Vol. 711 Monday No. 89 15 June 2009

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Questions Finance: Balance of Payments Armed Forces: Human Rights Act EU: Transport of Horses Public Transport: Alcohol Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Bill First Reading Political Parties and Elections Bill Report (1st Day) Iraq Statement Political Parties and Elections Bill Report (1st Day) (Continued) Legislative Reform (Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates) Order 2009 Motion to Approve Political Parties and Elections Bill Report (1st Day) (Continued)

Grand Committee Welfare Reform Bill Committee (3rd Day)

Written Statements Written Answers For column numbers see back page

£3·50 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/index/090615.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/ 835 Finance: Balance of Payments[15 JUNE 2009] Finance: Balance of Payments 836

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, they are significant House of Lords figures, which are unparalleled in recent decades, as the noble Lord will appreciate. But he also knows that Monday, 15 June 2009. they are reflective of a strategy of investment in this economy, which is being pursued by every advanced 2.30 pm economy in the world, including, most importantly, the United States and, to a great extent, China. In so Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford. far as public deficits occur from this, those are a price which has to be paid in order to minimise the sharpness Finance: Balance of Payments of the recession and to keep the level of unemployment Question as low as we can. I am sure that the whole House applauds those developments. 2.37 pm Lord Peston: My Lords, I think that I may have to Asked By Lord Sheldon congratulate my noble friend. Apart from being Deputy To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their Chief Whip, he is also now a Parliamentary Under- latest forecast for the balance of payments in the Secretary at Defra. Just to cheer him up a bit, Defra is current financial year. an area that does not interest me at all. There are two interesting questions about the balance Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government of payments. We have been in deficit in this country forecast for each calendar rather than financial year. since, I think, 1985, which means that even though The forecast for the balance of payments deficit economists always say, “This can’t go on”, it always for 2009 is 3.5 per cent of GDP, or £48.5 billion: up seems to go on. Specifically on the present state of from a deficit of 1.7 per cent of GDP in 2008, or affairs, bearing in mind that it is a duty of an economist £24.5 billion. never to look on the bright side, otherwise we would cease to be the dismal science, would one be accused of being complacent by saying that the remarkable Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend thing about the balance of payments at present is that for that reply. Although the Treasury does not officially we do not seem to have the slightest sign of an forecast the balance of payments other than at Budget emergency or crisis on the horizon? Am I being time and on pre-Budget occasions in the autumn, I complacent in suggesting that possibility? understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not publish the usual spending review this autumn. Can my noble friend confirm whether this is so? The Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if my noble assessment of the borrowing of £175 billion this year friend is to introduce complacency to our discussion, I and the next is that it is large and continuing, with hope that he will concentrate on Defra in due course necessary expenditure cuts affecting our economic and make life a little easier for me. On the issue that he recovery. When does he expect the financial position raises, it is obvious: our balance of payments forecast to be restored, with no further borrowing? for our worst year is below the balance of payments deficit in the mid-1980s under a previous Administration. Therefore, this does not feature as a factor which Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, those are two should concern us over much, save for the obvious fact fairly fundamental questions. Both are wider than and that the country has to earn its way. It is important somewhat remote from the balance of payments issue, that we move from deficit with regard to growth. The which was the basis of my noble friend’s original forecast for the end of 2009 is of deficit, but we look Question, although I had anticipated that it might go forward to a resumption of growth next year. a little wider in this short exchange. He will have to wait for any commitment on the pre-spending position. I cannot comment at this stage, but he will appreciate Baroness Noakes: My Lords, in 1997 we had a from the figures that we have on the balance of payments surplus on trade in goods and services of £4 billion. deficit that the United Kingdom’s economy remains Last year, we had a deficit of 10 times that amount. If one of the most competitive. We are actually benefiting you look behind those figures, last year we had a at present. Repatriated income from investments is in deficit on goods alone of £93 billion. Does the Minister fact less than earnings, so our balance of payments think that these are signs of good economic management? figures are better in those terms, but my noble friend will recognise that we are addressing ourselves to the Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is a sign of whole question of economy recovery and that economic management in difficult times. I notice that developments in the balance of payments are a factor the noble Baroness did not take the opportunity of in that. defending past strategies of her party that led to balance of payments deficits greater than we are facing Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does the in the middle of this worldwide crisis, which everyone Minister agree that the Government’s plans to borrow recognises is of a unique severity since the 1930s. She an additional £900 billion through the gilts market can will accept that these deficits have to be accounted for. be achieved only by a substantial increase in interest They are part of the necessary recovery with regard to rates? What does each percentage increase in interest the economy. She will delight in the fact that we see cost the Government? improvements in the position in due course. 837 Finance: Balance of Payments[LORDS] Armed Forces: Human Rights Act 838

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, my noble friend I thank the Minister for her Answer. We welcome mentioned China and the United States. Last night on the fact that the MoD has offered commanding officers Radio 4, the deputy governor of the Bank of China indemnity from prosecution under human rights law. said that the investment and trade relationship with Will the Minister put the Chief of the Defence Staff’s the United States would decline and that that with the letter to commanding officers in the Library? European Union would increase substantially. Does This judgment results from a conflict between English my noble friend agree therefore that talk in this House common law, which recognises that the duties of the and elsewhere about China and globalisation versus Armed Forces include putting one’s own life in peril the European Union is wrong and that we must do and ordering others to do so, and European human everything possible to be fully integrated into the rights law, which emphasises protection of life as a European economy and everything that goes with it? priority. If the Government do not appeal, or an appeal fails, will the Government undertake to include Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, China has in primary legislation provisions that human rights certainly indicated how significant the European economy cannot prevail in combat zones, as this judgment is is in the demand for its products, which are, of course, causing serious operational problems for the Armed part of its strategy for recovery. As for the United Forces? States, China will also, of course, be concerned about the progress of President Obama’s strategy of reinvestment Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, first, I am in the economy. Significant though China is—along very happy to provide a copy of the CDS’s statement with India and other emerging economies—it is still to the chain of command. It is an important one, the case that, until the United States economy makes a setting out very clearly that he wants to assure significant recovery, none of us can anticipate recoveries commanders at all levels that the judgment does not elsewhere. alter the situation in respect of their authority to make operational decisions. That is extremely important and something that we must ensure continues. This is Armed Forces: Human Rights Act a very difficult and complex area; we support human Question rights, both in general and in the case of our armed services. The Ministry of Defence accepted that the 2.45 pm Human Rights Act applied in the tragic case of Private Asked By Lord Astor of Hever Smith, but we also believe that operations must go ahead effectively and that every split-second decision To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their that is taken in the field should not be revisited in a reaction to the judgment of the Court of Appeal on court of law later. We do want clarity and that is what 18 May regarding the applicability of the Human we will seek, but we are still taking advice on the Rights Act 1998 to members of the Armed Forces situation and we will make a decision in due course. operating in combat zones. Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister The Minister for International Defence and Security aware that an amendment was tabled to the Human (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): My Lords, first, I am sure Rights Act to exclude the Armed Forces on grounds that the whole House will wish to join me in offering of practicability? It was spoken to; it was supported by sincere condolences to the family and friends of Private noble and gallant Lords. Consultation between certain Robert McLaren from the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion noble and gallant Lords and the Government ensued, The Royal Regiment of Scotland, and Lieutenant and certain assurances were given. The amendment Paul Mervis from the 2nd Battalion The Rifles, who was then withdrawn. The noble Baroness who gave were killed in operations in Afghanistan this past those assurances happens to be present in the House. week, and to the families of the RAF reservist and the What were those assurances? Were they that they air cadet who died in the accident at the weekend. would not affect operational activity? Turning to the Question, as my right honourable friend, the former Secretary of State, said in the other Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, we do not place on 1 June: believe that there has to be a conflict in that way, “We are strongly committed to protecting the human rights of which is why we are exploring the situation carefully. I our armed forces. However, the implications of the recent Court am not a lawyer, and I was not in this House at the of Appeal judgment in the case arising from the tragic death of time of that debate, but it seems to me that we need Private Jason Smith could open the door to routine legal challenges some clarity to back up the assurances which the CDS against the Ministry of Defence to decisions made by service has given. It is not a simple question of indemnity, personnel entrusted with the conduct of operations. The Chief of the Defence Staff has made these concerns clear in his own because action would be taken against the Ministry of message to the armed forces. I am urgently considering the Defence and not an individual commander. We want a matter, and will decide shortly whether we need to appeal the clear legal framework for the avoidance of doubt, decision to the House of Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, because, as I said earlier, operations have to go ahead 1/6/09; col. 1.] effectively. The CDS’s statement was aimed at assuring those commanders in the field that that was the case. Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, 10 soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in less than a month, all but Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I join in the one from explosions, and we on these Benches send expression of condolence towards the loved ones of our condolences to all their families and also to the our great soldiers who have died heroically in combat. families of those killed in the jet accident. I fully agree with the way in which the balance has 839 Armed Forces: Human Rights Act[15 JUNE 2009] EU: Transport of Horses 840 been expressed by the Minister. Does she know that, not being enforced. Will he urge the Commission to during the Court of Appeal hearing, the Government work on that aspect of it? As the Minister has just rightly conceded that the Human Rights Act applies said, the Commission has brought forward its review to protect soldiers’ human rights at military bases, and of the regulations, which was due in 2011. Will he seek that the Court of Appeal said that it did not seem very to ensure that it covers not only the items which he has logical for it not to apply when they were in an just mentioned but fitness to travel and checks on ambulance or in the desert? Does the Minister also fitness to travel, since the indications are that there are know that the court made very sensible recommendations not only welfare issues here but a danger to health? as to what the coroner should do? I can find nothing in the judgment which suggests a conflict between the Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to vital need for the military to be under direct control in the noble Lord for the points that he makes. We want operational matters and at the same time their having to see the European Commission regulations improved their human rights protected. Is that the view that she and we have been pressing for that, not least because provisionally accepts? we operate our own rules, which are better than the European regulations. We are nevertheless worried Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, as I said, I that we could be tested in terms of our conflict over am no lawyer and I would be very cautious about what European regulations. Therefore, we want to ensure I said on any matter. We accept that human rights that our position is four-square with Europe on the legislation applies on military bases and, as I said, we basis that Europe approaches our welfare measures. acknowledged that in the case of Private Jason Smith As the noble Lord indicated, there are a number of in terms of the situation that arose. We accept that we issues to be raised with regard to Europe in terms of should be very cautious about human rights overall the nature of the rules; but, as he indicated in his and have a big responsibility. We take our duty of care supplementary question, one of the crucial things is very seriously. We spend a lot of money improving enforcement, at which we in the United Kingdom are equipment and in training and tactics, all to minimise rigorous—which is not the case all over Europe. risk. However, it is impossible in a difficult, operational situation to rule out risk entirely. Our commanders have a difficult responsibility which they exercise with Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the figures every care. Therefore, we must have clarity so that produced by World Horse Welfare are horrific. If the operations can go ahead effectively and that every Government are unable to persuade the EU to widen decision made on operations is not gone through in its review, will they consider asking the redoubtable great detail by a court at some later stage. Joanna Lumley to become their enforcer, preferably as a Member of this House, since she might be able to succeed where they may fail? EU: Transport of Horses Question Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am certainly 2.53 pm prepared to meet Joanna Lumley to discuss this issue further. Asked By Lord Higgins To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Noble Lords: Oh! will press the European Union to widen its review of European Union Council Regulation 1/2005 on Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I emphasise transport of horses to include journey length, watering, that we anticipate that the European Union’s commitment feeding, rest periods and fitness to travel. to review regulation 1/2005 indicates a significant step in the right direction. I hasten to add that all our Lord Higgins: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the organisations concerned with the welfare of animals Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In have been putting in the strongest representations on doing so, I declare an interest as my daughter is an this front, and the noble Lord can rest assured that we equine veterinary surgeon. will pursue this issue with the utmost urgency. The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham): My Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, here is another Lords, the European Commission has already indicated role for the European Union. Is my noble friend aware its wish to review regulation 1/2005, concentrating on that in 1959, I chaired a meeting at the Cambridge journey times, stocking densities and satellite tracking. Union for Sean Lemass, the Taoiseach—the first time Official proposals are awaited and will be carefully a Taoiseach had spoken in this country? Entry into the assessed. Stakeholders will be fully engaged. The chamber was impeded by a demonstration about Irish Government have supported this review and emphasise horses being sent to knackers’ yards in Belgium. Is it the importance of appropriate rest periods and feeding not self-evident that we must work on a European and watering breaks. basis—and take a little less than 50 years to get to a solution? Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. It is clear from the Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend latest survey carried out by the charity World Horse is right that I did not know about his activities in 1959. Welfare that the existing regulations on the export of Of course, I entirely follow the point of his argument, live animals—horses in particular—for slaughter are namely that the higher standards in the United Kingdom 841 EU: Transport of Horses[LORDS] Public Transport: Alcohol 842

