 per cent liability for BRS. So, if a levying Lord Bates: My Lords, the amendment stands in authority levies the maximum 2p BRS for occupied as my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cathcart. well as empty properties, those empty properties with The amendments in this group have been retabled for a rateable value of more than £50,000 will be subject the good reason that we were not satisfied with the to the same 2p levy. If a levying authority chooses to answer that we received in Committee. Therefore, we include empty properties in their BRS, any reliefs it sought to revisit the amendments on Report. may wish to apply—that is, the reliefs under Clause 15 First, I shall briefly run through what we propose. —must apply equally to occupied and empty properties. Amendment 31 means that where a person is liable for For example, if a levying authority wishes to increase a business improvement district, or BID, levy, and is the threshold for BRS liability to £60,000, this would subject to a business rate supplement imposed by that apply to occupied and empty properties. The levying authority, the chargeable amount payable in reference authority could not apply different rules to empty to the business rate supplement will be offset, as stated properties. It could not, for example, set a threshold of in subsection (2). Amendment 32 follows on from that £55,000 rateable value for occupied properties and set and would leave out, a different threshold of, for example, £60,000 for empty properties. That is not permissible. “to the extent specified in the rules”. It would be worth spending a brief moment to Amendment 33 would leave out subsection (4), which explain the role of Clause 13(6). This prescribes the states how the rules must be made. formula for calculating the daily chargeable amount As the Bill stands, the levying authority is enabled for empty properties. But this subsection applies only to make rules on what to do when a person is liable for where the Secretary of State or, in Wales, the Welsh the business improvement district levy and is also Ministers, have made an order under Section 45(4A) subject to the business rate supplement. Our amendments of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which remove the levying authority’s right to make rules reduces the liability to national non-domestic rates of about it and instead specify that the liability for business the owners of empty properties to less than 100 per improvement districts will be offset against the amount cent of the basic liability. If such an order had been that the person would pay for business rate supplement. made under that Act, reducing NDR liability for empty properties to, say, 50 per cent, I assure the 9.45 pm House that liability for BRS would mirror this. Liability Amendment 35 would mean that this section does for BRS would also be at 50 per cent. However, no not apply to Crossrail for the reasons which we touched such order under the 1988 Act has ever been made, so on earlier. The first tranche of amendments deals with the subsection has no effect at this stage. offsetting the bid levy. This was debated in another I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, place in Committee on 27 January at cols. 181 to 186 was all too well aware of that issue, but I put that on of Hansard. We do not want to risk harming business the record for those who know a little less about these improvement district schemes, which by and large 515 Business Rate Supplements Bill[8 JUNE 2009] Business Rate Supplements Bill 516 seem to be working well around the country. We have want to spend a moment dealing with this because, for received a number of representations from business those observing the amendments, there may appear to improvement districts, including the West End Company be a slight inconsistency here. In the case of Crossrail, and many others, where they seem to be doing excellent we are supporting the fact that there is no offset work. We want to support that initiative. because, if there were, a strong incentive would be We are none the less cognizant of the huge pressure created to establish business improvement districts for being put on businesses at the moment. This is an issue the sole purpose of avoiding the business rate supplement, to which we return time and time again. It is a question and we would be concerned about that. of good legislation being a matter of timing. There Business improvement districts contribute towards could not be a worse time for levying further charges local improvements such as street cleaning, security on business, particularly where a business has willingly and public area improvements. They are unrelated and voluntarily engaged in a business improvement items of expenditure and, in our opinion, it would be a district and then finds that, in addition to the contributions mistake to offset funding for one against the other. it is making at that level, which in reference to Another reason is that many voluntary associations Amendment 16 may or may not be tax deductible, it which are not formally set up as business improvement could potentially be faced with a business rate supplement districts will have to pay the Crossrail business rate of up to 2p in the pound. That is on top of the supplement. Without the revenue from businesses in business rates which are already levied, currently at a business improvement districts, Crossrail would have a rate of about 48p in the pound. These are substantial funding shortfall, particularly as large parts of the sums of money and effectively take business rates West End, including Oxford Street and Regent Street, to 50p in the pound on rateable value, which is a which are likely to be among the biggest beneficiaries significant sum. of Crossrail, would not be required to pay the Crossrail Although I do not want to run foul of tolerance in business rate supplement. I make that point simply in terms of procedure, I refer to the previous debate as an the hope of heading off any charge that the amendments example. Take an empty property which has a rateable do not quite square up to our position. value in excess of £50,000—a property which has been For those reasons, the mayor opposes offsetting the declared empty because the business has gone bankrupt. payment of business improvement district levies against If the property has to potentially stump up £25,000 a the Crossrail business rate supplement liability. However, year, notwithstanding that the owner is not getting he will work with the boroughs and the business any rent, that seems to be unsympathetic and unhelpful community to ensure that the impact of the Crossrail to business, in contrast to what the Government tells business rate supplement is minimised. us that they are trying to do. Business improvement districts, the British Property In many ways, the concern that levying authorities Federation, London First and other organisations will raise the business rate supplement by a low enough have long argued that BIDs should have the power to threshold so that the ballot will not be triggered has decide whether to include property owners in business been eased, providing that, when the amendment and improvement districts, subject to this being approved the Bill make their way back down the corridor, those by a ballot. They are currently exempt from paying important amendments and the express will of this any BID levy, although many property owners have House are honoured in another place. contributed voluntarily to BIDs. However, some of the uncertainty now surrounding the tax status has Because businesses are under so much pressure at been a cause for concern. the moment and are not able to vote against business rate supplements, they will be forced to vote against Why are we debating this again after we covered the business improvement districts. This is in addition matter in some detail in Committee? We are grateful to—this was a fair point raised by my noble friend that the Minister has tabled government amendments, Lord Jenkin of Roding—the community improvement which we will reach in the next or a later group, that levy, which has not been exercised and which they do will allow the burden to be shared between property not have a vote for. owners and occupiers. That should go some way towards helping to alleviate the weight of taxation on businesses, The best way to prevent this situation is to allow an which this Bill will increase. However, we are still automatic offset of bid levies. This is necessary reassurance concerned. In Committee, the Minister could tell us to business so that they will not be hit be a double or only that an automatic offset would impose rules on potentially even a triple whammy at a very difficult local authorities rather than devolve responsibility to time. Our Amendment 35 makes sure that Crossrail is them. She quoted the example of the South Bank exempt. For the reasons we have given, we have always Employers Group, which said: taken the view that Crossrail is an exceptional case. We “The fact that businesses have chosen to contribute to this have acknowledged that; we are supportive of it and fund of local additionality … should not in any way relieve them our argument throughout has been that we should not of the obligation to contribute to a major pan-London project turn something exceptional into something normative. like Crossrail”. On business improvement districts, the Bill allows a It seems to us that the Government must admit that levying authority to decide whether to offset the payment our amendments achieve just what the Minister was of BID levies against the business rate supplement seeking to achieve and which she articulated in Committee. liability, provided that the approach is consistent with She also said that the chief executive of British BIDs, all BIDs in the area. In London, the mayor does not Dr Julie Grail, had said that, intend to exempt BIDs from paying Crossrail a business “a full offset in London would be a ridiculous and dangerous rate supplement for the reasons that I shall set out. I move”.—[Official Report, 18/5/09; col. GC 553.] 517 Business Rate Supplements Bill[LORDS] Business Rate Supplements Bill 518

[LORD BATES] them to use this new power flexibly to meet the specific Again, our amendments show that we are very much needs of their area. We have set an overall limit of 2p listening to what the business community and business but we are giving authorities the flexibility to decide improvement districts want. The Minister then argued whether the levy should be set at 0.5p, 1p, or 2p. They that the crucial point is that the levying authorities can can decide whether to offer more generous safeguards use their discretion on whether or not to have an to businesses. They can, if they wish, choose to set the offset. We would argue on the side of businesses, the threshold for liability above £50,000—for instance, at crucial point being that they should not be hit by two £65,000. They can decide to exclude or include empty levels of taxation. The Minister knows that we disagree properties in their BRS proposals. with the Bill on a point of principle, but our amendments All this represents the fact that flexibility is at the at least try to make sure that businesses are protected heart of the Bill. It would be totally inconsistent to in some way. I beg to move. impose a requirement on levying authorities to have an automatic offset for those paying BID levies. It Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wrote a note to would be equally illogical for the automatic offset to myself to refer to the Mayor of London’s briefing. I apply in every case except for the Crossrail project. I will not read it out because the noble Lord, Lord heard what the noble Lord had to say about his Bates, has done it full justice. We are, however, opposed Amendment 35, but the Bill is clear that it should be to an automatic offset. BIDs are different from BRSs— left to the Mayor to decide whether to have an offset. they have a different purpose and there are different Surely that is the simplest and most consistent way of ratepayers—so we do not think it would be appropriate going about it. I understand the arguments for an for there to be an offset in the automatic way he automatic offset, but the noble Lord will recognise suggests. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot support from the debates I have outlined here and elsewhere this amendment. that he does not command a universal view. We have heard from those in the BID sector itself who do not Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, at this stage in favour this approach. It would be unwise and irresponsible the evening, one takes solace where one can, and I take to ignore those views. The Bill is right to say that a great deal of solace from the noble Baroness, Lady levying authorities can choose to do it, if appropriate. Hamwee, who, in very succinct terms, has indicated It is for the local authorities to make their decisions. why she cannot support the amendments, and, of The noble Lord valiantly pressed an issue which, I course, neither can I. I will deal with Amendment 35 recognise, has a degree of support, although he suggested separately. that, with Crossrail and the mayor, there is not that The interaction between business improvement districts support. The other side of the case is at least as strong and BRSs has generated a fair degree debate and and our concern in the Bill is to maintain for local passion, both in this House and in the other place. I do authorities—they will have to take the initiative, nothing not for one moment underestimate the concerns that is imposed on them; if they do not take initiatives, have been raised on this issue and I understand the none of these projects go forward—the maximum force with which the noble Lord presented his amendments flexibility for them to make the choice. That must be and the articulate way in which he sought to advance the right strategy, and I hope that the noble Lord is at them. However, we do not think that having an automatic least persuaded enough to withdraw his amendment. offset is the right way forward. It is worth taking a step back and thinking about what we are trying to Lord Bates: My Lords, I am pleased to say that the deliver here. Minister has given fulsome consideration to my concerns This Bill provides a real opportunity for local authorities and given me a good response. I certainly do not want to work together with businesses to develop proposals to press the amendments, and beg leave to withdraw that will enhance the economic development of local the amendment. areas. This is not about diktats from Whitehall; it is about devolving responsibility to the local level. It will Amendment 31 withdrawn. be for the local authorities, working in partnership with businesses in their area, to put forward proposals Amendments 32 and 33 not moved. in their prospectus. Provided local authorities can make the link to economic development, we want House adjourned at 10.01 pm. GC 1 Healthcare: EUC Report[8 JUNE 2009] Healthcare: EUC Report GC 2

healthcare. However, uncertainty has remained over Grand Committee how that right should function in practice, which has acted as a barrier to cross-border treatment for many Monday, 8 June 2009. patients, and current levels are low, with the Commission estimating that cross-border treatment accounts for only about 1 per cent of public expenditure on healthcare. 3.30 pm The European Commission has therefore introduced a The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness proposal for a directive on the application of patients’ Harris of Richmond): Before the noble Baroness, Lady rights in cross-border healthcare to overcome these Howarth of Breckland, moves the first Motion, I barriers and to provide a safe framework for the remind noble Lords that the Motions before the delivery of cross-border treatment throughout the EU. Committee will be that the Committee do consider the That proposal was the subject of an inquiry and Select Committee report and the statutory instruments subsequent report, which your Lordships have, from in question. The agreement of the Committee to the the European Union Sub-Committee dealing with Motions will not affect the status of the statutory social and consumer affairs. instruments, all three of which are negative. If there is During the inquiry, the committee heard from many a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn interested parties and received a wealth of evidence. for 10 minutes. We spoke not only to the Minister, Dawn Primarolo, but to the Health Commissioner. The report is well timed to influence both the UK and EU-level approach Healthcare: EUC Report to the dossier, as the discussions and negotiations Considered in Grand Committee progress. The committee concluded that the proposal is justified and necessary as an attempt to codify the case law in this area but the demand is at best unclear 3.31 pm and is likely to differ significantly across the European Union, with demands greater in countries sharing Moved By Baroness Howarth of Breckland land borders or for reasons of size—like certain specialities. That the Grand Committee do consider the Report The precise mechanics required to deliver it are equally of the European Union Committee on Healthcare unclear. Our report identifies some of the challenges across EU borders: a safe framework (4th Report, to be met, which are unresolved in the directive as HL Paper 30). drafted, such as delivering a smooth pathway of care for patients, ensuring that patients and practitioners are able to communicate with one another—the language Baroness Howarth of Breckland: This is rather an problem—and collating and disseminating information interesting day for the nation in terms of Europe. I did on what is available through cross-border healthcare. not think that I could begin without at least acknowledging In short, a large number of practical issues remain to that interesting things were happening. be resolved. Since producing our report, we have I know from the work of the sub-committee and received the government response, which is largely in the whole European Union Select Committee how accord with our findings and recommendations. In important our influence is and should remain. Indeed, addition, the European Parliament has completed its one hopes that it will increase, as we cannot afford to first reading and negotiations are ongoing in Council lose that influence about the everyday issues affecting working group, but it is unclear when a common people in our nation. One of those people—Mrs Watts—in position will be reached—possibly even more unclear 2006 investigated the possibility of hip arthritis treatment than when I wrote the speech. on the basis of an E112 form. This scheme allows The European Parliament has underlined the position nationals of EU member states to travel to other taken by the committee and the UK Government that member states for treatment at the cost of the relevant healthcare is a member state competence, and therefore authority in the home member state, as long as they that entitlement may be decided at national, regional have been authorised by that authority. Mrs Watts’s or local level. That was a key issue for the committee, request was refused because the projected one-year as prior authorisation by a GP or other appropriate wait for the operation was within government targets healthcare professional is essential to establish clinical and therefore could be considered “without undue needs and ongoing care. The ECJ decisions have confused delay”; that is one of the criteria for E112 authorisation. the issue, but I understand that the European Parliament Having failed to secure authorisation on appeal, Mrs Watts has said that prior authorisation should be refused proceeded with treatment in France. She finally took only in the context of a “fair and transparent”procedure, her case to the European Court of Justice, which and that reasons for refusal should be made known in found in her favour. advance. I ask the Government whether they will In the history of case law over the past 10 years, continue to press for the right to set up a national individuals uncertain about their legal rights or challenging authorisation scheme. I also understand that the the decisions of their healthcare providers have continued Parliament has removed the comitology—the delegated to take their cases to the European Court of Justice, requirement—to reach an EU definition of “hospital and a history of case law has been established in the care”, leaving it up to member states to define what field of cross-border healthcare. The EJC has consistently constitutes hospital care for the purpose of applying confirmed the right of patients from EU member prior authorisation. I also ask the Minister whether states to travel to another member state to receive the Government will continue to press for clarification GC 3 Healthcare: EUC Report[LORDS] Healthcare: EUC Report GC 4