[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM] The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): are ones that we want translated into European regulation My Lords, the Government are committed to reducing in the redrafting that will take place, and that we want crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime then to see the regulation enforced. wherever it occurs in the transport system and whatever the cause. Each transport mode already has robust provisions allowing operators to control the sale and Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I join those consumption of alcohol. As such, there are no plans who have congratulated the Minister on his appointment. to regulate this further. If any doubt existed as to his status, it could not have been because he failed to pass the loyalty test—it could only have been because he is already fully stretched Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I thank the as the sweeper for the Government on so many portfolios. Minister for his reply and congratulate him on his new The figures referred to by my noble friend Lord responsibilities. At the same time, I say a word of Higgins—37 per cent of horses arriving in Italy were appreciation to the many thousands of devoted public not fit to be transported—speak for themselves. Would employees who work on the transport networks. We the Minister not agree that differentials in standards particularly congratulate the chief constable of the of animal welfare across the board represent a serious British Transport Police on his knighthood. Is the distortion to the single market, as well as an affront to Minister aware that at certain times and on certain its values? routes, usually later in the day, many passengers have a very uncomfortable time as a result of a tiny minority Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to who cause disturbances because of alcohol intake? the noble Lord for his initial remarks. Loyalty is easy Can he tell us how many alcohol-related incidents are to a principled Government. I emphasise that I concur recorded annually by the British Transport Police and entirely with his illustration, and he is quite right what steps he is taking to make our trains less stressful about the Italian situation. Would that it were the only and threatening? instance where the welfare of animals in transit was not satisfactory. The answer is certainly to have better Lord Adonis: My Lords, first, I thank the noble rules and regulations; but I reiterate the point made by Lord for his kind opening remarks. When I was introduced the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that enforcement is also into the House four years ago, somebody was heard to important. mutter, “My God, it’s child labour”. I hope that I have grown up a little since then, although I note that I am Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, first, in that among only 18 per cent of the House not eligible for a case, can the Minister be very daring, break the normal free bus pass. I echo the congratulations that the noble rules of secrecy over European legislation and share Lord offered to Ian Johnston, the chief constable of with us how the votes stacked up on this issue on the the British Transport Police, who is retiring shortly Council? Secondly, is it really acceptable that we in the from that office, having done a superb job. I think that United Kingdom, with our high standards of animal he takes particular pride in the fact that he retires at welfare, should be bossed around by Brussels on this a time when recorded crime on the rail network is issue? falling sharply; the most recent statistics show that, overall, notifiable crime on Britain’s railways has fallen by 4.5 per cent in 2008-09 over the year before. Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the second We cannot break that down into particular point is readily answered. On his first point about how categories, but that reflects an improved situation on the votes stacked up, the fact that a revision is being the railways, including, I hope, in respect of crime carried out is an indication that the nation states of related to alcohol. Europe are all too well aware that present standards are not high enough. Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord on his promotion to Secretary of State. Lord Dykes: My Lords— I do not know how long it is since we had a Secretary of State for Transport in the House of Lords—I have The Minister of State, Department of Energy and not done that research—but it is a most unusual Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My situation. We all share his enthusiasm for high-speed Lords, we are now into the 24th minute. trains; I hope now that as Secretary of State he will be able to find the money to deliver some. We shall look at that with interest. I also hope that, now that he has Public Transport: Alcohol been elevated to Secretary of State, he will still make Question himself available to the House and usually be here, so that we can question him about what he is doing. I also congratulate the chief constable of the British 3.01 pm Transport Police on his knighthood. The Government Asked By Lord Roberts of Llandudno have said that they were looking at investment in the transport police. The Olympics are coming up, but we To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals have not heard any more about that. Perhaps the they have to regulate further the sale and consumption Secretary of State could tell us more about how he of alcohol on public transport. sees the increase in support for the transport police. 843 Public Transport: Alcohol[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 844

Lord Adonis: My Lords, in answer to the noble Co-operative and Community Benefit Lord’s first question, I know that the noble Lord, Societies and Credit Unions Bill Lord Strathclyde, has suggested that those Peers who head departments might be subjected to dedicated First Reading Question Times in this House. I should be delighted to do so; I wish to be as accountable as the House wishes 3.08 pm to make me. I know that I also speak on behalf of my noble friend the First Secretary of State, Lord President The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first of the Council and Secretary of State for Business, time and ordered to be printed. Innovation and Skills, who is anxious to answer questions on all aspects of his responsibilities. As regards the Olympics, intensive consultations are taking place with Political Parties and Elections Bill the BTP and other police forces on how we will ensure Report (1st Day) that they are properly policed. 3.08 pm Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I was most relieved to hear the Answer of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to the first Question of the noble Lord, Lord Schedule1:Investigatory powers of Commission: Roberts of Llandudno. Is he aware that any Government Schedule to be inserted into the 2000 Act who try to prevent us Scots from having a dram in the train or in the aeroplane on the way to or from Scotland are likely to have a rebellion on their hands? Amendment 1 Moved by Lord Marlesford Lord Adonis: I am indeed aware of that, my Lords. 1: Schedule 1, page 39, line 24, at end insert “provided that prior approval to enter any premises and to inspect documents Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, last week a new franchise found on those premises has been obtained from a magistrate” was let for South Central trains and we were very pleased to see that it included provision for the manning Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I feel that I should of stations. However, what is the person manning a apologise to the House for intruding on a Bill in which station to do in the event of drunken or rowdy behaviour? I have not taken part, although I have followed the Is he isolated by himself? Will he have access to proceedings on it. My point is wide and could affect surveillance devices? Will he have contact with the all government departments in due course. Perhaps British Transport Police? the only slight reflection I have is that—with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who I Lord Adonis: My Lords, I very much expect that the think will answer my amendment—it varies so widely additional staffing of stations will reduce crime. It that I almost wish that the First Secretary of State, goes hand in hand with another important aspect of Lord Pooh-Bah himself, were here to answer this the South Central franchise, to which the noble Lord brief debate. referred: all trains and all stations on the South Central My amendment is concerned with an important franchise will be equipped with CCTV, which has a big constitutional point, which is on the powers of entry impact in reducing crime levels. At present, 50 per cent to premises. Many will be fully aware of the Bill that of stations and more than 3,000 trains are equipped my noble friend Lord Selsdon, who unfortunately is with CCTV. This will mark a further advance and a not able to be here today, introduced in your Lordships’ benchmark to which I hope all franchises can be House in 2007 as a Private Member’s Bill that received brought up in due course. its Third Reading on 17 July 2008. It was indicated to us that No. 10 itself—the citadel of everything, of Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Question course—was sympathetic to that Bill. The intention of refers to public transport. Is the noble Lord prepared the Bill was to reduce the number of provisions in to discuss with the airlines their practice of serving legislation that included powers of entry. At least, free alcohol on aircraft, which is both dangerous and when one says “to reduce the number of provisions”, bad for the health of travelling passengers? it is not so much about the reduction of them; it is to reduce the number of occasions on which people are able to enter premises without any sort of consent Lord Adonis: No, my Lords. from the person or occupier concerned and without any sort of outside authority. Arrangement of Business We all recognise that, in the very complicated life Announcement which we all lead, with Governments inevitably involved in and having to legislate for rules and regulations covering many different aspects of our lives, it is 3.07 pm necessary for the Executive and their agencies to be Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with the leave able to check and enforce the legislation. What I do of the House, my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon not think is so axiomatic is that there should be will repeat the Statement on Iraq at a convenient point powers of entry to premises without consent or, if after 3.30 pm. consent is not forthcoming, without at the very least 845 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 846

[LORD MARLESFORD] friend Damian Green in the other place, with the the same sort of consent that the police have always access that was granted to his offices without his had to have, which is a warrant. My amendment is to consent and the searches that were conducted. Schedule 1, where it says on page 39 of the Bill: This is not in any way to suggest that the important “A person authorised by the Commission may, for the purposes work of the Electoral Commission—or, indeed, of the of the carrying out by the Commission of their functions— police, in the case of Damian Green—should be impeded, (a) at any reasonable time enter premises occupied by an but simply that due process should be followed and organisation to which, or an individual to whom, this paragraph applies”, that consent should be obtained. If consent cannot be obtained for some good reason, or there is a suspicion I propose merely to add the very necessary words—they that, by giving notice, a further misdemeanour or would of course only apply where agreement has not crime may occur, it is open under my noble friend’s been reached— amendment for the Electoral Commission to approach “provided that prior approval to enter any premises and to a magistrate and secure a warrant for that purpose. inspect documents found on those premises has been obtained from a magistrate”. While what we recognised in Schedule 1 was brought It is a very simple amendment. I am doing it on this back after that incident, when it was taken on Report Bill because it was very disappointing that the and at Third Reading in the other place there was a Government, having indicated that they had sympathy significant reduction in the powers of entry in that with the desirability of reducing the occasions on clause. That was welcomed and we appreciated the which officials have powers of entry without warrant, steps that the Government had taken to listen to our did not take the opportunity in this Bill of circumscribing concerns at that point over Damian Green. the powers of entry in this case, in this schedule, in the The amendment just offers a further tightening of manner that I am advocating. the wording in a way that does not diminish in the Unless we actually make a start on at least not slightest the powers of the commission to undertake extending the number of powers of entry without its tasks. Therefore, we on these Benches are pleased to warrant, we will never get anywhere. I hope that the support my noble friend in his amendment. Obviously, time will come when the thousands of powers of entry we await the Minister’s response with interest. that exist, scattered through the legislation on the statute book, will gradually be reduced. I recognise Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I, too, support the that it is a peripheral matter to this Bill, but I hope amendment. There seems no good reason why we do very much that the Government recognise that it would not have the normal formula, such as “by order of” or at least show an indication that the concept of unlimited “with the authority of” a court. powers of entry without consent was no longer acceptable in this country. We have been talking much recently A further point is that the interrelationship between about the alienation of the people from Parliament these powers of entry in paragraph 2 does not really and from Governments. If political parties of whatever tie in with paragraphs 3 and 4. I can see nothing in side were to explain to people that they sought greatly paragraph 2 about the commission having “reasonable to reduce the number of occasions on which powers of grounds to suspect” something or other. In certain entry could be used without a warrant, it is the sort of circumstances it can come to a conclusion and serve a thing that they would very much find strikes a chord. notice that it suspects something such as the withholding Therefore, my amendment, which in no sense damages of documents. If you look on at paragraph 4, you find the purpose of the basic provisions of the Bill, is on page 40 that, when the commission has served such modest. I hope very much—but not with enormous a notice, the High Court can make an order if it is optimism—that the Minister may find it in his heart, if satisfied that, not in his brief, to give some warmth in his reply to my “there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person … has amendment. If, by chance, some drafting improvement contravened … any restriction or other requirement imposed by could be made, then I would be perfectly happy for the or by virtue of this Act”. Government to give an undertaking to come back at One of those requirements would obviously be one Third Reading. following from a paragraph 3 decision. In the mean time, however, I press the Government What troubles me is that this appears to be, in firmly to take account in the Bill of the need to take paragraph 2, a free-standing power of entry that is not this step, in the direction that I have described. I beg linked with any conclusion by the commission that to move. there are reasonable grounds to suspect that somebody is withholding something or has committed some 3.15 pm other offence at all. This needs to be rethought, in my submission, and made harmonious with what one Lord Bates: My Lords, I support the amendment would normally expect. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, moved so ably by my noble friend. His intrusion, as he has moved an amendment with which I agree. The put it, into the debate is welcome. It highlights an issue interrelationship between these clauses needs to be which has in many ways been dealt with in some detail looked at. by the Government, in the way that they have responded to issues arising from how the Bill was originally presented in the other place. When it was, the powers Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I think it is one of the proposed were certainly far more draconian than those principal duties of this House to look after the interests being considered now. In the intervening period, we of the individual, and this amendment goes a little bit had the disgraceful situation concerning my honourable in that direction. Therefore I very much support it. 847 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 848

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I too would like to risk-based assessments. The effect of the amendment add my strong support to this amendment. In my would be to place a requirement on the Electoral naivety I did not realise that the normal conditions of Commission to obtain prior approval from a magistrate applying for warrants did not apply in this case. It is before it can enter the premises of a supervised individual rather sad in a way that things should have to be or organisation to inspect documents relating to their tightened but, if tightened they must be, this amendment income and expenditure. is extremely sensible. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have difficulty in which is to help us to ensure that powers of entry are understanding why it is necessary to confer this power. used appropriately. We fully support the view that the powers of entry in the Bill should be proportionate The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry and justified, and feature appropriate safeguards to of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, I am very grateful prevent their misuse. That is why the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for introducing took steps in another place to restrict the application this short debate on an important point. There may be of this power to regulated organisations and not to some misunderstanding about it, but I understand the individuals, and to prevent the use of this power of context in which the noble Lord is raising this issue. entry in connection with an investigation into a suspected What he seeks to do in his Amendment 1 is to amend breach or contravention of the 2000 Act. As I understand paragraph 2(2) of the new Schedule 19B to the Political it, in so far as any investigation or suspected breach is Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which concerned, even getting a warrant would not be sufficient sets out the commission’s powers of entry and inspection to allow entry after the changes the Government made in relation to regulated organisations only. They are in another place. listed in paragraph 2(1). They are: “(a) a registered party or in the case of a registered party with These steps are in addition to retaining the safeguards accounting units— which the power has featured since the 2000 Act. For (i) the central organisation of the party; example, the power must be exercised at reasonable (ii) an accounting unit of the party; times and is confined to financial documents. Additionally, 2(1)(b) a recognised third party (within the meaning of authorisation of a person acting on behalf of the Part 6); commission to enter premises must be in writing and (c) a permitted participant (within the meaning of Part 7) must be produced by that person if required to do so (d) is a members’ association (within the meaning of Schedule 7)”. by the owner or occupier of the premises. They are the only people who are subject to this We therefore think that the power of entry already power. features sufficient safeguards to prevent its misuse. A This is a supervisory power which allows the step such as that proposed in this amendment would, commission to enter premises at reasonable times to we think, place an unnecessary obstacle in the use of inspect documents relating to the income and expenditure this power. As such, it risks undermining the Electoral of regulated organisations to which the power applies. Commission’s effectiveness. Now more than ever, it is The important point is that this is not a power for use vital that Parliament empowers the regulator so that in connection with investigations, or suspicions of he or she is fully equipped to regulate the political wrongdoing. Rather, it is for use where the commission system effectively. We therefore share the commission’s needs access to the financial and related documents, view that the amendment would result in additional documentation of political parties and other related bureaucracy without any additional benefit. An entities in connection with its regulatory role. That is application to a magistrate may lead to a negative and why there is no relationship between this power in false inference being drawn; a court granting such a paragraph 2(b) and paragraphs 3 and 4 that the noble warrant may be seen to imply that the commission Lord, Lord Neill, stressed. suspects breaches of the rules. That is not the case: the Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, will the Minister commission’s use of this power is not concerned with deal with this point? All the documents that he has the investigation of, or any suggestion as to the commission referred to would be documents which they had an of, an offence. obligation to produce voluntarily, and they failed to Furthermore, it is not clear what factors a magistrate do it. would be taking into account when deciding whether to give approval. Given that the power allows the Lord Bach: My Lords, that is probably true, but this commission to enter premises at reasonable times for is solely to do with the regulatory role as opposed to the purposes of carrying out its supervisory functions, the investigatory role. This power actually replicates it is difficult to envisage a situation where approval the commission’s existing power. This is not something could reasonably be withheld. new. This was a power of entry in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Although I have The further steps we have already taken to prevent not had a chance to research the matter completely, the use of this power of entry in connection with an my understanding is that there was no opposition to investigation into a suspected offence ought to reassure this power when it was passed through Parliament in the House that the power will be used appropriately. 2000. The only difference is that now it will apply to In addition, the Electoral Commission says in its briefing: members’ associations as well. “Government amendments agreed during the passage of the In practice, the power generally underpins the Bill provide appropriate safeguards on this power … The proposed commission’s ability to visit parties co-operatively, to involvement of a magistrate may create the misperception that a verify claims for policy development grants and conduct party has breached the law, where clearly it has not”. 849 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 850