[BARONESS HOWARTH OF BRECKLAND] I know that colleagues will speak about many other about the finer details of delegated or comitology aspects of our report, but this is a complex and committees, where rules might go further than those fast-moving scenario. The European Parliament’s opinion required by the legislators. has responded to many of the areas of concern we The committee concluded that many benefits could raised in our original report, but we must remain accrue from providing a safe framework for cross-border vigilant and continue to assert that the delivery of healthcare, such as the reduction of waiting lists, an healthcare is a member state competence. The EU increase in standards of care, and certainty and peace Parliament completed its first reading after voting to of mind for patients travelling abroad to receive care. adopt John Bowis’s draft with amendments. He was There are benefits for patients with rare diseases, unable to give direct evidence to the committee, but he disabilities and life-threatening conditions, where it kept in touch. As he leaves the EU this session, I appears that the European Parliament is making an should like to pay tribute to his work in social care and exclusion from the requirement to seek prior authorisation. healthcare in Europe. He has been exceptional and has Does the Minister agree with that position? Is the kept this work far above politics. Government’s view that prior authorisation should be However, the work continues. One difference we sought for all patients? have with the Government is the timescale for assessment I want to say just a word on the apparent exclusion of the scheme. The number of cross-border patients at of organ donation from the scope of the directive, the moment is proportionately small. The Commission recognising that it does not mean that European case believes that mobility of patients is a limited phenomenon, law is similarly disapplied. The committee has an but we do not know. We have no idea of the level of interest based on one of our previous reports as well inflow of patients from other EU countries to the UK as this one, and would be interested to hear if the and statistics seem to be generally lacking. One of our Government had any thoughts about how that would key conclusions was to review whatever is put in place be taken forward. within three rather than five years of commencement. The committee had a major concern about equity, Member states then would learn the lessons sooner echoing many of our witnesses, especially those rather than later. The Government agree that it was representing patient groups. A system where a patient difficult to predict future demand, but say that the had to pay up front for their care only to be reimbursed directive must not place a disproportionate burden on at a later date would exclude those without the necessary health systems in terms of data collection. Without financial resources from using cross-border treatment. evidence, how can we assess the impact of any changes The European Parliament, like the committee, appeared in our healthcare system? Surely statistics are already to suggest that there be a system of state-to-state being collected that could be adapted for this purpose. payments, but the UK Government seem to see any My colleagues on the committee would have wished such system as open to fraud and impacting on patients to cover other areas. I know that the noble Lord, Lord who cannot or will not travel for healthcare. How will Kirkwood of Kirkhope, will do so, raising the concerns the principle of equity ensure that all groups have of the General Medical Council, which has taken a equal access, whether or not they travel abroad for particular interest in our report. But the choice of the their care? day was not a good one for our members, most of The committee heard a range of views and evidence whom would have liked to take part. However, I on the cross-border recognition of prescriptions. The commend the report to the House. It has been well Commissioner told us that, while a rule existed on the received by the Government and the Commission. subject, it was difficult to implement in practice. To facilitate it, the Commission intends to develop a 3.43 pm community prescription template and other measures to safeguard public health. The committee recommended Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: It is my signal pleasure that it would be also helpful for the Commission to to follow my chairman in this important debate. It develop a set of detailed rules for the cross-border also was a pleasure to serve under the calm and recognition of prescriptions, but the Government appear authoritative leadership that she gave the committee. to think that this is not practical. Given that differences She is very good at picking subjects of much wider in prescribing practices in the health of patients who interest across the House. We are lucky and grateful to travel exist, how can these patients be protected during the business managers of the House that we have their stay abroad and their continued care at home, found time for this debate. It has captured the interest thus ensuring that they have proper prescriptions? not only of those stakeholders in the area and the I congratulate the Government on their success in Euro-anoraks; it has captured a much wider interest having the definition of “harm”amended in the directive. than that, which is rightly so because this is a very The committee was concerned that this might have important subject. In our sessions, my chairman makes included avoidable harm, leaving medical practitioners my Thursday mornings quite bright: I am never bored liable for such cases. We understand that under the and always fascinated by what we learn. I was fascinated present proposals, harm will be defined by reference to by some of the evidence that was presented. I should the existing legal framework of the member state of declare an interest as I am the new lay member of the treatment. However, in relation to redress generally, General Medical Council, and I enjoy that work too. will the Minister clarify the UK’s response to a recent There is obviously an overlap. suggestion that has come from the Commission that a The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, rightly said European patients’ ombudsman service should be that this is an important European day, and I agree. established? What strikes me is the disjunction between the work GC 5 Healthcare: EUC Report[8 JUNE 2009] Healthcare: EUC Report GC 6 necessary to get the scrutiny done to make sure that I now think that ideas about practicality and the United Kingdom’s interests are protected and the patient safety are more important than I formerly did. complete absence of any content in the political debate There is a need for clarity. We need to be absolutely in the European campaign. If the British public knew sure that people do not think that this is an NHS what was being done in their name, their interest referral. The right to have treatment in another would be more easily captured, and they would better country is not an NHS referral. It is quite separate understand what is at stake. This is important work, and it is qualitatively different in all sorts of ways. We these are important subjects and it is a privilege to be need to ensure that that is absolutely clear to those in part of the scrutiny process. Having spent many years the United Kingdom who may be thinking of taking in the House of Commons, I do not think that it has advantage of this. The Minister used the very good the time to do this kind of work to this depth and level phrase of stepping “outside” the NHS to think about apart from in the Select Committee work that I did how you can look after your own healthcare in latterly. Therefore, it is important that it is done in another country. That is important. this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is absolutely The more experience I get in some of these new right to mention minimising bureaucracy. If we have policy areas, I realise there is an important interface made some progress with the comitology and influence with the devolved legislatures. This House has to in this, everyone is deeply suspicious of devolving remember that, and we were satisfied that proper steps some of these key definitional details to squads of were taken by the Government to make sure that the highly professional people. I am always impressed devolved authorities in the other constituent legislatures when I talk to them, but they are in a different context of the United Kingdom were properly consulted. I hope from the front-line services of NHS hospitals in the that throughout this debate it will be understood, as it United Kingdom. They cannot be expected to know is well enough understood in the department, that that the consequences of some of the definitional work. is an important part of getting this policy right because We have to be really clear and we need to limit as far as there is a lot of argument to go on when the fine print we reasonably can the use of comitology to develop becomes more established as the European codecision this policy. We need to safeguard the NHS. The process unfolds. department gets that message loud and clear, but we need to protect staff as well. If professionals are I was sceptical about the need for this. When I making arrangements for pathways of care, the liability started, I thought it was not worth the candle. There attached to that if it all goes wrong could become was a question in my mind about proportionality and extremely messy, particularly when lots of our sister the things that have to be put in place to guarantee European nations have a no-fault compensation basis that this is all done right for the proportion of the of redress, which we do not have. We have a well cross-border flows of patients. I had great doubts. I developed system of negligence and the two systems think they have been assuaged, but I only think so. are chalk and cheese. That needs to be made clear to The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. As the those who are thinking of going abroad. noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, there is a complete Information transfer is extremely important too. absence of any information about demand, flows or Medical notes need to remain available and language anything, and I underscore her call for the Government barriers need to be overcome. I want to make a point to look for an early review. The proposed five-year from a General Medical Council point of view, which review might be too long. Coming from the United is that the regulatory information needs to be available. Kingdom where there is an expanse of water as well as Fitness-to-practise information needs to be available a boundary between our nation and our sister European to those who are going abroad. At the moment, there nations, perhaps we take a different view. Coming are 20,000 EEA medical doctors practising in the from the north end of the United Kingdom, that United Kingdom and some of them could have fallen might be worse for me. We have to bear in mind that foul of fitness-to-practise conditions in their countries our perspective is perhaps not the same as that of of origin. That is true for the whole of Europe. I somebody in Luxembourg about treatment in Germany. would like to think that the General Medical Council That is important. We need to do more research and is a leader in this area because it is transparent and stay on top of what happens if this right to transfer deals in real time on its website. I can take you to an IT treatment in other states is developed to a point that it terminal and show you whether there is a question becomes something that a lot of people use. mark about a registered medical practitioner’s fitness As a lawyer, why it is has taken 10 years to get this to practise in the UK. directive on the road to some sort of completion is a If we are sending people to Romania or wherever, it puzzle to me, because case law is certainly not a safe is important that there is an exchange of information basis. The committee went into that in some detail. so that there is confidence in the fact that there are no The article on which the European Court of Justice questions about medical competence in other areas. made its basic finding was flawed. It should have been The GMC did a very useful survey on this. I shall give Article 95 rather than Article 49. Lawyers will no you two figures. It asked the public about patients’ doubt argue about that for a long time and charge big rights in cross-border healthcare and about proactive fees for doing so. If we are going to do this, we must sharing of fitness-to-practise information: 94 per cent do it by way of the directive. We must make sure that of respondents said that they, case law is put back into the courts where it belongs “agree or strongly agree that if a doctor is struck off in another and get on with practical provision that helps European country the authorities there should inform the GMC ordinary people. in the United Kingdom”. GC 7 Healthcare: EUC Report[LORDS] Healthcare: EUC Report GC 8

[LORD KIRKWOOD OF KIRKHOPE] exist and of the high-calibre work that it can do on In my view, that is a no-brainer and it should be an issues that are not immediately high profile but which absolute red line for the United Kingdom Government. are none the less extremely important. When we talk about information available to patients, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, another interesting statistic is that, and her committee for producing this report, which “80% of respondents agreed they would be put off getting health brings into sharp perspective a raft of complex and treatment in another European country … if they did not fully unclear issues that have been growing in significance understand how to complain in the event that something went wrong”. for the past 10 years. I welcome her statement that all EU citizens, not just the wealthy or well informed, Again, that is a no-brainer and I hope that the department must be able to benefit, and that the report therefore has that loud and clear. recommends that patients should not have to pay for Following my new interest in the General Medical their treatment up front and that member states should Council, I am struck by the need for systems of be responsible for informing their citizens of the options performance enhancement and assessment across the that are open to them for cross-border healthcare. United Kingdom to be looked at. There is very little That is the fundamental principle in the report. EU research done about comparability of NHS systems. In many ways, they are very different, which is not The issue of access to cross-border healthcare in perhaps surprising. That may change over time. the EU first came to my attention back in 2002 during Assessment and performance enhancement are essential a debate on the Health Bill. In response to a very and the EU must be put on its mettle to ensure that, innocent question from me about whether PCTs would over the three to five-year period that we are doing have to inspect health service facilities abroad should this, it gives some assurance on the comparability of someone elect to go, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of our systems. Kings Health, the then Minister, said yes, much to the amazement of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who was in I shall say a little about language competence. In the Chamber with me that day. The noble Lord, Lord my experience since I joined the committee earlier this Hunt, went on to say that, as part of this Government’s year, you can have really excellent EEA doctors who intention to open up choice to patients, there would just cannot do the job because they cannot speak the indeed be much more cross-border healthcare. At that language. The GMC is incapable of stopping them point, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I weighed in practising at the moment under current law. It is a with a raft of questions, and it is interesting to see that real worry, and we need to do something about it six or seven years on, those questions remain and are very quickly. We need to look at the ability of the only now being addressed in much greater detail. I am medical workforce in Europe; the GMC is concerned glad that they are. As my noble friend Lord Kirkwood about that. said, we on these Benches welcome the report and the Finally, on the development of e-health services, recognition it brings that patients, who have far greater the question of who regulates the doctors in charge of access to information today, can and do exercise their e-medicine is very interesting. Who has regulatory choice to access treatment abroad—not only in the authority over an operation in Bucharest that is being EU but in the United States and India. remotely controlled from Edinburgh? Is it the doctor It is important to state at the beginning that maternity in Edinburgh or the people who are actually overseeing services, which are elective services, are often used as the procedure overseas? It is important to resolve exemplars; indeed, mention is made of them in this these things if we are to evolve in a way that is safer for report. But we should recognise that maternity care is our patients across Europe. I now think that this is a different. People who receive maternity care are not ill; very important subject; again, I changed my mind as a they are also mobile and in a different position for result of exposure to the committee’s inquiry. It is exercising choice. As we know, maternity care is very a very important part of public policy. much rooted in people’s emotional and cultural experience. The committee has done a good job. I agree with Therefore, from the outset, will be Government consider the chair that lots of colleagues would have been here making a slightly different provision for maternity but for other commitments, which enables me to speak services? for a little longer. The Government need to remain vigilant. I acknowledge that the response was very I, too, was struck by the fact in the report that there positive, and the committee is right to want to maintain are no statistics for the numbers of people who travel its interests, as I am sure it will. It has been a pleasure to the UK from the EU seeking treatment. Like the to serve on it, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, I believe that if we are Government have to say. to have evidence-based policy, we need that information. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will recall from our recent deliberations on the Health Bill that government 3.56 pm policy has to an extent rested on the myth of health Baroness Barker: I, too, begin by noting that this is tourism to this country. Not only the public health a timely reminder of the European Union’s role in risks but the potential risks to the provision of acute promoting the well-being and prosperity of citizens of care are now so considerable that we need to know the the United Kingdom. It is good to be able to say that exact facts about that. today. It is also a timely example of the work of this I strongly agree with the statement in the report House. This House is under varying degrees of attack that the purpose of the directive must not be to from all sorts of quarters these days, but this report is undermine domestic provision but to promote safety a shining example of why the House of Lords needs to of healthcare across borders. Any health service has to GC 9 Healthcare: EUC Report[8 JUNE 2009] Healthcare: EUC Report GC 10 be built on the needs of the primary population it of Health or with front-line staff? I rather suspect seeks to serve. That is because health in its widest that, wherever the responsibility lies, in practice there sense is more than just treatment. It needs to take into will need to be a national resource point to which account factors such as diet, nutrition and the front-line staff can refer in order to make sure that environment. This report really addresses access to they state correctly the position and people’s rights treatment—either treatment that is commonly available under the directive. I agree that there is no obligation but more quickly available in one country than another, to promote cross-border healthcare, but it is incumbent or, as is more likely in future, access to pioneering or on the Governments in the UK to advise individuals specialist medical treatment that is not equally available on not just the provision of healthcare in other EU in all EU countries. I rather suspect that that is the countries but the systems of redress available to them light in which the Government should respond to in those countries. The Government’s response to the the directive. report—they say that there should be an, I noted the statement made by Unite in its evidence “onus … on the patient to be satisfied with the information they that it does not want to see an EU single market in have”— healthcare. One thing that was missing from the report is somewhat unacceptable. I do not know how an was an acknowledgement of the extent to which provision individual could reasonably make that judgment without of healthcare is becoming a cross-border activity. We some assistance from healthcare professionals. already know that United Healthcare—a large American I am afraid that the clock has gone wrong, so I do healthcare corporation—is delivering, via its EU not know what my time is. I simply wish to pick up subsidiary, primary care services that have gone out to two further points. tender in parts of Derbyshire and Camden. If the Government think about that, if national Governments Baroness Howarth of Breckland: You have about do not respond positively to this directive, rather than 10 minutes. shaping cross-border provision and receipt of healthcare they will find themselves picking up the pieces of a free-market free-for-all as provision of healthcare becomes Baroness Barker: In which case, sadly, I want to much more of a commodity. pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I have not had the pleasure of serving on One interesting point that I wanted to pick out the GMC, but in its note to us it welcomed the from the report is the lack of a definition for what directive as an opportunity to include a legal duty on constitutes “healthcare”. Even if one were to use “care competent authorities in each country to exchange that is provided in hospital”, there would be significant registration and disciplinary information, and to act variations throughout the EU. Across the EU, nursing on it in the interests of patient safety. We know that care is provided in a whole range of settings that are the present situation is variable; we saw that most not hospitals. In their response, will the Government recently in the case of the doctor who was performing consider stating that the directive should apply only to an out-of-hours service and whose standard of work episodes of acute treatment and the consequent aftercare? led to a terrible tragedy. Will the UK Governments Would that be a workable definition? discuss with other member states what would constitute I agree with the committee’s recommendation that a competent authority in each nation? Are there any person who intends to seek treatment abroad comparable regulatory bodies in most countries? I should do so only with prior authorisation. That is a imagine that there are for most healthcare professionals. necessary condition to ensure that nations have met I, too, agree that a great deal of the benefit of this and continue to meet their obligation to provide an directive to citizens of the UK will only be recognised adequate healthcare system for their own population. if it is properly monitored. Who will be responsible for However, I suspect that, in future, individual patients monitoring the implementation? Will it be the will be motivated to seek treatment abroad on the responsibility of the Department of Health, primary basis not of waiting times but of access to innovative care trusts or individual trusts? If monitoring passes treatment. If that proves so, I wonder whether the to front-line staff on a day-to-day level, is there a case Government would consider it wise for primary care for monitoring of this directive being aligned, within trusts to acknowledge that that may become a growing costs, to the work of overseas patient officers? phenomenon, and to include policies in their plans I note from the report that there is already a pilot that would enable people to travel abroad to receive project looking at e-transfer of patient data for urgent innovative healthcare, provided that they did so in care: the epSOS system. Any of us who have had a such a way that there was learning and development of friend or relative become seriously ill abroad will skills for the health service in their home country. I know the efficiency with which healthcare systems can also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, swing into action when they need to. I would be that if there is to be a system of authorisation there interested to know from the Minister what has been has to be a framework of transparency and a right learnt from that pilot and what the UK Government of appeal. think of the potential of taking what has been learnt I want to look at national contact points. With my from urgent care and applying it to e-systems for noble friend Lord Kirkwood beside me, I remind the monitoring the implementation of this directive. committee again that health is a devolved matter. My noble friend Lord Kirkwood and the noble There is considerable anxiety on the part of the health Baroness, Lady Howarth, are right. Only a small professions about where responsibility for dissemination number of people currently choose to go abroad to of information will lie. Will it be with the Department receive healthcare. I suspect that numbers will grow, GC 11 Healthcare: EUC Report[LORDS] Healthcare: EUC Report GC 12