[LORD BACH] would not want to be the executive of a party that was The commission also undertakes to give organisations visited by the officers of the Electoral Commission on whose premises it intends to visit advance notice of its whim, and without the authority of a magistrate. the time and date of the proposed visit. This power of entry is not new—as I say, it has Lord Bach: My Lords, hard as he tried, the noble existed since 2000. The Electoral Commission has Lord could not try my patience. I take the point, but I undertaken to use it only when necessary and to give do not think that this is an example of the failure of parties prior warning. I repeat that the power cannot the Electoral Commission. The power remains. It has be used for investigations; instead, it allows the Electoral been there since 2000. It is useful as a back stop. I Commission to access information on those it regulates quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for its supervisory functions. has chosen this as a way of getting across his important and general point about entry into premises, but I Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I hope that submit that it does not apply here. I invite the noble the noble Lord realises that saying that something is Lord to withdraw his amendment. already there and therefore it must be all right really is not acceptable in this area. Secondly, if the situation Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, since 2000, has is as the noble Lord says, why does not the commission the Electoral Commission entered premises and simply have the power to invite the organisation concerned investigated without the consent of the regulatory to visit it, bringing along the relevant documentation? body, or has it always obtained consent?

Lord Bach: My Lords, of course I do not say that Lord Bach: My Lords, it has not happened. It is a because this has been law since 2000, that is a complete back-up power. It has either been successful or not, answer to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord depending on how the noble and learned Baroness Marlesford. However, it seems to have worked fairly looks at it. It has not been necessary to use it. well since 2000; no one seemed to object the last time this matter was before Parliament. I am not sure what has changed since then to make a difference. Secondly, Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, it was a neutral of course the commission— question.

3.30 pm Lord Bach: My Lords, of course. Lord Bates: My Lords, the Minister asked what has changed since then. The answer is the incident with Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, in the Damian Green. We never considered that those powers Minister’s explanation of why the Government wish would be exercised in the way that they were. They to reject the amendment, he placed great stress on the were exercised in that particular way and, as a result, fact that this power was for inspection, not investigation. the House is now extremely vigilant before giving We must understand that, in these circumstances, fishing them to anyone else. expeditions may surely follow. You go out to inspect and, lo and behold, you end up with an investigation. Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not blame the noble It is naïve for us to think that there is a clear dividing Lord for using that example, but it is a completely line between inspection and investigation. The noble irrelevant answer to my rhetorical question. The Damian Lord, Lord Marlesford, is really concerned about Green incident had nothing whatever to do with a investigation, but investigation may follow inspection power that already exists in law and has done since as surely as night follows day. In many cases, the 2000. It has absolutely nothing to do with the power Electoral Commission may wish to use this power of that remains in the schedule, which has existed since inspection without the let and hindrance that the 2000. To answer the second point made by the noble noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, proposes to impose Lord, Lord Pearson, of course it is hoped and intended upon it, to find ways of triggering and beginning that normally these regulated organisations—which investigations. The Minister is not being fair to the are, as I have set out, the parties—will go to the House in suggesting that there is a clear line between commission if and when requested. This is just a the two. back-up power in case that does not happen. It has nothing to do with investigations or times when there is a suspicion of wrongdoing. Lord Bach: My Lords, I think that for once the noble Lord is wrong. I specifically asked outside the Chamber what the position would be if in the course Lord Marland: My Lords, at the risk of testing the of a normal supervisory, regulatory visit to a political Minister’s patience, I agree with his point about Damian party, suspicion of wrongdoing was found. I understand Green but it is absolutely fundamental that the Electoral from the answer that was given to me that at that Commission has failed to police the donor system moment, the Electoral Commission would have to leave since 2000. It has failed to carry out its authority. the premises and go through the process to which the Therefore, the amendment categorically puts in train a noble Lord, Lord Neill, related, in paragraphs 3 and 4. system that prevents the failure of the Electoral That is the law. As soon as the Electoral Commission Commission. We must encourage this. There has been becomes suspicious that a wrongdoing has occurred, it a litany of failure by the Electoral Commission. I has to work under different rules altogether. 851 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 852

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships 3.40 pm will note that the House is on Report, and that page 122 Division on Amendment 1 of the Companion states: “Only the mover of an amendment or the Lord in charge of Contents 152; Not-Contents 105. the Bill speaks after the Minister on Report except for short questions of elucidation”. Amendment 1 agreed. Division No. 1 Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, I have one CONTENTS question. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has been saying Addington, L. Jenkin of Roding, L. repeatedly that this will not be used for investigatory Allenby of Megiddo, V. Kingsland, L. situations but the Bill is unclear because it all comes Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller] Kirkham, L. Arran, E. Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. under proposed new Schedule 19B, entitled “Investigatory Astor of Hever, L. Laming, L. Powers of Commission” at page 38. I support what my Attlee, E. Lee of Trafford, L. noble friend asked a moment ago. How on earth will Avebury, L. Lester of Herne Hill, L. one tell what the commission thinks it is doing? Baker of Dorking, L. Listowel, E. Bates, L. Lucas, L. Best, L. Luke, L. Lord Bach: My Lords, it is all in Schedule 1. This Blackwell, L. Lyell, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Lyell of Markyate, L. item comes under the sub-heading “Powers of entry B. McColl of Dulwich, L. and inspection”; which comes after “Power to require Bowness, L. MacGregor of Pulham disclosure” and before “Powers in relation to suspected Bradshaw, L. Market, L. offences or contraventions”. This passage occurs before Bridges, L. Maclennan of Rogart, L. that. I have tried to do my best to tell the House how Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, McNally, L. L. Maddock, B. this will work and how it would have worked since Brougham and Vaux, L. Mar, C. the year 2000. Butler-Sloss, B. Mar and Kellie, E. Cathcart, E. Marland, L. Chidgey, L. Marlesford, L. [Teller] Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Clement-Jones, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Minister for his attempt to explain why my amendment Cobbold, L. Mawson, L. is unnecessary and, in the Government’s view, undesirable. Colwyn, L. Monson, L. Cope of Berkeley, L. Montgomery of Alamein, V. He said that there may be a misunderstanding but Cotter, L. Morris of Bolton, B. there is no intention on my part, and no consequence Crickhowell, L. Moynihan, L. from this amendment, to interfere with the proper De Mauley, L. Naseby, L. Denham, L. Neill of Bladen, L. functions of the inspectorate and those who are checking, Dholakia, L. Neuberger, B. as they are required to do, the implementation of the Dixon-Smith, L. Neville-Jones, B. legislation. That is the first, basic point. I accept that D’Souza, B. Noakes, B. in the great majority of cases—99 point whatever per Dundee, E. Northover, B. cent—there will be no need for magistrates’ warrants Dykes, L. Norton of Louth, L. because these matters will be dealt with by a perfectly Eames, L. O’Cathain, B. Elliott of Morpeth, L. Onslow, E. civilised communication and request for inspection Erroll, E. Palmer, L. and consideration. Most police actions are perfectly Exeter, Bp. Pearson of Rannoch, L. straightforwardly done by consent, discussion and Falkland, V. Plumb, L. agreement. The noble Lord said that the provision did Falkner of Margravine, B. Ramsbotham, L. not refer to individuals but it specifically says: Fearn, L. Rawlings, B. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Razzall, L. “This paragraph applies to the following organisations and Fookes, B. Redesdale, L. individuals”. Fowler, L. Rix, L. When the police have to intrude compulsorily on an Garden of Frognal, B. Roberts of Llandudno, L. individual they have to get a warrant and the magistrate Gardner of Parkes, B. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Garel-Jones, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. takes into account the reasonable cause that the police Geddes, L. Ryder of Wensum, L. put forward for the warrant. Exactly the same would Glasgow, E. St. John of Bletso, L. apply here. The implication that magistrates would be Goodhart, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. incapable of making a decision is one that I would, I Goodlad, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. am afraid, reject. Greengross, B. Seccombe, B. Greenway, L. Sharp of Guildford, B. I am very disappointed in the noble Lord’s response. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Sharples, B. The argument about it being there since 2000 is never Hamwee, B. Shephard of Northwold, B. a good one. We are moving forward and there is Hanham, B. Shutt of Greetland, L. increasing dismay at the extent, much of it inevitable, Harris of Richmond, B. Skelmersdale, L. Hayhoe, L. Slim, V. of the supervising, the checking and, in some sense, Henley, L. Steel of Aikwood, L. the intrusion on organisations and individuals. The Higgins, L. Steinberg, L. time has come that this should be limited, as far as Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Stevens of Ludgate, L. possible, to consent, and where consent is not given L. Stoddart of Swindon, L. then the warrant of a magistrate is a good and democratic Howarth of Breckland, B. Strathclyde, L. Howe, E. Swinfen, L. way to discourage unnecessary intrusion. I am afraid Howe of Idlicote, B. Taverne, L. that I am not happy with what the Minister has said, Howell of Guildford, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. and I should like to test the opinion of the House. James of Blackheath, L. Tenby, V. 853 Iraq[LORDS] Iraq 854

Thomas of Gresford, L. Tyler, L. place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Thomas of Walliswood, B. Verma, B. The Statement is as follows. Thomas of Winchester, B. Waddington, L. Tonge, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. “Mr Speaker, the whole House will want to join me Tope, L. Walmsley, B. in expressing our condolences to the family and friends Tordoff, L. Walpole, L. of the two soldiers who recently lost their lives serving Trefgarne, L. Warnock, B. Trimble, L. Warsi, B. in Afghanistan—Lieutenant Paul Mervis of 2nd Battalion Trumpington, B. Watson of Richmond, L. the Rifles and Private Robert McLaren of 3rd Battalion Tugendhat, L. Williamson of Horton, L. the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Black Watch. Our troops first went into Iraq in March 2003 and NOT CONTENTS now they are coming home, so it is fitting that I should Adonis, L. Hughes of Woodside, L. come to the House to talk of their achievements Afshar, B. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. through difficult times, to chart the new relationship Ahmed, L. Irvine of Lairg, L. that we are building with Iraq and to set out our plans Anderson of Swansea, L. Jay of Ewelme, L. Andrews, B. Jay of Paddington, B. for an inquiry into the conflict. As always, we can be Archer of Sandwell, L. Jones, L. supremely proud of the way in which our forces carried Bach, L. Jordan, L. out their mission—of their valour in the heat of combat, Barnett, L. King of West Bromwich, L. recognised in the many citations, rewards and decorations, Bassam of Brighton, L. Kingsmill, B. and of their vigilance and resolution amid the most [Teller] Kinnock, L. Berkeley, L. Lea of Crondall, L. difficult imaginable conditions and the ever present Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Lipsey, L. risk of attack by an unseen enemy. Today, we continue Blood, B. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. to mourn and remember the 179 men and women who Borrie, L. McDonagh, B. gave their lives in the service of our country. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Brookman, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, In my Statement to the House last December, I set Campbell of Surbiton, B. L. out the remaining tasks in southern Iraq for our Campbell-Savours, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. mission: first, to entrench improvements and security Chorley, L. Massey of Darwen, B. by putting Iraqis in charge of their own defence and Christopher, L. Mitchell, L. Clark of Windermere, L. Moonie, L. policing; secondly, to support Iraq’s emerging democracy Clarke of Hampstead, L. Morgan, L. through the provincial elections; and, thirdly, to promote Clinton-Davis, L. Morris of Handsworth, L. reconstruction, economic growth and basic services Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Morris of Manchester, L. such as power and water, to give the Iraqi people what Crawley, B. Morris of Yardley, B. matters most for their livelihoods in years to come and Darzi of Denham, L. Moser, L. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. a stake in their economic future. I can report that these Davies of Coity, L. Patel of Blackburn, L. objectives have been achieved and that, thanks to our Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] Pendry, L. efforts and those of our allies over six difficult years, Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, Pitkeathley, B. a young democracy has replaced a vicious 30-year B. Radice, L. dictatorship. Desai, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Elystan-Morgan, L. Rendell of Babergh, B. In recent months, we have completed the training of Evans of Watford, L. Richard, L. the 9,000 troops in the 14th division of the Iraqi army, Falkender, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Sewel, L. which is now fully in charge of security in Basra. It Faulkner of Worcester, L. Simon, V. was the 14th division that, with our help and the help Filkin, L. Soley, L. of the Americans, took on the militia in the crucial Ford, B. Stone of Blackheath, L. Charge of the Knights operation in spring last year. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Strabolgi, L. Since then, violence and crime in the Basra region Gale, B. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. have continued to fall, while levels of violence across Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. Golding, B. Temple-Morris, L. Iraq as a whole are at their lowest since 2003. Goudie, B. Thornton, B. Provincial elections were held peacefully on 31 January Gould of Potternewton, B. Tomlinson, L. Graham of Edmonton, L. Tunnicliffe, L. with 7 million Iraqis turning out to vote for 440 different Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Turner of Camden, B. political groups. The Iraqis ran the elections themselves Harris of Haringey, L. Wall of New Barnet, B. with only three violent incidents across the entire Hart of Chilton, L. Warner, L. country. Preparations are now under way for national Haskel, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L. elections on 30 January 2010. Haworth, L. Whitaker, B. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Whitty, L. Since 2003, the UK has spent over £500 million in Hollis of Heigham, B. Wilkins, B. Iraq, including providing humanitarian assistance and Howarth of Newport, L. Wright of Richmond, L. infrastructure and promoting economic growth. Support for the health sector has included $14 million spent on Iraq 189 projects in Basra, including the refurbishment of Statement Basra general hospital and the building of the Basra children’s hospital. As a whole, the international community has rehabilitated over 5,000 schools, as 3.50 pm well as constructing entirely new schools and new The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness classrooms in existing schools. Despite high unemployment Royall of Blaisdon): My Lords, with the leave of the and the scale of the global recession, economic growth House, I will repeat a Statement made in another in Iraq this year is predicted to be nearly 7 per cent. 855 Iraq[15 JUNE 2009] Iraq 856

Significant challenges remain, including that of finding speech was an important step forward, but there remains a fair and sustainable solution to the sharing of Iraq’s a long road ahead of us. I will speak to him later today oil revenues, but Iraq’s future is now in its own hands—in to press on him the importance of freezing settlements. the hands of its people and its politicians. We must With the last British combat troops about to return pay tribute to the endurance of the Iraqi people and home from Iraq, now is the right time to ensure that pledge to them our continuing support, but it will be we have a proper process in place to learn the lessons support very different from the kind that we have of the complex and often controversial events of the provided for the last six years. last six years. I am today announcing the establishment As the House knows, our military mission ended of an independent privy counsellor committee of inquiry. with the last combat patrol in Basra on 30 April. As of It will consider the period from summer 2001, before today, there are fewer than 500 British troops in Iraq, military operations began in March 2003, and our with more returning home each week. On the day of subsequent involvement in Iraq until the end of July that last combat patrol, I welcomed Prime Minister this year. The inquiry is essential; by learning lessons, Maliki and most of his Cabinet to London, where we we will strengthen the health of our democracy, our signed together a declaration of friendship, partnership diplomacy and our military. The inquiry will, I stress, and co-operation, defining a new relationship between be fully independent of government. our two countries for the future. At the request of the The scope of the inquiry is unprecedented, covering Iraqi Government, a small number of British Navy an eight-year period that includes the run-up to the personnel, no more than 100, will remain in Iraq for conflict and the full period of conflict and reconstruction. the long-term training of the Iraqi navy at Umm Qasr. The committee of inquiry will have access to the Royal Navy ships will continue to protect the oil fullest range of information, including secret information. platforms on which Iraq’s exports depend and we will In other words, its investigation can range across all continue to offer training to the Iraqi army as part of papers, all documents and all material, so the inquiry a wider NATO mission. We will also offer training can ask for any British document to come before it opportunities at Sandhurst and elsewhere in the UK and any British citizen to appear. No British document for Iraqi officers of high potential. and no British witness will be beyond the scope of this At the core of our new relationship will be the inquiry. I have asked the members of the inquiry that diplomatic, trading and cultural links that we are the final report of the inquiry will be able to disclose building with the Iraqi people, supporting British and all but the most sensitive information—that is, all other foreign investors who want to play a role in the information except that which is essential to our national reconstruction of southern Iraq. I have discussed with security. Prime Minister Maliki a plan for British companies to The inquiry will receive the full co-operation of the provide expertise to the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Earlier this Government, with access to all government papers year, the Mesopotamia Petroleum Company signed a and the ability to call any witnesses, with the objective joint venture worth $400 million. Shell is working with to learn the lessons from the events surrounding the the Southern Oil Company to bring to market some of conflict. It is on this basis that I have accepted the the 7 million cubic feet of gas currently lost each day Cabinet Secretary’s advice that the Franks inquiry is by flaring. British firms are now competing for further the best precedent. Taking into account national security contracts totalling $15 billion, and Rolls-Royce and considerations, as the Franks inquiry did—for example, Parsons Brinckerhoff are currently discussing with the what might damage or reduce our military capability Iraqi Ministry of Electricity proposals for a new power in the future—evidence will be heard in private. In this generation infrastructure in Iraq, worth an initial way, evidence given by serving and former Ministers, $200 million. military officers and officials will, I believe, be as full British funding will support lending to 1,000 businesses and as candid as possible. in southern Iraq, and a youth employment programme, The committee will publish its findings in as full a which should give training and work placements to form as possible. These findings will then be debated 500 young Basrawis, could be rolled out across the in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It whole of Iraq. We are supporting the Iraqi Transport is in these debates, as well as from the report itself, that Ministry in the resumption of civilian flights. Also, we can draw fully on the lessons learnt in Iraq. So DfID and the British Council are working on a major while the format is the same as the Franks inquiry, we education programme; Iraq has already identified have gone much further in the scope of the inquiry. No its first 250 students—an early initiative in Britain’s inquiry has looked at such a long period. No inquiry contribution to Iraq’s plans for 10,000 overseas has the powers to look in so much breadth. While scholarships for Iraqi students. Franks looked only at the run-up to the Falklands Issues in the region still confront us. Iran is an conflict, the Iraq inquiry will look at the run-up to the independent nation that deserves our respect, and the conflict, the conflict itself and the reconstruction, so Iranian people are a proud people who deserve democracy. that we can learn lessons in each and every area. The That is why the regime must address the serious questions inquiry will take into account evidence submitted to that have been asked about the conduct of the elections. previous inquiries. The way in which the regime responds to legitimate I am asking members of the committee to explain protests will have implications for Iran’s relationship the scope, width and breadth of the work to opposition with the rest of the world. The House will also note leaders and the chairs of the relevant parliamentary the speech of Prime Minister Netanyahu, where, for committees. In order that the committee should be as the first time, he endorsed the two-state solution. His objective and as non-partisan as possible, the membership 857 Iraq[LORDS] Iraq 858