[BARONESS BARKER] The same conclusion applies to cross-border healthcare. for a variety of reasons; most of those will be for The EU Commission’s stated aim of creating in the access to innovative treatments abroad which are seen directive the conditions necessary for, as life-saving. It is right that people should have that “the provision of safe, high quality and efficient cross-border access without it being simply based on their ability healthcare”, to pay. is, I am afraid, a pipe dream, at least for the moment. I welcome the report. I say to the noble Baroness Achieving adequate standards of safety, quality and that, whatever the Government’s detailed response, efficiency for the cross-border patient is shown throughout this is their opportunity to shape future European the report to be impossible in the short term and policy to the benefit of citizens of this country and to highly problematic even in the medium to long term. place the NHS within the context of the European Of course, I am talking from the perspective of a healthcare systems. I hope that, whatever the political UK citizen. It may be a different matter if one is a situation over the next few years, neither this nor any citizen of Luxembourg wishing to access a medical future Government will shy away from that responsibility. speciality in France, but, for the people of the European If they do, it would be greatly to the detriment of the Union as a whole, the hopes that are resting on this people of this country and our neighbours in other draft directive should not be too great. For the avoidance European countries. of doubt—here, I slightly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—we are not talking about 4.13 pm creating a single market in healthcare. For one thing, Earl Howe: This has been a particularly interesting the Commission makes it quite clear that the right to debate, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady choose to be treated in another member state is trumped Howarth, not only on her opening speech, which I by the right of that member state to refuse to treat on thought was excellent, but on overseeing the preparation the ground that it lacks the spare capacity to do so. of such a well reasoned and perceptive report. It is The clinical needs of the citizens of each state should perhaps worth adding that there is another body deserving always take priority over the needs of someone coming of our congratulations—not a body which we normally in from abroad. That rule does not apply to the shower with much gratitude—and that is the European purchase and sale of cheese, but in health services it is Commission, which has not only recognised that there entirely appropriate if we are to safeguard the effective is an issue to be addressed but which has also advanced delivery of care at a local level. a set of proposals that, in the main, take us forward in This issue is by no means central to the problems a helpful and constructive way. It is to the credit of the which the committee identified. Perhaps the most commissioner who gave evidence to the sub-committee obvious of these problems is the language barrier. The that she expressed a willingness to take on board any scope for misunderstanding on the part of both clinicians recommendations for improving the content of the and patients as a result of language difficulties is not draft directive. I very much hope that the noble Baroness to be dismissed lightly. No amount of legislating can will be encouraged by that. remove it. It impacts most critically on informed patient A necessary, and quite revealing, part of the consent, on sharing medical notes, and on very basic committee’s report was the whole chapter devoted to things such as prescriptions, where all manner of discussing what the point of the draft directive was. confusion can arise. If, as a generality, we regard our Normally, everyone knows what a draft directive is own doctor as the person who is best placed to give us meant to achieve but, in this case, its precise purpose is advice on our healthcare, it is, to put it mildly, quite a not entirely self-evident. According to the Commission— tall order to expect him to provide advice on how to which, after all, ought to know—the draft directive is access safe care, and the right kind of care, in another intended to do two things: establish legal clarity around country, not least if the language of that country is a the rights of EU citizens; and establish a general closed book to him. Yet any patient depends on having framework for the provision of safe, high-quality and enough information on which to base a reasoned decision. efficient cross-border healthcare. We need to bear The committee was therefore quite right to point those aims constantly in mind during this debate. I out that the lack of clarity over who is to provide what make a point of this because of a sentence right at the information and how is a very serious gap in the wall. beginning of the report, which begins: It is not clear how it will be tackled. The committee “The right to access cross-border healthcare presents patients recommends that front-line healthcare providers should with choice”. be absolved of the responsibility of providing this It is clear, once we have read the whole report, that we kind of information, or right, but if they are, who else should not get too hung up on the idea of choice in will provide it? The suggestion is that, for the patient, this context. A citizen of this country has to be brave, it is simply tough; he is basically on his own. Indeed, determined and a little desperate to exercise their right the Minister, Miss Primarolo, said in her evidence that of choice to be treated abroad. The kind of choice that the responsibility for overcoming the language barrier this represents is not unlike the choice you might have should rest with the patient. The commissioner appeared had 100 years ago if you were told that you could cross to back this up when she indicated that the cost of the Channel either by ferry or by Louis Blériot’s new interpretation facilities might well have to fall on the biplane. The result of opting for the second alternative individual, and that it would be too much to expect might be triumphantly successful, horribly disastrous the providers of healthcare to offer this service. If that or something in between. No amount of tinkering is the settled view, simply in the cost of overcoming with the engine of the biplane would have obviated the the language barrier we are dealing with a very significant risks inherent in that mode of travel. obstacle to accessing cross-border care. GC 13 Healthcare: EUC Report[8 JUNE 2009] Healthcare: EUC Report GC 14

Another major deterrent may well lie in the cost of unadvisedly or wantonly. Not enough people are aware treatment. The committee covered that very well. The of that, which is why the messages in this report proposal in the draft directive is that patients should deserve a wide audience. have to pay for their treatment themselves before receiving reimbursement later. Only a small proportion of people can afford to do that, so if we are serious 4.25 pm about breaking down barriers, a mechanism needs to Baroness Thornton: I thank noble Lords for having be found to get round that one. But even people who undertaken this important inquiry and the noble Baroness, are able to find the money need to be careful, because Lady Howarth, for her chairmanship and the presentation they may discover that they are not going to be reimbursed of the report findings to the Committee. The Government for the whole of their financial outlay. Indeed, it seems welcome the committee’s report, which, at its heart, to be explicitly envisaged that patients will need to identifies a key challenge: that of proportionality and finance a proportion of their care themselves, on the the question of balancing the rights of individuals lines of a top-up, if the cost of care in the treating with the responsibility on health services and Governments country exceeds the cost of the care at home. How do to ensure effective provision of healthcare for all their the Government view this issue? Is it something that citizens. Arriving at a sustainable framework for patient they see as inevitable or can something be done about it? mobility throughout the European Union is a key aim The issue of top-ups is of course a delicate one. If, during negotiations. when treated abroad, patients are allowed to top up Noble Lords will be aware that the Government the cost of their care as a whole, and not just the cost agree with many of the committee’s conclusions and of medication—which was the principal focus of Professor recommendations in its published response. Where Richards’s report—the question arises why patients there are differences of viewpoint, such as the need to should not be allowed to do exactly the same thing mandate information-sharing on healthcare professionals’ when being treated in this country. Again, if the fitness-to-practise status, they are due to the Government Minister feels in a position to comment on this, I wanting to keep the directive focused on codifying the should be interested to hear what she has to say. case law and clarifying individuals’ rights—not to extend it into other areas. However, I shall come back Even if the problems of language, information and to that issue. money can be overcome—those are big ifs, certainly in the short term—the central question for any British As noble Lords will be aware, there is a tension in patient remains the one asked by the noble Baroness: the European treaty between Article 95, mentioned by how safe is it for me to be treated by this doctor at this the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, which covers single hospital in that country? It is sobering to read how market rules, and Article 152, which promotes public many and how serious the risks to patient safety are. health and enshrines the right of member states to As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, told us, the GMC manage their own healthcare systems. We need to cannot guarantee to tell you whether a particular balance this tension and, as the report identifies, doctor in another country is deemed fit to practise. ensure that the directive respects national competence The doctor you are thinking of going to may not be in the provision of healthcare. That is why the insured. If something were to go wrong with your committee was right to spend time looking at what procedure, the chances of obtaining proper redress the directive meant, as the noble Earl said. Similarly, may be slim, or non-existent. the report rightly highlights the need for the directive to respect the devolved nature of healthcare within Even assuming that your visit abroad is a success as member states such as the UK. The report also finds regards one particular episode of care, there is still all comparisons with many of the themes the manner of scope for misunderstanding about who is Government found when they conducted their own responsible for what in terms of the follow-up care consultation on the draft directive last autumn, that may be needed. The safe pathway of care that including the importance of patient information and doctors in the NHS take for granted cannot be taken concerns to protect both systems and help patients for granted when more than one health service is through prior authorisation schemes. involved. Even in something as straightforward as bringing back a prescription to this country, a British I do not intend to speak about every aspect of the pharmacist has no means of knowing whether the directive. Instead, I will address the more pressing person who has signed the prescription was qualified considerations, which noble Lords have mentioned. to do so. Simply telling a patient that they can insure The report has concluded that this directive raises against these risks cannot possibly be the answer. questions of equity and has suggested that member states should consider whether to put in place systems One is left at the end of the report asking the same of direct payment when a patient has sought prior question that the committee asked: whether the complexity authorisation. The question of how we address equity of the measures envisaged is proportionate to the scale raises some really tricky issues. As my right honourable of the issue. On the scale of the issue, we simply do not friend Dawn Primarolo outlined in her evidence to the know yet how many people will want to exercise their committee, we start from a perspective of considering right to be treated in an EU member state other than equity for all NHS patients, not just those who are their own. However, if I were a doctor and someone leaving the NHS to obtain treatment in another member were to come to me asking whether they should exercise state. When a patient decides to obtain treatment in this particular legal right, I would tend to compare it another member state because he faces undue delay in to the right to get married. Everybody has that right, accessing a treatment, there is already a mechanism but exercising it is not to be entered into lightly, under Regulation 1408 for that patient to be granted GC 15 Healthcare: EUC Report[LORDS] Healthcare: EUC Report GC 16

[BARONESS THORNTON] Moving on to more technical, but no less important, an E112 form and the patient does not need to pay matters, the Government agree with the committee upfront treatment costs, as the noble Baroness, that there needs to be caution exercised with the Lady Howarth, said. amount of secondary legislation in the directive. The challenge of some of the co-operation measures envisaged At the moment, we do not know how many people in the directive, such as e-health interoperability, should want to take up the choice to obtain treatment in not be underestimated. I shall refer to that when I another member state for other reasons. Some of the address specific points which were raised. Again, we solutions proposed at a European level, such as a need a proportionate approach. The UK is already European-wide claims house, may be costly, bureaucratic co-operating in many areas of work which the directive and disproportionate. Therefore, it is too early to say could duplicate or even harm, and we are unconvinced how issues of equity will be addressed, other than to by the need to create secondary legislation in these assure noble Lords that the Government will continue areas. The scope of any secondary legislation must be to address these issues. We will explore in greater clear and limited to actions agreed by member states depth the potential impacts of different payment and as being necessary at an EU level. reimbursement arrangements in the directive, as well as possible solutions in this area. I turn to questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, explored further the The Government also agree with the committee on issue of co-operation in comitology. I have had to have the importance of being able to operate prior authorisation that word explained to me on several occasions. I am schemes for hospital care, in line with the established not sure I understand it yet, but I am getting close; case law. Such a system can help to provide a degree of perhaps it is something you know when it approaches certainty to patients that their treatment costs will be you, but you are not sure how to describe it. The noble met. Additionally, it would give patients the opportunity Baroness described it extremely well. The Government to explore some of the quality and safety issues involved agree that co-operation at EU level can have the with cross-border healthcare. The noble Baroness, Lady potential to add value but we need to look at each Howarth, raised the issue of whether we were pressing measure on a case-by-case basis and be sure that we for a prior authorisation scheme and would continue understand the scope of each proposal. As the committee to support the deletion of comitology proposals on has noted, we need to ensure that the directive is the definition of hospital care. We will continue to proportionate. That includes co-operation measures, press member states to have powers to use prior where I agree with the need for the final details to be authorisations. We also support the European Parliament’s clear. We agree with the committee that the challenge deletion of proposals for comitology on the definition of e-health interoperability, for example, should not of hospital care. be underestimated and the impacts need to be assessed properly. This brings us onto information and support for patients. The noble Earl is right: people need to think Several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, carefully about whether treatment in another country Lady Howarth, raised the issue of lack of data. In is right for them, as they are effectively stepping outside terms of the timeline for European review of the their home system, with all that that implies. There are impact of the directive, it is too early to say what the fundamental issues to consider: standards of care and negotiations may conclude. However, a number of aftercare, the distance to travel, language barriers and member states have concerns that the data burdens the broader legal implications of treatment in another could be considerable. I am acutely aware that there is state, including redress procedures. PCTs’ ability to limited data on cross-border healthcare. Therefore, know what is going on elsewhere in the Community irrespective of the European timeframe, the Government will be very limited and the NHS will not be in any are considering ways of collecting more data in the position to guarantee or verify the competence of mean time. We think, quite rightly, that we should not overseas providers. We do not want to extend the take these decisions when we do not have the data. responsibility of the NHS to matters beyond its control. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned prescriptions and The proposed national contact points could fulfil a recognition. The challenge, quite rightly, is how to role here in relation to providing general information ensure a proportionate response; how to get a common to patients about their rights and signposting them to template, which can be very expensive with significant contact points in other systems for more detailed implications for national systems; how to ensure protection information. British national contact points could also for patients; and how to ensure that pharmacists can outline to patients from other member states how the refuse to dispense a prescription if they have a legitimate NHS works, but I do not think that it would be doubt about its authenticity. We are continuing to reasonable for contact points in this system to be able discuss those issues with our European partners and to provide detailed information on every hospital in to consider prescription recognition issues in detail. Germany, for example. Similarly, a legal responsibility That is on the agenda, as it is very important. on member states for addressing language barriers should not be created in this directive; apart from The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, asked whether anything else, it would constitute a significant additional the Government support the proposal from the European cost to the NHS which is hard to justify. At present, Parliament for an EU health ombudsman. We need patients must ultimately be responsible for deciding more information about the proposed role of such an whether they have the information necessary to make ombudsman. As noble Lords will be aware, the directive a decision on accessing cross-border healthcare. will require all states to have appeal processes in place GC 17 Healthcare: EUC Report[8 JUNE 2009] Healthcare: EUC Report GC 18 for decisions on authorisation and reimbursement. considered in the context that paying for translation Those appeals may be referable to an NHS ombudsman, services so that patients can obtain healthcare in another so we would want to avoid duplication at that level. member state would constitute an additional cost for The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, spoke of the the NHS. There is no obligation on the NHS to pay devolved Administrations. There is regular contact for or provide translation services associated with between the Department of Health and the devolved existing Regulation 1408/71 when patients get planned Administrations to agree overall negotiating aims, so treatment in another member state. In addition, where that we present a co-ordinated United Kingdom position patients need to access emergency healthcare abroad in Brussels. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, the using the EHIC system, we do not pay for translation noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and, I think, the noble services. This is a challenge still to be outlined. My Earl raised the issues of a professional’s fitness-to-practise access to healthcare abroad is almost completely limited data and patient safety. The overall view of the to France, so I suppose I am fortunate that language is Government is that this directive should be about not a barrier, but I can see that it is an issue. codifying and clarifying existing case law on patient The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about mobility and its scope should not be extended to other maternity care. She is correct that maternity care is issues. However, it is UK policy to support sharing different, but it is still planned care, as far as that is fitness-to-practise information, and we have been doing possible, in most EU states, and certainly under the so since the UK’s 2005 EU presidency. Therefore, we NHS. In the data that we provided to the committee continue to support the thrust of sharing data on on the number of E112 referrals, it was shown that a professional registration through voluntary arrangements large proportion was for maternity care. If women and in due course potentially through other EU have good grounds for feeling that their baby should workforce-related proposals, which can deal with be born in another EU state, this might be the healthcare professionals who have been struck off in preferred route. other countries. I am not completely clear about where She also asked about data on the number of patients the responsibility for holding that register would be. coming into the UK. As far as we are aware, there are I am not sure whether that is because I am not clear or very few requests for treatment in the UK under the whether it has not been decided. I shall return to that E112 scheme. Many countries, such as the Republic of in writing. Ireland and Malta, have contractual arrangements with individual NHS providers. These matters are Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: I am grateful to the devolved management arrangements for the NHS, Minister. Could the Green Paper on the European and the data are not collected centrally. Workforce on Health, which is currently in play in the She also asked whether we would press for hospital European debate on this issue, be appropriate? I care to be defined with reference to episodes of acute understand the point she appropriately made about treatment and immediate after care. While that may not getting the focus wrong on this directive, but the seem attractive, given the 27 healthcare systems, it Green Paper seems to be an obvious place. There are would probably be very difficult to seek out a detailed real problems about data privacy, which sister European definition of hospital care that works for each nations are using to block transfer of fitness to practise. member state. I encourage the Minister to strengthen the Government’s hand in making these arguments, and the most appropriate The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issues of place might be the Green Paper discussions that are top-ups and additional private care. The directive is going on. not about extending entitlements for patients. It is about enabling patients to access healthcare to which they have an entitlement in the UK and other parts of Baroness Thornton: That is a helpful comment. The the EU. The draft text of the directive already helpfully EU workforce-related proposal is obviously where we refers to that, but we are seeking to ensure that the need to look. I shall come back in writing on that. directive is completely clear on the issue and that we The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble are supported by other member states. We think that Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked who has responsibility the overall principles of the Richards review will apply, for e-health. We understand that under the draft directive but we need to consider this further in practice, including the member state responsible is the state where the in the final text of the directive. service provider is located. I am told that that is the In conclusion, this is an important directive for person who has hands on the patient. The noble clarifying patients’rights and the rights and responsibilities Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about the epSOS pilot of healthcare systems to manage patient mobility in a on e-health. I understand that it is still ongoing, but sustainable way. Without this directive, the rules on we will be working to learn the lessons for e-health. patient mobility will continue to be developed solely This is one of the reasons why we have concerns with through the courts and not through the political process. some of the provisions on co-operation because we There is a significant risk, therefore, that the number want to learn the lessons from this pilot before we of legal disputes will accelerate in the short term if work on the finer details of the comitology. member states cannot reach agreement. We need this The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble directive to clarify rights and to minimise the risk of Earl, Lord Howe, raised language. It is clearly a serious further legal challenge. I agree with the noble Baroness, issue. We do not think that a legal responsibility on Lady Barker, that we need to play a full part, and we member states to address language barriers should be will not shirk to ensure that we not only play a full created in this directive. Covering costs needs to be part but that we play a leading part. GC 19 Healthcare: EUC Report[LORDS] Medicines for Human Use Regs. 2009 GC 20

[BARONESS THORNTON] I tried to give an alternative word to comitology, I am afraid that I cannot predict when we will have because a distinguished member of the EU Committee the final directive, nor the detail of its provisions. The recently told us off for not having good English. I was directive is currently subject to negotiations within very relieved, as I am usually the person who raises European institutions—goodness me. The European that issue. Let us hope that we can get some decent Parliament has recently completed its first reading and words that ordinary folk can understand. tomorrow European health Ministers will hold a debate I am grateful to noble Lords for this discussion. on some of the key questions facing the Council. As a The committee will continue to oversee this issue. It result of this debate, I am happy to join the Euro-anorak might also look briefly at the Green Paper, to which group mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred, as that I thank noble Lords for this report and for their might be helpful to the Government. The paper is contributions to the debate this afternoon. We will about the workforce, and the workforce falls within take account of the recommendations as negotiations our remit. We are still concerned about where organ move forward and I know that the Committee will donation fits into the framework—the Minister said return to consider this again. nothing about this—but I assure her that, even if the Government have difficulty collecting data, the committee Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I thank all noble will continue to collect its wits and its information Lords who have taken part in this debate. When I and, I hope, to provide excellent reports for debate. expressed concern to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that we were short on numbers, he said, “Never mind. Motion agreed. It’s not quantity but quality that counts”, and this debate has absolutely lived up to his comment. It has been a debate of exceptional quality. Medicines for Human Use (Miscellaneous When we set out on this journey as a committee, we Amendments) Regulations 2009 thought that the issues would be relatively simple. We were naive. For that reason, we did not employ a Considered in Grand Committee specialist adviser. Therefore, I want to give particular thanks to our Clerk and the adviser to the committee 4.47 pm who between them teased out the issues that the committee Moved By Earl Howe were trying to gather from the witnesses and brought some sort of order to this very complex information. That the Grand Committee do consider the They deserve a strong round of thanks for that. Medicines for Human Use (Miscellaneous I am grateful to the Minister for a number of issues Amendments) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/1164). of clarification, but I shall begin by saying that I was Relevant Document: 16th Report from the Merits struck by the description of the noble Earl, Lord Committee. Howe, of choice being brave, determined and desperate. Listening to witnesses, particularly those who represented the patients’ point of view, it was significant that they Earl Howe: In moving the Motion standing in my would prefer to have good quality healthcare at home. name on the Order Paper, I shall speak, with the leave Their objective was to make sure that what they needed of the Committee, to the other two Motions, which was available in their locality. Only for specialised are also in my name. These Motions are intended not treatment would they need to go elsewhere, be authorised only as a vehicle by which to probe the content of and then be followed through by their own clinicians. three important statutory instruments but to provide a One hopes that if our health service continues to convenient means of doing what is proper and necessary provide excellence, the numbers may well not increase. in the current circumstances: to ask the Government I wanted to make one point about borders. We were for a progress report on the spread of the H1N1 virus reminded several times in our committee that the UK in this country and their plans for countering it. has a number of its own borders. The noble Lord, Pandemic flu no longer occupies the newspaper Lord Eames, who is a member of our committee, headlines, but it is still a public health matter of the reminded us particularly of northern and southern utmost seriousness and urgency. The total number of Ireland and the cross-flow of patients, and we have cases in the UK now stands at about 500 and is rising one or two other borders of a similar nature, which daily. Two people in England, as I understand it, are throw up their own particular difficulties. extremely ill and in intensive care, and another two There is still concern over two issues. Equity is still people are critically ill in Scotland. Schools are being a difficult issue. For example, you may be poor, you closed and many hundreds of people are being treated discover that there is something abroad that could be with anti-virals as part of the containment strategy. life-saving and you want to go. The fact that you We do not yet officially have a pandemic, but cannot pay and someone else could is a real issue. medical and scientific opinion is clear that we could Again, however, I hope that someone in our health face one—most likely next autumn if the pattern of service would give you priority so that you came under the flu outbreak of 1918-19 were to be replicated. the other scheme, which is continually confusing. Some Ministers’ policy of containment of the virus, which of our witnesses suggested that our own scheme and they have pursued up to now, has met with reasonable the scheme under the directive should somehow be success, but continued success is far from guaranteed merged so that there was not this confusion. It might and, quite rightly, the Government are looking to also simplify a number of other practical issues. make provision for a time when a pandemic has been GC 21 Medicines for Human Use Regs. 2009[8 JUNE 2009] Medicines for Human Use Regs. 2009 GC 22 officially declared. We need to move from a policy of would be payable by overseas visitors who are treated containment to one of mitigation. The statutory in hospital for pandemic flu. We could not possibly instruments before us are part of that process of dissent from the thought underlying these changes. contingency planning. However, once again, can the Minister say what criteria One obvious consequence of a pandemic is that the will govern a decision by a pharmacist or an NHS NHS would be under considerable pressure, so the trust to supply treatment, ability of people to be diagnosed and treated for “in anticipation of a disease being imminently … pandemic”? the virus is likely to be constrained. I therefore welcome We are currently at phase 5, one rung below phase 6, the first set of regulations, which will give children which, if triggered, would signal that a pandemic was readier access to anti-viral treatments. Tamiflu is currently upon us. Is being at phase 5 sufficient grounds for a not licensed for use in children under one year of age. pharmacist to judge that an imminent pandemic is The regulations allow the active ingredient in Tamiflu anticipated? If, as I suspect, the answer is no, what to be dispensed to children in the form of a solution if, more would need to happen for that situation to obtain? in a pandemic, there was a serious risk to the child’s health. On visitors to this country who are admitted to I have two points to make on this. First, what hospital with pandemic flu and who either develop reporting procedures would be put in place for adverse complications that also need to be treated in hospital reactions to Tamiflu taken by children? Secondly, why or have pre-existing co-morbidities that are treated do the regulations not appear to specify who will be alongside the influenza, what charges, if any, would be permitted to prepare the anti-viral medicine in solution? payable by the patient in those circumstances? Would The report of the Merits Committee suggests that it be practical or realistic for a hospital to arrive at a only certain licensed hospital pharmacy units will be calculation of that element of the cost of treating the able to do this. That is clearly a sensible restriction, but patient that did not relate to the influenza? I hope that the Minister can reassure me that there is Finally in this context, the regulations refer to no danger of the public gaining access to a medicine “overseas visitors”. Can the Minister say how they prepared by anyone other than a reputable and competent affect illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers hospital pharmacy manufacturing unit. who are treated in hospital for pandemic influenza? In the second statutory instrument, which I also As I signalled earlier, I hope the Minister will not welcome, changes are made to two existing orders. mind if I use this opportunity to ask him to update the The first would enable a pharmacist to dispense an Committee on the general situation as regards the emergency supply of a prescription-only medicine without spread of the virus. Will he tell us about its prevalence a prescription for up to 30 days rather than the current in the rest of the world, and can he brief us on the maximum of five days. This amendment has been number of cases in this country? How successful does welcomed by the pharmacy profession as a permanent he believe we have been in containing those numbers? measure, not just one that would apply temporarily Of the new cases we are now seeing, how many have a during a pandemic. I appreciate its benefits. direct link of one kind or another to Mexico and how However, the second change is to absolve pharmacists many do not? If Mexico is still seen as a hub of of the duty to interview a person before making an infectivity, it would make sense to try to prevent the emergency sale or supply during a pandemic, or in virus from spreading on aircraft travelling back to this anticipation of a pandemic. All they would need to do country. Has the HPA issued specific advice to airlines would be to satisfy themselves that the person to be to protect their cabin crews? treated with a prescription-only medicine has been Turning to the measures that are being put in place prescribed the medicine before and that the dosage is to combat the virus, perhaps I may ask the Minister appropriate for that person. Again, I can understand about the existing protocols relating to those who why this should be thought to be a useful relaxation of come into close contact with an infected person or the current rules. However, taken together, these changes someone who is believed to be infected. He may have pose obvious risks for fraud and abuse. I will be seen a letter in the British Medical Journal of 27 May grateful if the Minister can tell me how the system is to from a GP, Dr Ellen Wright. She recounted the advice be policed to prevent such abuse. In particular, what she received when symptom-free, which was to carry criteria will be used by pharmacists to determine how on working even though she had been in contact with many days’ worth of medicine to dispense within the her son who had been diagnosed as having probably 30 days’ maximum allowed for? Indeed, how will it be contracted H1N1. She compared this with the advice possible in practice for a pharmacist to know whether given to her husband who was told that he could carry someone whom they do not meet, and for whom no on working even though he was suffering from mild prescription is produced, has been prescribed a medicine symptoms, and with the completely contrary advice on a previous occasion? For that matter, how will he given to her sister-in-law and niece who were told to or she know whether that person actually exists? Lastly, stay at home even though they were completely well. If how is a pharmacist supposed to know or judge whether confusion of this sort exists among the medical he can legitimately sell or supply a medicine, in the community, it must surely exist more widely. What words of the SI, steps are the Government taking to make sure that the “in anticipation of a disease being imminently … pandemic”. advice given to those in contact with actual or probable Are the operating protocols specific on these matters? cases is reasoned and consistent? The third statutory instrument waives the charges The Minister will be aware that there have been a that would otherwise be payable to the NHS for drugs number of school closures following the identification to treat pandemic influenza, as well as the charges that of infection in one or more pupils. Is this policy under GC 23 Medicines for Human Use Regs. 2009[LORDS] Medicines for Human Use Regs. 2009 GC 24

[EARL HOWE] person wearing a mask. If that is so, how will face review? A powerful body of opinion says that school masks be distributed to the relevant people? Can the closures are pointless because contact between the Minister reassure me that these matters will be made clear? infected person and others at the school will already have taken place and that it is therefore too late to try 5pm to prevent it. In the United States, the policy of school I turn finally to the whole issue of local preparedness. closures has been dropped because, given the apparent The story of the flu line is an unfortunate one. It mildness of the virus, the benefit of closure is not seen would appear that the Treasury took more than seven as compelling when measured against the obvious months to approve the business case, with the result detriment to the education of children. that the system will not be up and running until the If a pandemic were to be declared and we were autumn, when we ought to have had it last Christmas. faced with a large increase in the number of cases, it is I do not know how it will be physically possible to likely that a decision would be taken by Ministers to stress-test the flu line in advance so as to provide the move from a policy of containment of the virus to a necessary assurance that it will work but perhaps the policy of mitigation. At what point would the grounds Minister can tell me. Meanwhile, there is an interim for such a decision look compelling, and what would it system based on an 0800 number. How is that being mean in practice? In other words, how high would the publicised? volume of cases need to be for the change of direction Not a great deal has been said publicly about the to be triggered? If such a change were triggered, what preparedness of PCTs for a pandemic. It would appear would its practical effect be on the eligibility of individuals that many PCTs have still not finalised their collection to receive antivirals? Would we still distribute antivirals points; that is to say, the places where antivirals will be to everyone who had come into recent contact with the collected in the event of a mass outbreak. Indeed, virus, or would that kind of prophylaxis be much concerns have been expressed to me that the final more restricted? plans adopted by some PCTs will place excessive reliance I should like to turn briefly to another issue falling on community pharmacies as collection points, which under the heading of prioritisation: critical care capacity. could place a severe strain on such pharmacies and The UK has many fewer critical care beds per head of thereby run the risk of disrupting the supply of medicines population than other countries in the developed world. to non-flu patients. Can the Minister comment on the The occupancy rate of those beds is already very high. preparedness of PCTs and, more broadly, can he How are we to arrive at an accepted protocol for reassure me that those to whom the general public are prioritising their use in a pandemic? Who will decide likely to turn for immediate advice, including GPs, the these matters? It is not just a question of comparing police, the CAB and others, have been adequately clinical need between patients who have contracted briefed on what to say and do? the virus. It will also be necessary to make some kind I have asked more questions than I usually do in of comparative judgment between those suffering severely these debates but that is simply an indication of the from the virus and those whose need for critical care uncharted nature of the waters we are in. I am certain stems from different reasons altogether. Relative clinical that the Minister will welcome the opportunity to need is not an exact science, and some invidious value place on the record as many of the answers as he can. judgments will almost certainly need to be made. How, if at all, are the guidelines for that kind of judgment to be communicated to the general public? We really Baroness Barker: The Minister will be relieved to need to take care here. I quote the honourable member know that I do not have as many questions as the in another place, Norman Lamb, who made a very noble Earl, but I welcome the opportunity to consider powerful point. He said that, this matter in a period of relative calm. At present there is no media hysteria on this and, although about “in the last two pandemics in this country … more people died of 500 people are affected by the virus in the UK, we are conditions other than flu. There was a higher excess mortality of people suffering from other conditions who were displaced from not yet at a pandemic level. hospital by those who went there because of the flu pandemic”.— I want to make a point which may seem trivial but [Official Report, Commons, 14/5/09; col. 1076.] which is quite important. This virus is commonly It would be helpful if the Minister could reassure us known in the United States as H1N1. Will there be an on the situation as regards vaccine supply and whether international designation of the virus and will there be we are likely to have adequate stocks of seasonal flu common terminology for it? If nothing else, since a vaccine as well as vaccine for H1N1 by the autumn. I point back in early May, we have realised that this is realise that vaccine production is a lengthy process but going to be an international problem. Therefore, all will we be able to obtain early supplies of the HIN1 existing systems for public health observation, such as vaccine before the autumn? What about the supply of the CDC in Atlanta and its European and Asian masks? In another place last month the then Secretary counterparts, will have to work together. I would like of State announced that an order had been placed for to think at the very least that we could have a common 226 million face masks. For whom precisely are these terminology. masks intended and will the guidance be clear? We That prompts me to ask my first and general question. know that there is very little benefit to be derived from Will the Minister update the Committee on work that an ordinary member of the public wearing a face has been done in conjunction with the CDC, and in mask during a pandemic. However, there would seem particular that done in Mexico to establish the exact to be a lot more benefit for an infected person or pattern of the epidemic there? Also, I understand that someone who has been in close contact with an infected within the group of people who have been seriously GC 25 Medicines for Human Use Regs. 2009[8 JUNE 2009] Medicines for Human Use Regs. 2009 GC 26 infected by the virus we have now have medical staff. amendments that we passed last month are subject to Will the Minister update us on the extent to which the scrutiny of the Committee. Equally, I am sure patterns of infection of front-line medical staff are noble Lords will appreciate why it was necessary for now becoming apparent in this country and in the them to be passed immediately using the negative United States and Mexico? procedure, given the potential urgency of the situation During the week after the initial cases were diagnosed at the time. in this country, the Chief Medical Officer and others These pieces of legislation have the single objective appeared on the radio and television to outline the of making sure that the public can get access to the Government’s plans and their advice to the public. medicines that they need at a time when the usual When questioned, they talked at that point of the routes will be under severe pressure. Although the priority that would be given to studying the strain of changes have been brought into force quickly, they are flu which is now designated as H1N1 and talked about the product of my department’s long-term planning the length of time that it would take for researchers to for mitigating the effects of pandemic disease. These track any variance and develop new forms of anti- provisions have therefore been in development for retrovirals. A number of weeks on from those initial some time and have been the subject of wide consultation statements, how far has that work progressed? I think among the public as well as stakeholder bodies. that I am correct in saying that the threat of a variant The changes to medicine legislation apply throughout of the virus becoming widespread in the autumn the United Kingdom. The regulations on NHS charges rather than the virus which occurred in Mexico earlier apply to England only, but I understand that the on this year is one of our most important focal points. devolved Administrations have brought forward similar On the Medicines for Human Use (Miscellaneous provisions. It may help if I briefly outline the purpose Amendments) Regulations, I understand entirely the of these provisions. The Medicines for Human Use need to produce a form of vaccine that is appropriate (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2009 include for administration to children under one year. Is that provisions to enable the wholesale distribution of an something that the Department for Health will work unauthorised medicinal product in response to a suspected on in future? It has long been known that children’s or confirmed pandemic disease to support the medicines are in many ways inadequate. Across the manufacture of a soluble antiviral for children under board, we frequently treat children solely with drugs the age of one year and to simplify labelling requirements. that are meant for adults, and they are not suitable. At The regulations also ease time limits for the notification the very least, will the Minister say whether the work of urgent safety measures in clinical trials. The noble done in the administration of this particular children’s Earl talked about the competencies of those who version of the anti-retroviral will be monitored and produce the antiviral. We have guidelines and protocols, used in determining more widely the wider question of and these preparations will be made in the how we go about the development of medicines right environment under the supervision of a for children. certified pharmacist. I, too, noticed that the period for which a pharmacist The Medicines for Human Use (Prescribing) can prescribe emergency medicines without prescription (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2009 increases has increased from five to 30 days. I note in the the period for which the pharmacist can make an statutory instrument that the Government are quite emergency supply of certain medicines without a open about the fact that they have planned to do that prescription. This is a permanent change that will be for some time. What is the basis of the Government’s particularly beneficial for people with long-term conditions wish to do that? What is their case? It is clearly not who, for one reason or another, run out of medication directly related to this outbreak. I, too, was struck by and cannot visit a prescriber. In addition, during a the potential for abuse, but perhaps the noble Earl, pandemic, the pharmacist could make an emergency Lord Howe, and I have watched “The Third Man” too supply without interviewing the person requesting the many times. Will the Minister say how this change will medicine. Interviewing the patient will not be practical be monitored and whether it will be possible in future if the patient is also sick with flu and has been advised to determine whether it is routinely open to abuse or, to stay indoors. The noble Earl raised the very important in the greater scheme of things, of benefit to patients? issue of the possibility of fraud in such circumstances. On the other two statutory instruments, I am delighted Our advice to pharmacists, as to many other professionals, that it has been agreed that treatment will be made free including doctors, who constantly receive phone calls to overseas visitors. That is absolutely the right thing from patients, is to base their judgment on records in to do in an emergency, but will the Minister say why it their pharmacy or to validate, even in a phone call to is confined to patients who are treated in hospital if we the general practitioner, the address and age of the are seeking to mitigate the effects of the virus in the patient and whether the patient has such a condition. population as a whole? Someone may be highly infectious but does not go to hospital. To require them to pay for treatment may not be in the best interests of public 5.15 pm health. Those are my questions. This order also enables antiviral medicines to be supplied without prescription and without the involvement The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, of a pharmacist under a protocol authorised by an Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): Iam NHS body or the Health Protection Agency, for example. grateful to the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity During a pandemic, antivirals will be distributed through to appear before the Committee today to discuss these the PCT-designated antiviral collection points rather regulations. It is right that the special legislative than pharmacists. Protocols will be in place to govern GC 27 Medicines for Human Use Regs. 2009[LORDS] Medicines for Human Use Regs. 2009 GC 28