[BARONESS ROYALL OF BLAISDON] covered up. The ranks of the dead and injured of all of the committee will consist entirely of non-partisan nations, including Iraqis, have the right to demand public figures acknowledged to be expert and leaders that. The war provoked the largest public demonstration in their fields. There will be no representatives of seen in London in modern times. Many people were political parties from any side of this House. deceived—I put no finer point on it—into thinking I can announce today that the committee of inquiry that the Saddam Hussein regime presented a direct will be chaired by Sir John Chilcot and will include threat to regional security and, specifically, to this the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, Sir Roderick Lyne, country’s security with weapons of mass destruction. Sir Lawrence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert. All Thanks to the report of the noble Lord, Lord are or will become privy counsellors. The committee Butler of Brockwell, we now know that the intelligence will start work as soon as possible after the end of July was not as extensive, detailed and authoritative as and, given the complexity of the issues that it will Mr Blair told Parliament that it was. Why did he do address, I am advised that it will take one year. As I that? I very much hope that the inquiry will tell us. If have made clear, the primary objective of the committee not, it will have failed. will be to identify lessons learnt. The committee will The noble Lord’s skilful inquiry into the use—some not set out to apportion blame or consider issues of might say abuse—of intelligence was one of several civil or criminal liability. into limited aspects of the events surrounding the war, Finally, I am sure that the whole House will join me but we have never had a comprehensive review into in paying tribute to the courage and dedication of how this massive foreign policy disaster occurred. every one of our Armed Forces and our civilian personnel What were our war aims? Was regime change, now who have served our country with such distinction in frequently cited as an alleged benefit of the war, a Iraq over six years and who continue to do so in covert objective from the outset? When and in what Afghanistan and on peacekeeping missions around detail was this discussed with the US Administration the world. At its peak, a force of 46,000 served tours and other coalition allies? Why did we have no proper of duty in support of operations in Iraq. In total, post-conflict plan? Will all these sorts of questions be 120,000 served over the period of the entire conflict; covered in the inquiry? Should the terms of reference 179 Britons died and 222 were seriously or very seriously not be the widest possible, to enable the inquiry to go injured. wherever it needs and to see whatever document it I said in my Statement in December that the memorial requires to get at the truth? wall in Basra would be brought home. I can now The report by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, did not confirm that it will form part of a new memorial wall address the diplomatic exchanges preceding the war to be built at the National Memorial Arboretum in and the international commitments that our Government Staffordshire. Just as it is right that we should pay may or may not have given at that time. It did not tribute to the memory of those who have fallen and focus on the legal case for war or the structure or the wounded, so it is right that we should celebrate the motivation of the political decision-making that led to safe return of their comrades and their shared it. It threw a troubling sidelight on sofa government achievements. I can also tell the House that in the and its consequences and on the involvement of the autumn of this year a service of thanksgiving and No. 10 spin team in these events, but these have never commemoration will be held in Westminster Abbey. been fully probed. As for the infamous “dodgy dossier”, two former Cabinet Ministers, the late Robin Cook We salute our forces today. Through their work, the and Clare Short, have asserted that the public were work of their American and coalition comrades and misled, while Mr Straw called the dossier, “a complete that of the Iraqi security forces, supported by the Horlicks”. These are shameful admissions of serious courage and vision of those within Iraq led by Prime government incompetence and need to be examined Minister Maliki, Iraq is emerging from the shadow of with the greatest care. 30 years of brutal dictatorship and then conflict. Today, Prime Minister Maliki and his Government It would not be to criticise the report of the noble can work together for a peaceful and prosperous future. and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, into the death of That they can do so now is the ultimate tribute to all Dr David Kelly—one man who told the truth—to say who served in Iraq—to their skills, commitment and that the spin machine’s role needs rigorous re-examination. sheer professionalism, to their great and enduring Can the Minister assure us that senior politicians—the courage in conflict and to their immeasurable contribution Franks committee included two senior former Cabinet to reconstruction and to peace”. Ministers from the Opposition—will be involved in the inquiry, people familiar with the nature of political I commend this Statement to the House. decisions? If she cannot give those assurances, will she tell us why not? 4.03 pm On the legal background, the advice of the Attorney- Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble General and the mysterious political meetings and Baroness for repeating the Statement. I, at the outset, conversations noted in paragraphs 366 to 387 of the join her in sending condolences to the families of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, surely deserve men who have so recently lost their lives in service to further scrutiny. The availability and use of diplomatic our nation. Of course, the Statement is welcome in reports and policy advice by experienced officials need many ways. Under four years ago, a British woman to be examined. was arrested in the heart of London for reading out In 1982, following the invasion of the Falklands, names of those who had died. Now at last we have there was a prompt inquiry by Lord Franks and six some admission that the truth cannot be indefinitely privy counsellors into the way in which the Government 859 Iraq[15 JUNE 2009] Iraq 860 had carried out their responsibilities in the run-up to such an inquiry. One could look at the extent to which the war. The inquiry reported in six months. It made the United States consulted Her Majesty’s Government recommendations and commented on blame. Why is in responding to the Iranian initiative of the spring of this inquiry not reporting on a similar timescale and 2003, which was a major missed opportunity in the with similar powers? Is it because the Prime Minister immediate post-war period. One could look at the intends to drag out this Parliament for another year whole balance of Middle East policy over the past five and has decided in advance that no one was to blame? years—but that would take an enormous amount of In the Franks inquiry, the Prime Minister—the noble time. The crucial questions are: why did we go to war, Baroness, Lady Thatcher—three other Prime Ministers, were we misled, and what options were available to the many Cabinet Ministers, civil servants, intelligence Government? officers, MPs and journalists all gave evidence. Will The Franks report is not a comfortable model. I this inquiry have legal powers to subpoena witnesses remember it well. I was a researcher at Chatham and submit them to detailed examination? House at the time and reviewed it at length for International I acknowledge that the Franks committee met in Affairs. It was a very successful distraction, written in secret, but that was over 25 years ago. Some participants Civil Service language, which enabled the Government have published memoirs, some have signed lucrative to spin the line that basic mistakes were made by the contracts to publish memoirs and others have spoken intelligence services and the embassy in Buenos Aires, freely to journalists and authors. In this age of so-called thus distracting attention from the extent to which the democratic renewal, should the presumption not be crucial failures were within the Government—I refer that, except where national security is involved, the to the recognition by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, inquiry should be in public? and others in the Foreign Office, that you could not It would be churlish not to welcome this inquiry get the Prime Minister to agree to negotiations with simply because it is overdue. Its terms of reference Argentina when she had finally accepted that she had need further work and the Statement leaves questions to negotiate on Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia as it then was. still to answer. My noble friend Lord Fowler has That was the political failure at the heart of why we tabled an important Motion for debate on Iraq on drifted into the Falkland Islands conflict, together Thursday and I very much hope that the Minister who with the failure to co-ordinate the defence review in replies to that debate may be able to shed even more which John Nott cut the Navy, including the Falklands light on this process than can be done in the short time guard ship, giving a clear but unintended signal to the available today. Argentines that we did not regard the islands as important. This is not a good model 25 years later—here I agree 4.09 pm strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—when the age of deference has left us even further behind, Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these and when people expect as far as possible to have Benches join in offering our condolences regarding public accounting. those recently killed in Afghanistan and in remembering Much of the material is already in the public domain. the important sacrifices made by the 400 people killed More ought to be. Perhaps the Leader of the House or seriously wounded in the course of the intervention will tell us whether Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s memoirs—an in Iraq. We remember also the enormous cost of important contribution to understanding what happened invasion and occupation; the impact on our Armed during that period—which have been blocked from Forces; the opportunity costs for domestic spending publication, will now be published as a matter of that the costs of Iraq over the past several years have urgency as part of the background to the inquiry. The involved; and the extent to which British support for members of the committee are a very respectable, the Bush Administration was crucial in the American creditable and expert group; but again, I regret that decision to go ahead with the invasion. there was not fuller consultation about the composition We have here a major failure of British foreign of the committee. It would have increased public policy that aroused immense disquiet among the British confidence if there were senior politicians from other electorate as a whole. I and my family were among parties on the committee, and it would have been those who marched before the invasion took place. I appropriate, as we are talking about constitutional recall getting off the train at Waterloo with my wife, renewal, to have had clearer parliamentary involvement and the first two people we recognised on our way to in the establishment and membership of the committee. the march were a consultant from Guy’s and St Thomas’s, Lastly, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and a City banker we had known for years—not your said on timing. It is possible to take minutes and years. average marchers. It was a very widespread, popular In this respect, what one wants is, clearly, a quick movement of disquiet among middle class and working response. Is the committee intended to report before class, old and young. This inquiry must answer that the next election or is it intended to kick the issue into disquiet. We are all conscious of the extent of popular the grass until after the next election? We on these distrust of the political elite. The inquiry must begin Benches expect it to report well within the next 12 months. to rebuild popular confidence in what the Government If we are told that it is going to take a great deal of and political elite are doing. There are constitutional time, we will be extremely unhappy. implications, as we talk about constitutional renewal, in the nature and structure of this inquiry. The crucial issue is the approach to war—the 12 months 4.15 pm ahead of the invasion in March 2003. The lessons of Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we are post-war reconstruction, by comparison, are secondary. addressing a very difficult and important issue today. There are many byways that one could go down in At the outset, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord 861 Iraq[LORDS] Iraq 862