[LORD DARZI OF DENHAM] this is a mild illness or not, but at least we have which medicines can and cannot be dispensed and one patient who has been admitted without an which patient can receive them. This will ensure that, underlying illness. at a time when the health service is under extreme The noble Earl also asked what there was to report pressure both in demands for its services and with its on the state of play globally. In Mexico 5,563 cases own staff being ill, medicines can be supplied to those have been reported, and in the USA 13,217. Those who require them within a framework of safety and a data are also available on various websites. framework to prevent any fraudulent requests. In relation to our preparedness, I do not think I can The National Health Service (Charges) (Amendments say more than what I have said before. I congratulate Relating to Pandemic Influenza) Regulations 2009 many of the officials working in the Department of provide that no prescription charge is levied where Health on the effort they have put in in the past four or medicines are supplied under the authorised protocols five years in getting us prepared to the stage we are at. referred to in medicines legislation, including where In the past, I have mentioned that the WHO ranks the supply is made directly by an NHS body to a patient in United Kingdom and France as being the two best- response to a pandemic influenza outbreak. They will prepared countries. However, we have taken further also mean that no charges are made to overseas citizens action since the Questions we answered in the Chamber. and non-UK residents who receive NHS treatment for I am delighted to report that Ian Dalton, the chief pandemic influenza. That includes asylum seekers who executive of the North West Strategic Health Authority happen to be in the country; they will be under the has been appointed as the national director for NHS same category. These measures will ensure that there are pandemic preparedness further to strengthen the line no cost barriers to seeking or receiving treatment. of communication and, more importantly, the These measures are the first tranche of a set of implementation of policy by PCTs and any organisations legislative provisions that we will need to support our that are responsible for the NHS flu plans. full response to a pandemic. They are the key measures The noble Earl also asked about the advice that we that we judged to be essential to maintain our state of are giving staff. They are vital in making sure that we preparedness when the World Health Organisation maintain our resilience in the management of this flu raised its pandemic alert to level 5. Further changes if it moves to a pandemic stage. With the communication are being prepared that would give pharmacies that there has been, I am slightly surprised at the advice provide NHS services the ability to vary their opening that that general practitioner received. I would have hours and open and close temporarily at short notice exercised my professional judgment in certifying myself in response to staff sickness or to cover for pharmacies ill and staying at home. However, I am more than that cannot open. Further changes are also planned to happy to look into that. Antiviral Tamiflu is currently medicines legislation to expand current arrangements available for all staff who come into close contact with for occupational health schemes to enable the supply individuals with swine flu, whether they are symptomatic of antiviral medicines to members of their employees’ or have had a post-exposure. Post-exposure prophylaxis households; to ease imports of unlicensed medicines is part of our policy. by removing restrictions on quantities and shortening the waiting period before import can commence to The rationale for seven-day school closures is based one week; and to introduce new time limits for the on the best evidence. The Health Protection Agency statutory reports required under the Blood Safety and assesses the maximum incubation period for the virus Quality Regulations 2005. These changes are being as seven days. As part of the local risk assessment, the prepared now and, once ready for enactment, will be Health Protection Agency advises the school and local kept in readiness for when they are needed. NHS and public health officials when individual schools should close. We are basing this on the advice from the The Home Office and the Northern Ireland Executive Health Protection Agency. also plan to make changes to their prospective legislation The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised an important governing the misuse of drugs to enable pharmacists issue in relation to critical care and capacity needs if to exercise professional discretion in dispensing this becomes a pandemic or epidemic in this country. prescriptions for the treatment of addiction and to On 1 May 2009, the Department of Health published ensure that patients receive their treatment and receive guidance for the NHS, Pandemic Flu: Managing Demand it as safely as possible. Provisions will also enable the and Capacity in Health Care Organisations. This includes emergency supply of some controlled drugs by advice from the Intensive Care Society on ways of pharmacists to complement the measures that I have increasing intensive care capacity, including suspending just outlined. elective procedures requiring post-operative critical Noble Lords asked me many questions. I shall try care—which would render me redundant for that period to go through most of them and I promise that I shall of time—withdrawing or reducing critical care outreach write back on others. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, services and increasing the use of agency staff for asked me for an update. We now have 621 cases in the support. However, we also acknowledge that at the UK: 426 in England and 189 in Scotland, two in Wales peak the reasonable worst-case scenario may arise, and four in Northern Ireland. Onward transmission and pandemic intensive-care capacity may well be from human to human has been confirmed in the UK. inadequate, even after these measures have been adopted. Several of these cases have been admitted to intensive The guidance therefore attempts to support staff by care, as we have known for the past week or 10 days, providing an ethical framework for decision-making including one man who may not have an underlying and detailed proposals for triaging patients in the health condition. That raises the question of whether event of demand outstripping supply. GC 29 Medicines for Human Use Regs. 2009[8 JUNE 2009] National Health Service Regs. 2009 GC 30

It is essential that distribution services are prepared are taking the proper precautions. I make the final if we move from the containment stage into the mitigation point that we will maintain our resilience during the stage. The noble Earl asked when we will know that summer period and, hopefully, build further in anticipation that has happened. That will be based on scientific of the worst. advice and will also be dependent on the number of cases at the time and our stocks of antivirals. However, Earl Howe: The Minister has covered a great deal of the Civil Contingency Committee—COBRA—will ground in his reply, for which I am grateful, conscious ultimately take the decision to shift our framework as I am that I ranged rather widely in my questions to from containment to mitigation. It is essential that him. I found his answers reassuring and thank him for during the mitigation phase there will be a system for that. I congratulate the many scientists and officials ordering and distributing antivirals. As I have previously involved in planning the measures that are needed to reported, the flu line was delayed and will not be ready combat what is undoubtedly a serious public health before the autumn, but we are fairly confident that threat. I have no doubt that we shall return to this through that distribution network—obviously it will issue periodically—I hope not at such length. be tested and validated before it becomes live—we will have the necessary systems in place for the distribution Motion agreed. of antivirals from the PCTs or the antiviral storage areas. I am sorry about this; I am trying to answer most of Medicines for Human Use (Prescribing) these questions. On vaccines, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control—NIBSC—has (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2009 produced a swine flu vaccine candidate and has alerted Considered in Grand Committee vaccine manufacturers. The noble Baroness asked whether Moved By Earl Howe these vaccines will be available. We have an agreement that has been signed between the UK Government That the Grand Committee do consider the and vaccine manufacturers to secure supplies of up to Medicines for Human Use (Prescribing) (Miscellaneous 90 million doses of the pre-pandemic H1N1 vaccine Amendments) Order 2009 (SI 2009/1165). before a pandemic begins. I am also delighted to say that if you look at the manufacturer’s timeline, the Relevant Document: 16th Report from the Merits manufacturing of the seasonal flu vaccine will come to Committee. an end by mid-July, so we have the capacity to start developing the H1N1 vaccine. Motion agreed. The noble Baroness also raised the important question of how we keep vigilant over the possible mutation of National Health Service (Charges) such a virus. We should be proud of having the best (Amendments Relating to Pandemic scientific base in this country by constantly looking at Influenza) Regulations 2009 the mutation possibilities of this very unstable virus with no more than eight genes. We are keeping a close Considered in Grand Committee eye on that, which may have an impact, as has been Moved By Earl Howe correctly pointed out, on the vaccine in the future. I have tried to address most of the questions here That the Grand Committee do consider the but, as I said, I will be happy to address some of the National Health Service (Charges) (Amendments others once I read Hansard, and will write back on Relating to Pandemic Influenza) Regulations 2009 those. I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate. (SI 2009/1166). Swine flu presents a real threat to our nation’s health Relevant Document: 16th Report from the Merits and it is important that we are ready to put the Committee. necessary steps in place quickly should the situation escalate. I hope that I have been able to respond to the Motion agreed. concerns that the noble Earl and others may have. I hope that I have reassured them that the Government Committee adjourned at 5.29 pm.

WS 19 Written Statements[8 JUNE 2009] Written Statements WS 20

For the first substantive agenda item, the Commission Written Statements presented a paper on EU Industry Policy, which was agreed after a long, wide-ranging discussion among Monday 8 June 2009 member states. The Commission proposed an integrated Boundary Commission approach to a competitive and sustainable industry policy for the EU and emphasised the importance of Statement industry and small to medium enterprises (SMEs) to the European economy. In discussion, it was agreed The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry that the EU should avoid protectionism and promote of Justice (Lord Bach): My right honourable friend the competitiveness. The Minister supported this and also Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice highlighted the need for the EU to move towards a low (Jack Straw) has made the following Written Ministerial carbon economy and for the simplification of red tape Statement. for business as much as possible. In addition the I should like to inform the House that I have made Minister also called for the European Investment Bank the following appointment under Schedule 1 to the to increase its lending to viable businesses by ¤50 billion Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986: over the next two to three years. the honourable Mr Justice Sales appointed as The Commission also presented an update on the deputy chair of the Boundary Commission for implementation of the EU Small Business Act (SBA) England, effective from 1 June 2009 until 31 May set of measures to assist SMEs which was adopted in 2012. 2008. Progress on the three priority SBA areas was Courts: Means Testing reviewed (improving SME access to finance, providing a supportive regulatory environment; and enhancing Statement market access). In discussion the Minister emphasised The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry the need for implementation of these priority areas of Justice (Lord Bach): In October 2006, the Government and endorsed the Commission’s proposal to allow introduced a means-testing scheme for legal aid for member states the option to adopt less burdensome defendants being tried at the magistrates’ courts. Since accounting requirements for micro-entities (companies then, net savings of over £80 million have been delivered. with 10 or less employees). Following a consultation process, the Government In the afternoon, the council presented conclusions now intend to fulfil their stated commitment to extend on EU Better Regulation and its proposals to reduce means testing to defendants and appellants appearing administrative burdens on EU businesses by 30 billion, in the Crown Court. which would mostly help SMEs. In the discussion The consultation exercise began on 6 November there was broad agreement among member states that 2008, and concluded on 29 January 2009. Ministers better regulation would help avoid unnecessary burdens have been considering their proposals in the light of on business. The UK representative supported thorough that exercise. A response to consultation and impact impact assessments to avoid additional costs on business assessment on Crown Court means testing is today from new measures and also called for action on being published by the Ministry of Justice. These simplification and reduced administrative burdens. The documents are accompanied by a separate, but associated, UK also again expressed our support for less burdensome response to consultation and impact assessment on accounting requirements for micro-entities. reforming payments from central funds to acquitted On the any other business points, the UK representative defendants. supported full harmonisation across the EU on the Copies of the responses to consultation and impact proposed consumer rights directive and also for consumers assessments in respect of both Crown Court means to retain the right to reject faulty goods. Other AOB testing and reforming payments from central funds points were agreed without discussion on the European have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Private Company Statute, Trans-Atlantic Economic Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. Council, the role of tourism in the economic crisis, Lisbon strategy post-2010, outcomes of the Informal EU: Competitiveness Council Ministerial Council and Swedish EU presidency priorities Statement (which will be the EU Internal Market, better regulation and financing, eco-innovation, SMEs, research and The Minister for Trade and Investment (Lord Davies innovation and Lisbon post-2010). of Abersoch): My right honourable friend the Minister of State (Business) (Pat McFadden) has made the following Statement. EU: Education, Youth and Cultural The EU Competitiveness Council took place in Council Brussels on 28 and 29 May 2009. The then Minister Statement for Trade and Consumer Affairs represented the UK on the morning of 28 May, covering the then BERR agenda items on EU Industry Policy and EU Small The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business Act. In the afternoon session, Andy LeBrecht Communications, Technology and Broadcasting (Lord of UKRep Brussels represented the UK for the BERR Carter of Barnes): My honourable friend the Minister agenda item on EU Better Regulation and the then for Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism (Barbara BERR AOB items. The following is a summary of Follett) has made the following Written Ministerial those discussions. Statement. WS 21 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 22

A meeting of the Education, Youth and Culture Ministerial Statement of 29 March 2006 the criteria to Council was held on 11 and 12 May. The Scottish be applied in considering whether to maintain the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the status of a GovCo or to change it to that of a Constitution, Michael Russell, represented the UK for public-private partnership. These criteria were, in order the cultural and audiovisual agenda items taken on of importance: 12 May. the needs of the UK criminal justice system; The council adopted the conclusions on culture as a the state of the UK forensic science services catalyst for creativity and innovation which draw the marketplace; link between culture and the Lisbon objectives and also reflect the role of creativity in responding to the the needs of the Forensic Science Service; and economic crisis. the needs of the Home Office as shareholder. The council held a draw to select the two member We have considered carefully the criteria set out by states which will each recommend an expert to sit on Andy Burnham in his Statement, which continues to the selection panel and the monitoring and advisory underpin our approach to status change. He made panel for the European Capital of Culture initiative clear that not all the criteria could be judged clearly at for the period 2010-12. Luxembourg and Romania any one time and that a decision had to be taken in the were selected, with the assistance of the Council Legal round. He committed that no decision would be taken Service. These two member states are expected to until summer 2007 and that he would share it with propose their candidates for council experts before the Parliament. In the event, it has not been appropriate end of June 2009 in order for the council to officially to make any further announcement as it has been clear nominate these experts at its November meeting. that the developing nature of the UK forensics market The council adopted a decision designating the meant that the criteria for change have not been met in cities of Guimarães (Portugal) and Maribor (Slovenia) the ensuing years. The criminal justice system continues as European Capitals of Culture 2012. to be served by the FSS and its competitors. The UK forensic science market continues to develop, albeit at The council also adopted a decision designating a slower pace than originally envisaged, and the police Košice (Slovakia) and Marseille (France) as European service is now engaged in a series of competitive Capitals of Culture 2013. tenders which will put the delivery of forensic services There was an exchange of views on the presidency on a clearer contractual footing. GovCo status has paper on creative content online. The Commission provided a suitable platform on which the FSS can was keen to learn about member states’ approaches to transition to a commercially effective and robustly legislating online content and their ideas for future competitive organisation. EU action. Most member states, including the UK, The FSS is now about to embark on a major agreed that EU action would add most value where it transformation programme, with the support of the ensured the exchange of good practice, particularly on Home Office shareholder, and I judged that the time intellectual property issues and the fight against piracy. was right to inform Parliament of our current plans. The UK intervened to welcome the discussion on Since vesting, and in particular throughout 2008, the content online and give examples of domestic good FSS has analysed the emerging market in order to practice, in particular the digital Britain and creative clarify the scale of transformation required to reflect Scotland initiatives. its reduced share of the overall market and to optimise Under any other business, the presidency gave reports its commercial potential. That thinking has been on the conference held on the responsibilities of content crystallised in the production of a strategic business providers and users and the Forum for Creative Europe. plan, details of which were presented to the Home The presidency also provided Ministers with information Office in December and, after rigorous consultation on the MEDIA Mundus programme. The Greek with HM Treasury, that has now been approved. On delegation informed member states of the inauguration Monday 8 June, the FSS embarks upon formal of their new Acropolis Museum due to take place in consultations with its staff in which it will set out its June 2009. The German delegation, supported by intentions to move to a new business model, delivering Austria, France and the Netherlands, expressed concern the same integrated service, more quickly and efficiently, about the new Google Books initiative. with a reduced but more targeted workforce, and potentially working from a reduced estate. The full details remain subject to the conclusions from the Forensic Science Service Ltd consultation. Statement The future status of the FSS has been a matter of interest to the House generally and to some honourable Members in particular. I want therefore to make clear The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home that we have decided that there will be no change of Office (Lord West of Spithead): My honourable friend status for the FSS for the foreseeable future. That will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime give sufficient time for the FSS to complete its Reduction (Alan Campbell) has made the following transformation plan and provide more evidence of the Written Ministerial Statement. operation of the commercial market in forensic science. The Forensic Science Service Ltd, formerly an executive In recognition of the House’s continued interest in this agency of the Home Office, was vested as a government- key component of our criminal justice system, the owned company (GovCo) in December 2005. My original commitment to share any decision to change predecessor, Andy Burnham, set out in a Written the status of the company remains in place. WS 23 Written Statements[8 JUNE 2009] Written Statements WS 24

Legal Aid with courts using them in over 16,000 community orders in 2007-08. Now we need to look at the next Statement steps. In the 2008 drug strategy Drugs—Protecting Families The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry and Communities the Government announced that the of Justice (Lord Bach): Members of the public who National Offender Management Service (NOMS) would receive civil legal aid for a money or property dispute, develop a new NOMS drug strategy to complement and who succeed in obtaining a financial benefit from the national strategy and provide a framework for their case, are required to repay their legal aid costs, so responding to drug misuse among offenders. resources can be recycled to help others. I am today announcing the publication of the NOMS If someone is unable to repay their legal aid costs drug strategy, which draws together the broad range of immediately, these can be postponed as a statutory actions that NOMS and its partners in the public, charge on their property. Where charges are postponed private and third sectors are taking to build upon the against property, persons are not obliged to make any considerable progress we have made in tackling offenders repayments, or to repay the charge in full until their who misuse drugs. This includes: financial circumstances change, or the property changes continuing to improve the quality of prison drug hands. However, in order to encourage clients to repay treatment by further rolling-out the integrated drug their postponed charge where they can, the charge treatment system across the prison estate; and accrues 8 per cent simple interest. Although the interest increasing the provision of wings within the prison rate on postponed legal aid charges is entirely separate estate where prisoners who are committed to leading from the bank rate, the Government have been considering drug-free lives can gain the extra motivation and whether the existing interest rate should be changed. support that they need. The Government have decided that the interest rate The strategy also builds on the progress we have should remain at 8 per cent simple. The simple interest made in implementing the recommendations in the which accrues on the legal aid charge is entirely different Blakey report, Disrupting the Supply of Illicit Drugs from the compound interest charged by commercial into Prisons, published in July 2008. I will report to institutions. For an average statutory charge which is the House shortly on progress with this report. repaid after seven years, 8 per cent simple interest is approximately equivalent to 5.3 per cent compound Addressing drug misuse among offenders is a vital interest. We consider that this compares favourably component of NOMS’ wider vision to protect the with other commercial alternatives, particularly for public and reduce reoffending, not only by carrying the majority of clients who receive legal aid, who out the punishments ordered by the courts, but also by could be charged high compound interest rates by addressing the causes of criminal behaviour, helping commercial lenders. rehabilitate and resettle offenders into law-abiding lives. There is also no requirement to make regular repayments against the charge, unlike commercial Copies of the strategy and its supporting documents products. Funded clients will also benefit from lower will be placed in the Library of both Houses, the Vote legal costs, as their lawyers will have been paid at Office and the Printed Paper Office. controlled legal aid rates, which will significantly reduce their legal costs. Taking all of this into account, we consider that the charge should remain at 8 per cent Railways: London and Continental simple interest to encourage those who can repay to Railways Ltd do so. This is important because when legal aid charges Statement are repaid, this money is recycled to provide legal help for others. For example, lowering the simple interest rate by half could deny civil advice to 30,000 people The Secretary of State, Department for Transport per year. (Lord Adonis): I am today announcing a financial restructuring of London and Continental Railways Ltd (LCR). This is a further step toward this Government’s stated intention to complete the restructuring and sale National Offender Management Service of LCR and its assets, following the enactment last Statement year of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill. The financial and operational restructuring of LCR’s interests in the high speed line The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry to the Channel Tunnel and in Eurostar operations will of Justice (Lord Bach): My right honourable friend the establish these businesses on a commercial basis, with Minister of State (David Hanson) has made the following the aim of delivering the best return for the taxpayer Written Ministerial Statement. from previous significant public investment. Tackling drug issues remains a key priority for As part of this restructuring LCR is transferring Government. In the past 12 years prison drug treatment ownership of its finance subsidiaries, which together funding has risen year on year and now stands at over are liable for £5.169 billion of debt in the form of 13 times that of 1997. In this time drug use in prison, bonds and securitised notes, to the Government. This as tested by random mandatory drug tests, has fallen debt is already supported by a range of Government by 63 per cent. In the community the use of drug guarantees. Separately, the Government are purchasing, rehabilitation requirements (DRRs) has also risen, for a nominal sum, the shares of LCR, taking it into WS 25 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 26 direct government ownership. The Government have The Commission also said that it: held a special share in LCR since 1999 which has given “…regarded positively the unbundling of operation and infrastructure them a wide range of controls over the company. LCR activities and the future significant reduction of access charges.” and its liabilities are already accounted to the public The purpose of the restructuring is to separate HS1 debt; consequently, there is no change to existing Limited and Eurostar from their past construction public borrowing requirements. liabilities. This will enable HS1 Limited to charge a LCR owns HS1 Limited, the company which operates commercial rate for access to the line and thereby St. Pancras International Station and the high speed attract more trains and a wider choice of operators. line to the Channel Tunnel. It also owns the UK’s Being charged a proper market rate also offers Eurostar interest in the Eurostar international joint venture and the best chance to develop its customer products and a range of property development interests. services on a sustainable commercial basis. It is for this reason that the Government have taken separate These are successful businesses. ownership of the finance subsidiaries currently within LCR managed the construction and commissioning LCR that hold these past liabilities. This recognises of the new railway, St Pancras and the other stations, the existing underwriting by the Government of these and the substantial associated land development and debts and will see the cancellation of all the associated regeneration projects. It did so on time and within guarantees and future liabilities from the Government budget and remains the right vehicle and management to LCR and its operating subsidiaries. to drive through the next phase of the High Speed 1 Doing so returns considerable value to LCR and its project. operating subsidiaries. The Government are determined High Speed 1 is Britain’s first high speed railway, that value accrues in full amount to the taxpayer. The and first new railway for over 100 years. It provides simplest and most direct way of securing this is for the fast international connections and starting this year Government to take ownership of LCR, making will see the introduction of high speed commuter comprehensive the extensive rights already held in the services from Kent. It is an essential component of company by virtue of the Government’s existing special our rail capacity plans for London and the south-east share. and also of the Olympic transport network. It has the With the completion of this restructuring, the next capacity and potential for freight, international and step will be to prepare for the sale of a long-term domestic service growth. Performance on the line currently concession in High Speed 1, the value of which will be averages at five seconds infrastructure delay per train— used towards offsetting the public investment made in world-class standards. the construction of the railway. It is the Government’s intention to proceed with the sale of this concession as Thanks to the opening of St Pancras and the new soon as the necessary contractual and regulatory structures line, Eurostar last year carried a record number of are put in place in support of the future operation of passengers—over 9 million—a 10 per cent increase in High Speed 1 independent of government and LCR passenger numbers. It has a market share of over and as and when market conditions allow. 75 per cent on the London-Paris and London-Brussels routes. This success in attracting passengers away from In parallel, the Government are discussing the future short haul airlines has saved an estimated 40,000 tonnes of the Eurostar joint venture with our international of carbon over the past two years. It is the pre-eminent partners in order to determine the best future strategy international passenger train operator. for the business: one that capitalises on past success; offers the best opportunity for sustainable future This success has been enabled by substantial public development; and properly reflects the full value of investment, represented in the debt now held by LCR the UK contribution. and its subsidiaries and which is already underwritten As well as leading these negotiations on the part of by the Government. The Government therefore want the Government, LCR will continue to manage the to see the taxpayer benefit from the value which has development of its substantial property interests, the been created in these companies, as well as realising value of which will be realised on a case-by-case basis, further benefits to passengers in terms of more and at a time which reflects the best balance of value and new products and services. risk to the taxpayer. This was signalled in the Statement made by the then Secretary of State for Transport in March 2006 Saving Gateway when he said: Statement “The Government’s objective will be to ensure continuing value for taxpayers’ money, including the successful delivery of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the continuing safe and The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury efficient operation of Eurostar.” (Lord Myners): My honourable friend, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ian Pearson) has today On 14 May this year the Government received state made the following Written Ministerial Statement. aid clearance from the European Commission to undertake a financial restructuring of LCR. In announcing HM Treasury is today publishing further research, its approval, the Commission said: carried out by Ipsos MORI, on the second pilot of the saving gateway. “The operation notified by the United Kingdom involves public support mainly in the form of debt cancellation and puts The saving gateway is a cash saving scheme, which in place a sustainable financial structure for the high-speed rail aims to kick-start a saving habit among working-age link…It will benefit competition and users in view of the forthcoming people on lower incomes, and to promote financial liberalisation of international passenger transport by rail in 2010.” inclusion. The Government announced last year that WS 27 Written Statements[8 JUNE 2009] Written Statements WS 28 the saving gateway will be introduced nationally, and UN Convention on the Rights of Persons that the first accounts will be available in 2010. The with Disabilities Saving Gateway Accounts Bill is currently before Parliament. Statement

The saving gateway has been piloted twice, and The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, both pilots have been independently evaluated. Ipsos Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of MORI was also commissioned to undertake further Luton): I am delighted to announce that later today research on the second pilot, following up participants the UK will ratify the UN Convention on the Rights around two years after their saving gateway had matured, of Persons with Disabilities in New York. In addition, in order to explore longer-term changes in saving we aim to start the parliamentary process for ratification behaviour and attitudes. This research is being published of the optional protocol to the convention shortly. today, and has been placed in the Libraries of the There are an estimated 650 million disabled people House and is available on the HM Treasury website. in the world, including over 10 million in the UK. The UN convention is a powerful and explicit statement The research shows that 60 per cent of participants that they have—and must be able to enjoy on an equal were still saving regularly two years after the pilot basis—the same human rights as others. The convention ended, and three in 10 participants were not saving is therefore a very significant landmark, both for regularly prior to taking part in the pilot, but were disabled people and for Government and society as doing so at the time of the further research. Participants whole. were also very positive about the saving gateway: 98 Ratification of the convention is further demonstration per cent said they would open another saving gateway of the Government’s commitment to equality of human account if offered the chance, and 99 per cent would rights for disabled people, and of our determination to recommend it to a friend. achieve equality by 2025.

WA 115 Written Answers[8 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 116

The BBC charter and agreement contain specific Written Answers and detailed provisions on impartiality. A requirement has been placed on the BBC to treat controversial Monday 8 June 2009 subjects with due accuracy and impartiality, both in the corporation’s news services and in the more general Alcohol field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy or industrial controversy. Question Similarly, Ofcom’s broadcasting code also contains Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno principles to ensure news is reported with due accuracy and impartiality giving due weight to matters and To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many avoiding undue prominence to the views and opinions alcohol-related disturbances occurred on trains in of particular persons or bodies. This broadcasting 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. code is available on Ofcom’s website at www.ofcom.org.uk. [HL4061]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): Civil Service: Performance Pay This information is not held by the Department for Question Transport but by the British Transport Police who can be contacted at: British Transport Police, 25 Camden Asked by Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay Road, London, NW1 9LN, e-mail: [email protected]. To ask Her Majesty’s Government (a) what the police.uk. total monetary value of Senior Civil Service non- consolidated performance pay awards was in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Armed Forces: Aircraft Reform, (b) how many and what proportion of the Question Senior Civil Service staff in the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform received Asked by Lord Moonie performance pay awards by SCS pay band, and (c) how those awards were distributed by pay band To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many and award category, for each of the past five years hours in aggregate have the C-17s operated by the for which data are available. [HL3365] Royal Air Force flown; how many are planned for 2009–10; when each of them is anticipated to reach the end of its flying life; and what plans they have The Minister for Economic Competitiveness and Small for further acquisition of C-17s. [HL3797] Business (Baroness Vadera): The creation of BERR was announced in June 2007 in a machinery of government change and this was applied retrospectively The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry to 1 April 2007. Non-consolidated non-pensionable of Defence (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): Between the performance awards are paid to staff in the Senior 1 May 2001, when the fleet first came into service, and Civil Service (SCS) to reward delivery of business 31 March 2009 the Royal Air Force’s C-17 aircraft of objectives and personal contributions to wider which there are now six, have completed a total of organisational goals. Performance awards are part of 48,824 flying hours. Planned flying hours for 2009-10 the pay system across the whole Senior Civil Service, are 7,847, however, the final figure of actual flying and are used to reward high performance sustained hours may differ. The planned out-of-service date for throughout the year, based on judgments of how well the fleet is 2031, and there are no plans currently to an individual has performed relative to their peers. procure further aircraft. The performance-related pay scheme is designed to help drive high performance and support better public Broadcasting: Political Balance service delivery. The size of the non-consolidated performance pay Question pot is based on recommendations by the independent Asked by Lord Roberts of Conwy Senior Salaries Review Body. The Government have frozen the percentage of the To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures pay bill available for SCS non-consolidated pay for they have in place to ensure party political balance 2009-10. These figures are not yet available. in broadcasting. [HL3905] The information available is shown in the tables below. The Minister for Communications, Technology and Table 1 Total monetary value of SCS non-consolidated Broadcasting (Lord Carter of Barnes): Responsibility performance pay for what is broadcast on television and radio rests with the broadcasters and the organisations that regulate Percentage broadcasting: the Office of Communications (Ofcom), FY in which of the SCS Total Proportion award was pay bill Total Paid number of of SCS the BBC Trust and the Welsh Fourth Channel paid (%) (£ million) recipients (%) Authority (S4C). These organisations are independent of Government and are responsible for safeguarding 2007-08 7.6 1.13 143 75 the public interest in broadcasting—they set out the 2008-09 8.6 1.21 141 75 rules and guidance with which broadcasters must comply. WA 117 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 118

Table 2-Distribution by pay band and award category FY 2007-08 Energy: Electricity Generation FY 2007-08 Question Pay band 1 Pay band 2 Asked by Lord Reay Performance Performance Tranche Total Tranche Total To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of electricity consumed in England and Wales was Top 24% Top 26% produced by hydroelectric power in each of the past Middle High 23% Middle High 29% five years for which figures are available. [HL3825] Middle 28% Middle 18% Standard Standard The Minister of State, Department of Energy and FY 2008-09 Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Data Pay band 1 Pay band 2 are available for the amount of hydro-electricity generated Performance Performance Tranche Total Tranche Total in England and Wales, as well as the amount of electricity consumed. This is shown in the table below. Group 1 25% Group 1 25% Data for both series are currently available for 2004 to Group 2 51% Group 2 50% 2007, with 2008 data for hydro-electricity available in September 2009, and for electricity consumption in December 2009. Also shown are data for UK hydro- Cyprus: Property electricity generation—data for 2008 available in July 2009. Question Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham Hydroelectricity Total Hydro- generated To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress electricity electricity Hydro- in E&W as has been made on the discussions between the consumption generation electricity a percentage British High Commission in Cyprus and the in England in England generation of electricity Government of Cyprus regarding the ability of and Wales and Wales in the UK consumption United Kingdom citizens who have bought property (GWh) (GWh) (GWh) in E&W in Cyprus to obtain title deeds, and the assurances 2004 307,512 356.7 4,843.6 0.12% made by the government of Cyprus to the British 2005 313,453 295.2 4,921.1 0.09% High Commissioner that it would introduce a bill 2006 311,739 335.2 4,592.6 0.11% to address that issue. [HL3803] 2007 309,211 356.7 5,088.4 0.12% The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): Our High Commissioner Energy: Wind Generation in Cyprus discussed the question of title deeds with the Minister of Interior of the Republic of Cyprus on Questions 27 April 2009. The Minister was fully aware of the Asked by Lord Carlile of Berriew problem of obtaining title deeds, an issue which also affects a large number of Cypriots. The Cyprus To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the Government will introduce legislation to speed up the forecast capacity of wind-powered electricity generators issuing of title deeds, but this legislation will only from Wales expected to be incorporated into the apply to future cases. The Minister expressed a willingness National Grid; and which individual proposals in to meet representatives of interest groups about this which locations constitute that capacity. [HL3109] issue. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Damian McBride Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Wales Question currently has 420MW of operational wind energy: Asked by Lord Laird 360MW onshore at various locations as well as 60MW To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether offshore at North Hoyle. 90MW is under construction severance, redundancy or pay in lieu of notice is at Rhyl Flats and the 750MW Gwynt-y-Mor offshore being arranged for Damian McBride; whether early project was consented in December 2008. These offshore commencement of pension or any enhancement is wind farms are all situated off the north Wales coast. being considered; and whether he is to be replaced. The Government estimate that meeting our share [HL2970] of the EU 2020 target might require up to 14GW of onshore wind and up to 14GW of offshore wind The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness generation—a proportion of which will be in Wales. Royall of Blaisdon): Mr McBride resigned on 11 April. The Welsh Assembly Government’s 2008 Renewable His resignation had immediate effect. He has not been EnergyRouteMapForWalesatwales.gov.uk/consultation/ paid severance, redundancy or pay in lieu of notice. desh/2008/renewable/routemape.pdf?lang=en stated Nor is there any early commencement of pension or that if all potential projects were to go ahead in full, enhanced terms. The Government are committed to windfarmswithintheTAN8http://wales.gov.uk/topics/ publishing an annual list of special advisers. The next planning/policy/tans/tan8/?lang=enstrategicsearchareas list will be published before the Summer Recess. could produce up to 2,500MW of generation capacity. WA 119 Written Answers[8 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 120