[BARONESS ROYALL OF BLAISDON] Committee of the other place. Will the Minister Strathclyde, I must say that we have not been covering give an assurance that the inquiry will look into the up the truth. We have said that we would undertake an genuine considerations that led to the invasion of inquiry, or ensure that an inquiry was undertaken, as Iraq? It is widely believed that the main argument for soon as appropriate—and we always felt that it would invading Iraq was the presence of weapons of mass be appropriate when our troops left Iraq. Our troops destruction, which, as we all know, were later found are leaving Iraq in July, when the inquiry will begin not to be there. Will the inquiry examine the extent to its work. which a wish or a desire to punish Iraq for its role in The inquiry will have a very wide remit. The noble 9/11, which, as we now know, simply did not exist, led Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned previous inquiries. to that invasion? Secondly, will it examine the extent All evidence that was before previous inquiries will go to which information was invented to show that the before the committee. All issues relating to diplomatic Iraqi regime had links with al-Qaeda, which led to the exchanges and international commitments, as well as explanation of the reasons for invading Iraq? I believe the failure of the UN, a subject that has not been that we were seriously misled in both respects. I should addressed by past inquiries, will be before the committee like the inquiry to look into that and into the extent to and will be very widely probed. In relation to senior which we were told by the Americans what the real politicians, the committee will be able to call before it reasons were. any senior politician, any civil servant and any member of the Armed Forces. That is why it is along the lines Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I recognise of the Franks inquiry and why it is meeting in private—so that the noble Lord has taken a consistent position on these people have the confidence to give sensitive the Iraq war. I can assure him and the House that the information. However, the Prime Minister is consulting remit of the committee of inquiry is such that it will the Cabinet Secretary on whether some parts of the take into consideration what the noble Lord calls the hearings can be held in public. “genuine considerations” that led to the war. It will I was asked whether the inquiry would identify and take evidence from the widest possible group of people punish individuals who made mistakes. The object of and will consider all evidence that has been given to the inquiry is to identify lessons learnt that we can earlier inquiries. Therefore, I am confident that it will apply in other conflict and post-conflict solutions. We deliver what the noble Lord asks for. are not looking to lay blame or expose individuals to legal challenge. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, my noble The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked why no senior friend says that it will take evidence from the widest political figure was on the committee. The members of possible group of people. Will she give us an assurance the committee that I named have great experience that provision will be made to take evidence not only working closely with government, and I have every from the political elite in Iraq but also from representatives confidence that they will do an excellent job. of the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds who no longer Both noble Lords asked about the timing of the suffer under the vicious dictatorial regime of Saddam inquiry. We would all like to have the committee Hussein? report back as soon as possible, but these are complex issues. Everybody in this House would agree that we Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, it will of want a thorough report. The advice from the Cabinet course be up to the committee and the chairman of Secretary was that, with such a remit in terms of the committee to decide exactly from whom it wishes reference, a year would be appropriate. This is not to take evidence. I have no doubt that it will wish to kicking the matter into the long grass. The Franks take the widest possible evidence and I cannot see why committee dealt with a very short timescale, but it had it would not wish to talk to Iraqis who suffered in such a restricted remit looking specifically at events leading a way under Saddam Hussein. up to the Argentine invasion of the Falklands and could therefore report within six months. This committee is looking at precisely what the noble Lord said was so Lord Fowler: My Lords, as my noble friend said, important—it is looking at the time leading up to the many of these questions can be taken up further in invasion, from mid-2001 until next month. That is an Thursday’s debate. I have a specific question on the awfully long time for a committee to consider, and a scope of the inquiry. One of the worst failures has year would seem appropriate. been in dealing with the hundreds of thousands of refugees created by this conflict, some of whom were I was asked whether the inquiry would cover issues employed by this country. Will the inquiry cover British such as, “Why did we go to war?” Yes, it will cover all policy towards those refugees? Does the noble Baroness those issues. Will Jeremy Greenstock’s memoirs be agree that there is no reason why such evidence should published? I do not know, but I shall certainly come be taken in secret? It should be open and we should be back to the noble Lord in writing. able to see it. With that, I think that I have covered all the questions that have been raised to date. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, refugees are such a pertinent issue that I have no reason to 4.19 pm doubt that the committee would not wish to take Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, in the run-up evidence about them. I cannot bind the committee, to the invasion I argued consistently against it both in but I imagine that it would wish to. Advice will be this House and in evidence to the Foreign Affairs taken from the Cabinet Secretary as to whether that 863 Iraq[15 JUNE 2009] Iraq 864 session would be in public. However, as the noble the United States and other interested parties, are of Lord said, it does not relate to security so perhaps it is the utmost importance as to what happened after the an issue for a public inquiry. military action was taken and why things went the way they did. Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that by speaking as she did, in Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful answer to a question, of the failure of the United to my noble friend for reminding me that, throughout Nations she indicated a partisan view, which was far the period when she was standing at this Dispatch from independent and, indeed, was prejudging what Box, she did not on any occasion allege any link the inquiry may find? Further, does she also recognise between al-Qaeda and the invasion of Iraq. To my that, by spreading this inquiry not only over the events knowledge, I do not think the Prime Minister made that led up to the war but over the conduct of the war any link either. I would reassure my noble friend that and later reinstatement of Iraq, she is projecting the the committee will consider the diplomatic exchanges inquiry way beyond the term of this Parliament? That with our allies and Iraq’s neighbours before, and also will be seen widely as an attempt to evade government in the period following, the invasion. responsibility. Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, the Minister will recollect that her Government introduced a strategic Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am certainly defence review in 1998 that committed our Armed not doing two things. I am not taking a partisan view; Forces to one medium-sized continuing conflict at a I am trying to take a rounded view. I was trying to time. When we intervened in Iraq, that became two. mention one issue that I know has not been dealt with Will the inquiry include the visits that the Chief of the by former inquiries. That is why I mentioned the UN. Defence Staff made at the time to Prime Minister All the other issues that noble Lords in this House Blair to say that there should be a step increase in care so deeply about will be considered by this committee. defence expenditure? Each time he was referred to the I am also certainly not trying to dilute the work of Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, which the committee so that all that noble Lords wish to see did not get him very far. The result has been irreparable from this committee is not brought about. The noble damage to our Armed Forces. Lord, Lord Fowler, asked just now whether or not I thought that refugees would be considered by the Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I absolutely committee of inquiry. As I explained, it is up to the refute the allegation that our Armed Forces have been committee of inquiry. I would think that, if I were on irreparably damaged by the war in Iraq. They have the inquiry, it might well be covered. However, I am done a fantastic job, as I know that the noble Lord not seeking to dilute the work of the committee in would recognise, but they have also been equipped and order to ensure that the Government are not tainted in serviced as they should have been. any way. I am trying to show noble Lords that the I honestly do not know whether the committee of remit is as wide as most noble Lords would wish it inquiry would want to look at issues such as the to be. strategic defence review and subsequent discussions. I would not wish to make any undertaking on the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as committee’s part, but I am sure that the noble Lord the person who at the time was the Minister called could ask its members themselves. upon most frequently in this House to defend the Government’s position over the military action in Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, Iraq, I welcome this inquiry. I welcome the opportunity while I welcome her Statement, will the noble Baroness to learn for myself some parts of what went on that consider two further points? First, I particularly welcome maybe were not as clear as they might have been at the transfer of the wall of memory, which I had the the time. honour to be at during last year’s poppy celebrations, My noble friend might recall that, at the time of the to the National Memorial Arboretum in the UK. run-up to the war, I was asked repeatedly in this Would the Government consider a special plaque in House about the links to al-Qaeda and to terrorist the British embassy in Baghdad to recognise the sacrifice organisations. At no time did I, as a Minister, say that of so many British soldiers? there were any such links. Indeed, I went out of my Secondly, during the investigation, will the Government way in this House to say that there was no evidence of ensure that the commission has full, unexpurgated any such links, even though some of your Lordships access to the Arabic evidence that has already been thought that the Americans had showed conclusive given in many different trials in Baghdad, particularly evidence. the evidence in the “Chemical Ali” trial, in the north I ask my noble friend two questions. Will this and in the south, and the upcoming trial on the inquiry cover the diplomatic exchanges in advance of genocide of the Marsh Arabs that should start next the military action as they related to our allies, and month? I would be grateful if the Government could also as they related to others in the region, such as reassure us to that effect, as British evidence is just a Iraq’s neighbours? I hope that that will be the case. small fraction of the knowledge that is available. Will the inquiry also cover the diplomatic exchanges after the invasion in the period when there was a build Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful up to the greater internal violence in Iraq? I think the for the noble Baroness’s welcome of the transfer of the diplomatic exchanges at that time, between ourselves, wall of memory to the National Memorial Arboretum. 865 Iraq[LORDS] Iraq 866