We are currently aware of around 2,000MW of Asked by Lord Reay possible onshore wind energy projects in Wales at various stages in the planning system. These include To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their the projects listed in the table below, which are with projection of the cost of building all further wind the Secretary of State for approval under Section 36 of turbines required to enable them to meet their 2020 the Electricity Act 1989. In addition there will also be renewable energy targets, including additional other current applications under the Town and Country transmission lines. [HL3409] Planning Act 1990 which will be dealt with by the relevant local planning authorities in Wales. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The UK Renewable Applications for onshore wind farms in Wales under Section 36 Energy Strategy consultation document http://decc. Type of Project/ gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/ Application Company/ Consent Maximum energy mix/renewables/res/res.aspx set out a central Date Location requested Output scenario for deployment of renewable energy needed to meet the UK’s share of the EU renewable energy 27/03/09 RES UK & Onshore wind 100MW Ireland farm— target. Limited Section 36 The resource cost (the cost of the renewable Llanbrynmair technologies less the cost of conventional generation Powys and carbon allowances) of increasing the level of 11/12/08 Npower Onshore wind 130-250MW renewable electricity to meet that scenario, including Renewables farm Ltd Carnedd additional costs to grid infrastructure, was estimated Wen Powys to be in the region of £2.2 billion to £2.6 billion pa in 09/05/08 CeltPower Onshore wind 126MW 2020, £33 billion to £37 billion cumulative to 2030. Limited farm This cost relates to the impact on the electricity market Llandinam nr (repowering of all renewable electricity technologies, that will be Newtown and Powys extension)— incentivised through the renewables obligation (RO) Section 36 to contribute to the achievement of the 2020 renewables 07/05/08 Fferm Wynt Onshore wind 66.7MW target. There are no estimates of the cost of the RO for Llaithddu Cyf farm— individual technologies. Llaithddu Section 36 Powys 30/11/07 Nuon UK Onshore wind 59.5 MW Ltd farm Global Peace Index Lanbadam Fynydd Question Powys Asked by Lord Dykes Asked by Lord Reay To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they will give to the development of the Global To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the Peace Index. [HL4029] contribution to the National Grid made by wind power during the coldest days between November 2008 and March 2009. [HL3408] The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): The Government welcome the publication of the third annual Global Peace Index (GPI) and its aim to contribute to a greater Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Electricity supply data understanding of the factors that foster peace. We are not available on a daily basis. Data for electricity plan to work closely with the GPI team to enhance the supplied by wind generation (major power producers methodology behind the index and consider possible only) to the public supply system for the months of common objectives in our work. November 2008 to February 2009 can be found in the table below. Data for March 2009 will be available on 28 May 2009. GM Europe Total Electricity electricity Question supplied by available from Contribution Asked by Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay wind (major the public of wind to power producers supply system the national only) (GWh) (GWh) grid (%) To ask Her Majesty’s Government what conflicts of interest have been identified concerning discussions November 2008 598 30,349 2.0 taking place about the future of GM Europe; how December 2008 519 32,555 1.6 they were identified; and how they have been resolved. January 2009 702 33,340 2.1 [HL3984] February 2009 464 29,329 1.6 Source: Energy Trends, table ET 5.4 wind, available at www.berr.gov.uk/enemy/statistics/source/electricity/ The Minister for Trade and Investment (Lord Davies page18527.html of Abersoch): No conflicts of interest have been identified. WA 121 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 122

Government: Conflicts of Interest Lebanon Question Questions Asked by Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay Asked by Lord Turnberg To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment are taken to ensure that (a) no conflict of interest they have made of recent statements by Hezbollah’s arises, (b) any potential conflict of interest is recognised, leadership that they are acquiring more sophisticated and (c) conflicts of interest are resolved, in relation military technology. [HL3896] to discussions held between Government Ministers and the business community. [HL3983] The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): Any such action would be in contravention of the arms embargo established The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness by UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and would Royall of Blaisdon): Section 7 of the Ministerial Code serve only to undermine regional security. sets out the procedures for handling Ministers’ interests. Asked by Lord Turnberg To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent statements by Hezbollah’s Iran: Missile Development Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah, that his Question organisation is ready for war with Israel. [HL3897] Asked by Lord Astor of Hever Lord Malloch-Brown: Renewed violence would serve To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment only to harm the interests of Lebanon and its people. they have made of the level of protection of British The only sustainable solution to the challenges facing troops serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Lebanon and the conflict in the Middle East is full Gulf, in the light of the new Iranian missile capabilities. engagement in democratic politics and the peace process. [HL3923] The Government continue to believe that Hezbollah should disarm, reject violence and play a constructive role in Lebanese and regional politics, in line with UN The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry Security Council resolutions. of Defence (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): The safety of UK personnel serving overseas is of paramount importance. We constantly monitor the threats faced Legal Aid by our personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Question Gulf to ensure that they have the necessary protection Asked by Lord Laird to operate effectively in the environments in which they serve. To ask Her Majesty’s Government which cases for judicial review in Northern Ireland have been granted legal aid in the past year and at what cost. [HL3625] Israel Question The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry Asked by Baroness Northover of Justice (Lord Bach): From 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 266 legal aid was granted to 266 individuals to To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Secretary bring judicial review proceedings. of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Of the 266 cases granted legal aid a total of 55 cases David Miliband, met the Israeli Minister of Foreign have concluded and bills assessed with a total cost of Affairs, Avigdor Liberman, but has not been willing £83,533. to meet elected members of Hamas. [HL3915] Details of the 266 cases in which legal aid was granted are set out in the table to this Answer.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Associated Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): We would welcome Surname Forenames person/body constructive dialogue with Hamas, if they renounce Graham Desmond Reid Northern Ireland violence, recognise the state of Israel and adhere to Office previously made agreements. However we believe that Massey Katie Margarita Belfast Education to talk to Hamas directly at this time, when they And Library Board remain committed to violence and refuse to recognise Ngwenya Belina Home Office Israel, would simply undermine President Abbas and Devlin Michael James HM Prison those Palestinians who are committed to peace. Magilligan The Arab League has mandated Egypt to communicate Curran Lesley South Eastern Health & Social with Hamas. We are in regular contact with both the Care Trust Arab League and Egypt. WA 123 Written Answers[8 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 124

Associated Associated Surname Forenames person/body Surname Forenames person/body

Ismail Abas Sharif Chief Constable & O’Kane Barry Ballee Primary Home Office School Harper Paul Lagan College & Daly Alan Prison Service Southern Education Headquarters and Library Board Vennard James Mental Health McNamee Carolyn Southern Health & Review Tribunal NI Social Services Payne Laura The Law Society of Trust Northern Ireland Sloss Lee Nathaniel Northern Ireland McLaughlin Kieran Law Society Prison Service Northern Ireland McCracken Cherie Criminal Injuries Carmichael Brigid Mental Health Compensation Tribunal for NI Appeals Panel Chinyoka Ignatious Home Office Clarence Gordon Mental Health Chen Min Home Office Review Tribunal Shoukri Andre Khalid Northern Ireland Khan Mohammad UK Borders & Prison Service Nareem Immigration Moran Martin Southern Health Agency Trust Phiri Maureen Home Office Stici Pavel Immigration Officer Kearney Niall Board of Governors Home Department Egbetokun Samson Olatunji Home Office Gachathi Judy Kabura Home Office Kamau Paul Immigration Kalombo Veronique Immigration Office Officer/Home Home Department Department McShane Ryan Public Prosecution Wambugu Njama Immigration Officer Service Home Department Gachathi Judy Kabura Home Office Evbuomwan Eghenayariore Immigration Officer Gachathi Judy Kabura Home Office Home Department Xiang Ya Liu Immigration Officer Gorman Marie Northern Ireland Home Department Housing Executive King Colin Northern Ireland Timms Tanya Immigration Officer Ofice Home Department Curran Brendan District Judge Akinpitansoye David Immigration Office Magill Home Department Dunn Kenneth Maghaberry Prison Faloon Christopher City High Principal McDonagh James Western Health & Of Board of Social Services Govenors or Board Armagh Liu Jian Feng Home Office Maguire Elaine Northern Ireland Jordan Hugh Chief Constable Housing Executive Uddim Lukman Southern Health & Mabeka Linia Secretary of State Social Care Trust for NI Mac Giolla Cathain Caoimhin Office of Lord Bell Patrick Governor of Prison Chancellor Service Maghaberry Lunney Catherine Cicapni Wilkinson Glenn The Governor Wilson Stephen Jeffrey Life Sentence Gibson Darren Alan Northern Ireland Review Commission Criminal Injuries Compensation Stokes Christopher NI Prison Service Appeals Panel Flanagan Gerard Legal Aid McVeigh James Northern Ireland Assessment Office Prison Service Hamill Jessica Patricia Secretary of State McIintyre Kenneth The Govenor for NI McCabe Thomas Life Sentence Brown David Secretary of State Review Northern Ireland Commissioners Hayes Dennis Northern Ireland Johnston Lee Chief Constable Prison Service Mohan Marina Director of Public Donaldson Christopher Governor HMP Prosecutions Maghaberry Barnett Karl David Declan Director of Public Valliday Darren PONI Prosecutions Marley Henry Chief Constable of Davey Karla Senior Coroner for PSNI NI Ventura Vera Monica Social Security O’Neill Joseph South Eastern Guimaraes Agency Education and Doherty Christopher Life Sentence Library Board Review Collins Ryan Abbey Christian Commissioners Brothers School Haastrup Christina Home Office WA 125 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 126

Associated Associated Surname Forenames person/body Surname Forenames person/body

Maduemezia Nkeiruka Home Office Kibolo-Gembu Beatrice Secretary of State Nguyen Anh Thi Thuy Home Office for Northern Ireland Hawkes Thomas Northern Ireland Housing Executive Pretorius Amanda Menzies UK Immigration Service Donnelly Kevin PSNI McCaffrey James Anthony Department of Browne Andrew Northern Ireland Enterprise Trade & Prison Service Investment Campbell Brendan Trustees of St Paul’s Wellbourne John Foyle Health And High Street Social Services Gugunishvili Nino Immigration Office Trust Home Department Molyneaux Robert Northern Ireland Wagner Manuela Mental Health Prison Service Review Tribunal for Stokes Mary Criminal Injuries Northern Ireland Compensation McEvoy James Northern Ireland Appeals Panel Prison Service Stokes Edward Northern Ireland Ogbogu Richmeir Home Office Prison Service Ugochukwu McCrory Gerard The Governor Xu Qing Mei Home Office Limeira Pedro Home Office McCartney Sheena Southern Health & Chen An Fu Senior Immigration Social Services Judge Trust Hart Darren Governor HMP Johnston Calvin Belfast Health & Maghaberry Social Care Trust Bolton Selina Mr Magill RM Ogunwa Chukwuebuka Entry Clearance Farrelly Eamon Police Service of Ubaka Officer Northern Ireland Mullan William John Maghaberry Prison Amamoo Benjamin Home Office Mullan Abby Maghaberry Prison Alexander Silvana Chief Constable Young Martin Northern Ireland Chchetri Harish Home Office Prison Service McConnell Philip Chief Constable Gul Azim Home Office Kincaid Laurence Secretary of State Li Dai Guo Secretary of State for Northern for Northern Ireland Ireland Allen Annie Patricia Department of Christie Norah Chief Constable Social Development Khan Kasem Home Office McDaid Bernard Fermanagh District Omikunle Jamiu Olanrewaju Home Office Council Playfair Christopher Northern Ireland Arkins Paul Anthony Police Authority for legal Services Northern Ireland Commission Ajiboye Olayinka Olayiwola Home Office Henry Sam Northern Ireland Zhao Jin Sheng Immigration Officer Prison Service Home Department Duffy Colin Francis Rosemary Nelson Radford Jasmine Belfast Health & Inquiry Social Services Keery Michelle Joy Office of First And Trust Deputy Minister McCleave Mark Director of Public McClean Denis Gregg Northern Ireland Prosecutions Prison Service Coyle Darragh Holy Cross College McCabe James Director of Public Craig James Junior Northern Ireland Prosecutions McKinstry Prison Service Lavery Mark Owen Social Security Roy James Lee Northern Ireland Commissioner Housing Executive Kennedy John Belfast Health & McCartney Thomas HMP Magilligan Social Care Trust Prison Achiman John Secretary of State Cernetchi Alexei Secretary of State For Home for Home Department Department Mulholland Pascal Scretary of State for Savage Sean South Eastern Northern Ireland Health & Social Rahman Sohailur Immigration & Services Trust Nationality McLaughlin Margaret Christina Directorate McLaughlin Phillips Ralph Northern Ireland Carlin Alex Gov HMP Prison Service Magilligan Duale Sabah Secretary of State Northern Ireland Home Department Beatty Lesa Chief Constable WA 127 Written Answers[8 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 128

Associated Associated Surname Forenames person/body Surname Forenames person/body

Kolebaje Emmanuel Immigration Officer McAfee Simon Chief Constable Home Department McCrory Kevin Gerard Northern Ireland Keru Kasumu Tunde Immigration Officer Housing Executive Home Department Reilly James Clyde Northern Ireland Millar Victoria Social Security Prison Service Agency of Northern McCabe James Northern Ireland Ireland Prison Service Dillon James South Eastern Coll Edward James Northern Ireland Health & Social Prison Service Services Trust Monteith Mervyn Northern Ireland Tsang Joseph Northern Ireland Court Service Court Service Johnston Madeline Department for McCaughey Adrian Josef Homefirst Social Development Cernetchi Alexei Secretary of State Barre Rahma Roon Immigration Office for Northern Home Department Ireland Montgomery Anthony Prison Service Damons Jonathan Immigration Officer Headquarters Home Department Campbell Christopher Northern Ireland Shelsher Karl Southern Health & Housing Executive Social Care Trust Doherty Christopher Life Sentence Shelsher Christy Southern Health & Review Social Care Trust Commissioner Haire Paul Northern Ireland (PSNI) Prison Service Burns Paul Northern Ireland Holland Meabh Secretary of State Prison Service for Home Black Darryl Chief Constable Department Stanfield Alan Chief Constable Belal Younes Secretary of State Austin Aidan Chief Constable for Home Department Langenhoven Monique Home Office Belal Laila Violet Secretary of State O’Neill Gerard Chief Constable of for Home PSNI Department Sproule Jonathan Director of Public Arobieke Ibrahim Social Security Prosecutions Agency Donaghy John Compensation Soro Lavie Northern Health & Agency Social Care Trust Harbinson William Northern Ireland McLaughlin Christine Western Health and Prison Service Social Services McVea Ryan South Eastern Wilson Stephen Jeffrey Life Sentence Health & Social Review Commission Services Trust McCallion Anne Marie Secretary of State Oromosele Lexy UK Border Agency for Northern Butt Muhammad Ejaz Immigration Office Ireland Home Department McCabe James Director of Public Gaughran Fergus Martin Chief Constable of Prosecutions the RUC Neill Damien Gerard PSNI Hart Darren Northern Ireland King Drew Northern Ireland Prison Service Prison Service Jordan Hugh Police Service of McVeigh Eileen Director of Public Northern Ireland Prosecutions Hemsworth Colette Chief Constable Shaw Stacy Secretary of State Bell Patrick Northern Ireland for Northern Prison Service Ireland Dunwoody Francis Governor HMP Dorzaj Samir Secretary of State Magilligan for Northern Ireland Dunn Kenneth Northern Ireland Prison Service Dorzaj Rio Saimir Secretary of State for Northern Pereira da Silva Marcelo Immigration Office Ireland Home Department McDonnell Nigel Antony Decision of District Montgomery Anthony Governor HMP Judge Maghaberry Hossian Jakir Home Office Wynn Kelly Ann Compensation Jordan Sylvia Criminal Injuries Agency Compensation Murray Paul Criminal Injuries Appeals Panel Compensation Coulibaly Marie-Reine Northern Health Appeals Panel and Social Care O’Neill Peter Prison Service Trust Headquarters WA 129 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 130

Associated Associated Surname Forenames person/body Surname Forenames person/body

Hutchinson Eamon Prison Service Khan Zadran Shahzad Immigration Office Headquarters Home Department Traynor Michael Daragh South Eastern Jordan Hugh Senior Coroner for Education and Northern Ireland Library Board Low Chee Ping Immigration Office Notarantonio Francisco Director of Public Home Department Prosecutions McDonagh John Thomas Prison Service Mulvaney Timothy UK Border Agency Headquarters & Deery Gordon Northern Ireland Secretary of State Housing Executive for Northern Ireland Bradley Sean Matthew Chief Constable Copeland Christopher Secretary of State Clarke Darren Maghaberry Prison for Northern Chen An Fu Immigration Office Ireland Home Department Howard Charlotte Director of Public McGrattan Niall South Eastern Prosecutions Education and Smyth Joseph North & West Library Board Belfast Health and Jordan Hugh Chief Constable Social Care Trust Bovaird Wilson Robert South Eastern Taggart David Albert NI Prison Service Health & Social Aslam Mohammed Home Office/UK Services Trust Border Agency Shillue Edith Kindercare Huang Zhao Kang Immigration Office Fostering Home Department Trimble Andrew Chief Constable Walmsley Mary Ministry of Justice Cunningham Maureen South Eastern Walmsley Desmond Ministry of Justice Health & Social Services Trust Walmsley Desmond Ministry of Justice Smyth Emmanuel The Governor Clarke Dean Robert James South Eastern Education and Magee Arthur Southern Health & Library Board Social Services Trust Robinson Ryan Special Educational Needs and McCullagh Kevin South Eastern Disability Tribunal Health & Social Services Trust Payne Oisin Western Health & Social Services Eluyoye Steven Asjayi Immigration Office Trust Home Department McCafferty Terence Secretary of State Cromie Michael Magilligan Prison for Northern Withy John Daniel Foster Department of Ireland Environment & Smyth Jonathon Prison Service Heritage Headquarters Withy John Daniel Foster Planning Appeals Chen Heng Ru Immigration Office Commission Home Department Wallace Philip Chief Constable Magee Theresa Chief Constable Smyth Eric Belfast Health and Magee Gabriel Chief Constable Social Care Trust Duffy Colin Crown Solicitors Sproule Jonathan Newtownards Youth Court Edwards Rein Chief Constable Ward Erin Southern Education Wright David Dickson Billy Wright Inquiry and Library Board El-Khamlichi Mohammed South Eastern Health & Social Services Trust & Northern Ireland Office: Hire Cars NIO Question Chen Zheng Wang Immigration Office Home Department Asked by Lord Laird Darai Tarik Home Office To ask Her Majesty’s Government what grades McCallion Anne Marie Secretary of State for Northern of officials in the Northern Ireland Officer are Ireland allowed to use hire cars; what are the criteria for Boswell John Craigavon Council such use; and who makes the decision on such use. Craigavon Planning [HL3375] Dept. Jordan Hugh Senior Coroner for Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: The use of hire cars, Northern Ireland self-drive or with driver provided, is based on business Cawley Thomas Magilligan Prison need and not grade. Low Chee Ping Immigration Office Home Department All business travel arrangements for staff below Cavanagh Mark NI Prison Service grade A must be authorised in advance by a more senior officer of at least middle manager (grade B2 or WA 131 Written Answers[8 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 132 above). Senior managers (grade A and above), can Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: As can be seen from authorise their own travel arrangements with the the uncorrected transcript of his oral evidence to assistance, where necessary, of the central travel booking the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee team which offers advice on best value options. (available at www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/ During 2007-08, the department adopted a policy pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmniaf/uc404-i/uc40402.htm), the to make greater use of taxis rather than private hire Secretary of State’s reference to building confidence cars where it is more cost-effective. This policy has led was a reference to the commitment made in the Belfast to an increase in taxi costs but has generated estimated agreement, not to the Northern Ireland Human Rights whole year net savings of £150,000. Commission. He said: “I think that the original proposition at the time of the Good Friday agreement, to recognise that there might be human rights in Northern Ireland, which could be different from the rest of the Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights United Kingdom, precisely because of the Troubles, was very Question important to identify and to use as mechanism to build confidence”. Asked by Lord Laird Asked by Lord Laird To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the To ask Her Majesty’s Government what the British Embassy in Washington is aware of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland meant in Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human saying at the meeting of the House of Commons Rights Commission’s encouragement of United States Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee on 1 April Senators and Congressmen to table resolutions on that many of the proposals of the Northern Ireland a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, as stated on Human Rights Commission “go well beyond any 30 April in the Irish parliament’s Joint Committee proposals in either the Joint Declaration or the on the Implementation of the Good Friday agreement; Good Friday agreement”. [HL3914] and whether the embassy will prepare an information pack on the subject for Congress and the White House. [HL3990] Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: The full uncorrected transcript of the Secretary of State’s oral evidence to The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee on Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): Our embassy in Washington 1 April, in which he explained his meaning, can be continues to monitor activities in the US Congress found at www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/ which relate to reserved and excepted matters concerning pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmniaf/uc404-i/uc40402.htm. Northern Ireland. Should the subject be raised by The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission members of Congress, the embassy will consider the was given a specific brief to advise on a Bill of Rights need to prepare an information pack. reflecting the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. It is the Government’s opinion that the Commission has gone further than expected by producing Northern Ireland: Human Rights such a wide range of proposals. However the Commission is entitled to make these recommendations and has Commission not exceeded its statutory powers by doing so. The Questions Government will consult publicly on their response to Asked by Lord Laird the advice in due course. To ask Her Majesty’s Government following the report of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on the possibility of a Bill of Rights Olympic Games 2012 for Northern Ireland and the minority dissenting Question report which concluded the Commission had exceeded its remit, whether the Secretary of State for Northern Asked by Lord Ouseley Ireland has been asked to, or has considered, exercising To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether an his powers under paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 7 to assessment has been made of the benefits to the the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to dismiss the Chief United Kingdom, outside London, of the 2012 Commissioner or a Commissioner. [HL3881] Olympic and Paralympic Games; and what evidence there is to indicate that those benefits will occur. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: No. [HL2926] Asked by Lord Laird To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government are Written Answer by the Lord President (Baroness committed to maximising the benefits of the London Royall of Blaisdon) on 19 May (WA 299), whether 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games across the UK. the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission The Government’s legacy action plan, Before, During has built confidence amongst the community in and After: Making the Most of the London 2012 Games, Northern Ireland in the way outlined by the Secretary sets out how we will ensure that benefits of the Games of State for Northern Ireland at the House of extend beyond sport to wider opportunities, and beyond Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee London to the rest of the UK. The publication of the on 1 April. [HL3913] London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games annual WA 133 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 134 report in January 2009 provides an update on the on Drugs and Crime to support trial and legal costs progress that has been made in delivering benefits, in related to prosecution of piracy suspects in Kenya. London and beyond. The programme budget is ¤1.75 million. The programme Both immediate and long-term benefits from the began on 15 May 2009 and will run for 18 months. Games will be realised in and outside London. There The contact group on piracy off the coast of Somalia are community activities and educational and cultural on 29 May 2009 endorsed the creation of an international programmes throughout the UK. The free swimming trust fund to assist with the cost of prosecuting pirates initiative, a key part of the plans to ensure a long-term and support regional development that is deemed legacy, means that four out of every five local councils important in counterpiracy work. in England have signed up to provide free swimming for over-60s, with more than 200 offering it for young people. The 2012 Get Set website offers a huge variety Post Office: Armed Forces of educational resources and opportunities targeted at Question three to 19 year-olds, with more than one in 10 schools and colleges already registered on the site. Around Asked by Lord Rogan 650 events were held throughout the UK to celebrate the launch of the Cultural Olympiad, a four-year To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action cultural programme designed to celebrate the spirit of they are taking to encourage companies to recognise the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The programme British Forces Post Office addresses so that members includes opportunities for people from across the UK of the Armed Forces serving abroad may place to be involved in the Games, both in major and local orders for goods and services online. [HL3893] or regional projects. The economic benefits of the Games for the whole The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry UK are already evident. Nine hundred and thirty-five of Defence (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): In order to businesses have won over £3.5 billion of work supplying assist internet shopping using British Forces Post Office the ODA with 98 per cent of ODA contracts awarded (BFPO) numbers, BFPO has entered into contracts to UK-based businesses, just under half (45 per cent) with over 1,300 internet shopping companies. BFPO of which are outside London. vouches for the identity and, indirectly, the creditworthiness The Games also creates opportunities outside London of the individuals and ensures the delivery of the for tourism, media, sport and many other sectors; for purchases. A list of these companies is readily available example, the value of the Games to UK tourism has to service personnel on the BFPO website, which can been estimated to be £2.1 billion. be found at the following link at www.bfpo.mod.uk. We are working across government and the Olympic BFPO and Royal Mail Group continue to work family to develop ways of measuring, analysing and together to further improve access to internet shopping evaluating the wide range of impacts, including those to personnel overseas. on the economy, sport, physical activity, regeneration and sustainability. The aim of this work is to ensure that we are able to make a rigorous assessment of the Post Offices benefits of the Games in return for the significant Questions public investment. Asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Government, together with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG), has To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many established a nations and regions group, bringing together Post Offices in communities designated as needing representatives from each of the nations and regions Post Offices under the network change programme of the UK with a view to maximising the benefits of have been listed for closure. [HL3682] the Olympics across the country. To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Kings Stag and Hazelbury Bryan Post Offices in Dorset Piracy are due to be closed, contrary to the results agreed Question following the network change programme consultation. [HL3683] Asked by Lord Astor of Hever To ask Her Majesty’s Government what countries The Minister for Economic Competitiveness and Small receive for detention pirates captured off the Horn Business (Baroness Vadera): My noble friend the Secretary of Africa. [HL3928] of State has made clear during the passage of the Postal Services Bill the Government will not support The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth any further programme of Post Office closures. But Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): The UK and EU have because 97 per cent of the network is privately owned agreed memorandums of understanding covering the and operated, neither Government nor Post Office transfer of suspected pirates captured off the Horn of Ltd can commit to maintain an absolute number of Africa to Kenya. offices at any given time. In order to assist Kenya with providing the facilities I understand from Post Office Ltd that the Hazelbury and legal processes related to the trial and detention of Bryan post office branch was not proposed for closure these prisoners, the European Commission recently under the network change programme but will close approved assistance through the United Nations Office on 26 May due to the sub-postmaster’s resignation. WA 135 Written Answers[8 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 136

Post Office Ltd is working to find a solution that will Asked by Lord Faulkner of Worcester continue to maintain a post office presence in the community. To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many rail journeys were made in 2008–09 using the senior Kings Stag post office was proposed for replacement railcard. [HL3951] with an outreach service during the network change programme. Kings Stag post office closed in March and Post Office Ltd is working to establish an outreach Lord Adonis: The Department for Transport does service in that area. not hold this information, as the breakdown of journeys made using senior railcards is a matter for the train operators concerned. Railways: Capacity Asked by Lord Faulkner of Worcester Question To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment Asked by Lord Faulkner of Worcester they have made of the annual value of potential rail travel by persons aged 60 or over if the senior To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment railcard or an equivalent were issued free of charge. they have made of potential off-peak capacity on [HL3952] the rail network. [HL3953] Lord Adonis: No assessment has been made of the The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): annual value of potential rail travel by persons aged The amount of off-peak capacity available across the 60 or over if the senior railcard (or an equivalent) were rail network varies considerably. Some routes are busy issued free of charge. with trains for much of the day, others have substantial unused off peak capacity. Sefton Coast: Oil and Gas Rigs Question Railways: Railcards Asked by Lord Fearn Questions Asked by Lord Faulkner of Worcester To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans for more oil rigs or gas rigs or both to To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many be erected off the Sefton coast in the Irish Sea. people aged 60 or over own a senior railcard. [HL3833] [HL3948] The Minister of State, Department of Energy and The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food The Department for Transport does not hold this and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): information, as the sale of senior railcards is a matter Government do not themselves conduct exploration for the train operators concerned. or development activities for oil or gas in any part of the United Kingdom. The Irish Sea area is geologically Asked by Lord Faulkner of Worcester prospective and a range of companies are involved in such activities in the region. DECC’s most recent To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was strategic environmental assessment, published in January the total value of rail tickets sold using the of this year, indicated that DECC would expect to (a) 16–25 railcard, (b) senior railcard, and (c) disabled offer more licences for areas in UK waters including persons railcard in 2008–09; and how much revenue the Irish Sea. was received from the sale of those railcards. [HL3949] Sierra Leone Lord Adonis: The Department for Transport does Question not hold this information, as the breakdown of revenue from the sale of railcards is a matter for the train Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham operators concerned. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment Asked by Lord Faulkner of Worcester they have made of the situation in Sierra Leone; what discussions they have had with the government To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much of Sierra Leone; and what plans they have to review net revenue (after deducting administrative expenses) their assistance programme to that country. was received by the train operators from the sale [HL3805] of (a) 16–25 railcards, (b) senior railcards, and (c) disabled persons railcards in 2008–09. [HL3950] Lord Tunnicliffe: The situation has been thoroughly assessed as part of country planning over the past Lord Adonis: The Department for Transport does 12 months. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of not hold this information, as the breakdown of revenue State for International Development, Ivan Lewis, visited received from the sale of railcards is a matter for the Sierra Leone on 1 and 2 April and discussed these train operators concerned. issues with the president and political leaders. The WA 137 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 138

Department for International Development’s (DfID) Lord Tunnicliffe: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary office in Freetown also works closely with the Government of State for International Development, Mike Foster, of Sierra Leone in all of the sectors of engagement met with representatives of Impregilo S.p.A. on covered by the country plan. Regular monitoring of 10 February 2009 to set out the reasons for the pause indicators will ensure the DfID programme is reviewed in contract negotiations. Impregilo S.p.A. has continued through the country plan in accordance with DfID to extend the validity date of its tender so that its bid procedures. The country plan will be reviewed annually remains open. to take account of developments in the country. Vauxhall Car Production Question Asked by Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay St Helena: Airport To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contact Question there has been between (a) the Department for Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and (b) Lord Mandelson, and (1) Oleg Deripaska, and To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent (2) Magna, with respect to Vauxhall car production contacts they have had with Impregilo, the preferred at Luton and at Ellesmere Port. [HL3981] bidder to build an airport in St Helena; what were the results of those contacts; and what assessment The Minister for Trade and Investment (Lord Davies they have made of the impact on the bidding process of Abersoch): There has been regular contact with of the pause in negotiations announced in December Magna and none with Oleg Deripaska in respect of 2008 [HL3804] Vauxhall production. Monday 8 June 2009

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No. Col. No. Boundary Commission...... 19 Legal Aid...... 23

Courts: Means Testing...... 19 National Offender Management Service...... 23

EU: Competitiveness Council...... 19 Railways: London and Continental Railways Ltd...... 24 Saving Gateway ...... 26 EU: Education, Youth and Cultural Council...... 20 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Forensic Science Service Ltd...... 21 Disabilities...... 28

Monday 8 June 2009

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. Alcohol...... 115 Legal Aid...... 122

Armed Forces: Aircraft...... 115 Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights ...... 131

Broadcasting: Political Balance...... 115 Northern Ireland: Human Rights Commission...... 131

Civil Service: Performance Pay ...... 116 Northern Ireland Office: Hire Cars...... 130

Cyprus: Property ...... 117 Olympic Games 2012 ...... 132

Damian McBride...... 117 Piracy...... 133

Energy: Electricity Generation...... 118 Post Office: Armed Forces ...... 134

Energy: Wind Generation ...... 118 Post Offices ...... 134

Global Peace Index...... 120 Railways: Capacity...... 135

GM Europe ...... 120 Railways: Railcards...... 135

Government: Conflicts of Interest ...... 121 Sefton Coast: Oil and Gas Rigs ...... 136

Iran: Missile Development...... 121 Sierra Leone ...... 136

Israel...... 121 St Helena: Airport ...... 137

Lebanon ...... 122 Vauxhall Car Production ...... 138 NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. [HL2926] ...... 132 [HL3625] ...... 122

[HL2970] ...... 117 [HL3682] ...... 134

[HL3109] ...... 118 [HL3683] ...... 134

[HL3365] ...... 116 [HL3797] ...... 115

[HL3375] ...... 130 [HL3803] ...... 117

[HL3408] ...... 119 [HL3804] ...... 137

[HL3409] ...... 120 [HL3805] ...... 136 Col. No. Col. No. [HL3825] ...... 118 [HL3948] ...... 135

[HL3833] ...... 136 [HL3949] ...... 135

[HL3881] ...... 131 [HL3950] ...... 135

[HL3893] ...... 134 [HL3951] ...... 136

[HL3896] ...... 122 [HL3952] ...... 136

[HL3897] ...... 122 [HL3953] ...... 135

[HL3905] ...... 115 [HL3981] ...... 138

[HL3913] ...... 131 [HL3983] ...... 121

[HL3914] ...... 132 [HL3984] ...... 120

[HL3915] ...... 121 [HL3990] ...... 131

[HL3923] ...... 121 [HL4029] ...... 120

[HL3928] ...... 133 [HL4061] ...... 115 Volume 711 Monday No. 85 8 June 2009

CONTENTS

Monday 8 June 2009 Questions Export Credits Guarantee Department...... 411 Civil Service: Damian McBride ...... 413 House of Lords: Co-operation with European Parliament...... 415 Education: Creative Partnerships ...... 418 Bank of England (Amendment) Bill [HL] Order of commitment discharged...... 420 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] Third Reading ...... 421 Criminal Justice: Sonnex Case Statement...... 456 Business Rate Supplements Bill Report...... 468 Grand Committee Healthcare: EUC Report ...... GC 1 Medicines for Human Use (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2009 ...... GC 20 Medicines for Human Use (Prescribing) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2009...... GC 30 National Health Service (Charges) (Amendments Relating to Pandemic Influenza) Regulations 2009 Debated...... GC 30 Written Statements...... WS 19 Written Answers...... WA 115