[BARONESS ROYALL OF BLAISDON] Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords— A special plaque in our Baghdad embassy is an excellent idea. I cannot make that commitment, but I will Baroness Thornton: My Lords, there is time for certainly take it back to the department. both noble Lords to speak—perhaps the noble and On full and unexpurgated evidence, it would seem learned Lord first? sensible that the committee of inquiry should have access to that. I will certainly make inquiries. Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House kindly assure the House that the legal issues will now be looked at really Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the scope of carefully by the inquiry? Does she recognise that there the inquiry seems unprecedented in its breadth, lasting was no issue in relation to the Falklands War and its over eight years and covering in detail legal, humanitarian, legality because it was so plainly covered by Article 51 intelligence, military, reconstruction and diplomatic of the UN charter? There are very serious questions issues. Surely the Franks committee was not a happy here, and the time has now come for all the legal precedent in this sense. There must surely be a danger advice that was given to be most carefully examined that the inquiry will drag on for a very long time and all the factual information which was given to the indeed, as noble Lords are now asking for even more then Attorney-General and others in preparing their aspects to be added to it. advice to be fully disclosed—at least to the inquiry Can my noble friend give an assurance that a steer and then, in so far as national security permits, to the will be given to the chairman to be as rigid and firm as House and the country. he can, and that members of the committee will be asked to ensure that their other commitments are put Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, some of aside so that they can proceed as expeditiously as these issues have been dealt with in previous inquiries—for possible with this important inquiry? Presumably the example, the Butler inquiry. However, if the committee committee will not start its proceedings for a month or believes that this issue must be addressed, I am confident two in any event. that this issue must be addressed, and it is certainly within the remit. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the chairman of the committee has great experience, and I am sure Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, does that he will do everything he can to ensure that everybody’s the noble Baroness accept that it stretches credulity a diaries are cleared and so on. I agree with my noble little to look at the scope and the timeframe of this friend that we need the inquiry to be carried out as inquiry and to imagine that there is not a political expeditiously as possible. The Prime Minister has asked imperative here? If we accept in good faith that there that it report within a year. I am sure that everybody are two aspects to this—the events leading up to the would wish to ensure that the report was received war and the conduct of the war itself—may I suggest a within a year. two-part inquiry, with part 1 reporting within months on the events leading up to the war and then a longer, more considered part 2 that can take witnesses from Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, one of the most all over the world, and take its time but may report important documents to emerge in recent years, as far well afterwards, that will look at the conduct of the as the military is concerned, did not come from this war itself? country. It was produced in America and is called Counterinsurgency Operations. It resulted from a direct Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, Members and in-depth inquiry into what had happened in Iraq of this House are saying, “We want the inquiry, we and Afghanistan, and how well the military was prepared want it now, we want it to report tomorrow”, and then for the sort of operations that both entailed. The everybody is telling me all the different things that interesting thing about the composition of that inquiry they want to be in the inquiry. This committee is going is that although it was militarily led, it included a large to be faced with some very difficult challenges and number of experts from right across the field. some extraordinary time constraints. It is up to the I am interested that the Minister says that the committee how it structures its work. It may want to inquiry is meant to go into “lessons learnt”. However, come back in two parts—I do not know; that is a I find in what she said, unless I have misheard, that matter for the committee. Many of the issues that the there is no military member of the inquiry, who might noble Baroness raises are inextricably linked so the be able to lead such an inquiry into the in-depth committee may wish to see them in the round, as lessons which are, after all, hugely important to the it were. future development of our Armed Forces. Lord Morgan: My Lords, I welcome, as many on these Benches will, that we are going to have this Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I certainly inquiry. I was also one of those who took part in the recognise the noble Lord’s points. However, the majority march against the war. I wrote against it in the press. I of the committee members have great experience in thought then and I think now that it is a deeply dealing with defence issues and great contact with the shameful episode which brought discredit on the Prime MoD. I am sure that they may well be calling on some Minister of the day and also on the Conservative MoD experts for advice. Party of the day, from David Cameron downwards, who supported it. I think the lack of trust in our Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords— politicians began from this episode. 867 Iraq[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 868

I thank my noble friend for her Statement. Can I found to have behaved dishonestly should rest with ask two things? First, can I reinforce the point about constituents. The amendment is effectively a facilitating looking about the legality? There was a statement amendment; it would set in place a responsibility on about the criminality not being looked at. In the views the Secretary of State to call from the Electoral of virtually ever professor of international law in the Commission, within six months of the passage of this country, this was a deeply criminal act which had the Bill as an Act, a request to review and report on same justification legally as Hitler had in 1939 when procedures for local referenda on the recall by constituents he invaded Poland. I hope Martin Gilbert will look at of a Member of Parliament found guilty of misconduct. this, as a historian. As with so many things on the reform agenda, we Secondly, I hope that this inquiry will take very are providing an opportunity this afternoon for all much a transatlantic context. It was not an episode of those who say that they favour change to put their British policy alone. There is every reason to believe votes where their rhetoric is. The amendment introduces that decisions were taken, not in Whitehall, not in the prospect of constituents being able to recall their Westminster, but in Crawford in Texas. I hope that this Member of Parliament—ultimately, then, to give him inquiry can consider that broader remit. or her the sack—if, and only if, they have been judged by an independent body to have made a serious Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I have high transgression of the rules. People have been asking regard for my noble friend, but some of his comments why MPs who have announced their quiet exit from were inflammatory, if I might put it like that. The Parliament should be allowed to wait and why, if they remit is extremely wide and I am sure that it will look have been found out for charging the taxpayer for at what he called the transatlantic context. It is entirely duck houses or dry rot, or have learnt how to flip their within the committee’s remit to look at the legal second home arrangements like pancakes to make aspects should it so wish. extra cash, they should not be subject to recall now. Why should constituents wait until the Prime Minister calls a general election for an opportunity to choose a Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, can the Leader of the new Member of Parliament? House clarify a point about the publication of evidence? This inquiry is likely to be held largely in secret, but its effects will be crucially influenced by the amount of Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, will the noble evidence that is actually published. A report without Lord give way? evidence is much less valuable than one which is accompanied by the evidence that has produced the Lord Tyler: I have only just started, my Lords, but conclusions. Can the noble Baroness clarify the extent of course I will. to which evidence will be made available? Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I should like Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, what the the noble Lord to clear up a fundamental point. The committee will ultimately wish to publish is a matter procedure he is outlining is possible at the moment, for it to decide. If the material is secret or sensitive, because each Member of Parliament represents a publication would not be appropriate; however, I am particular constituency and is elected by first past the sure that the committee will wish to publish the maximum post. The noble Lord and his party favour some sort amount. of proportional system. Would it not be a thousand times more difficult, if not impossible, to have this Political Parties and Elections Bill kind of recall system in the electoral system that he Report (1st Day) (Continued) favours?

4.40 pm Lord Tyler: My Lords, your Lordships’ House is famous for the ability, often taken, to divert from the subject on the Bill in hand and go off on a tangent, but Amendment 2 I refuse to be tempted by the noble Lord. I promise Moved by Lord Tyler him a personal seminar in the different systems of proportional representation—of which he, of course, 2: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause— has been a beneficiary in Scotland—after we have “Review: the procedures for local referenda on recall for dealt with the Bill. misconduct I want to make it clear that our amendment is not a The Secretary of State shall, within 6 months of this Act being charter for party Whips—I confess to having previously passed, in exercise of his powers under section 6(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) (reviews of been the Chief Whip for my party—star chambers, electoral and political matters), request the Electoral Commission scrutiny panels or kangaroo courts. I utterly reject, to review and report on the procedures for local referenda on the indeed, the selective approach of some party hierarchies recall by constituents of a Member of Parliament found guilty of to make sure that awkward colleagues are for the high misconduct.” jump at the election, while trusted lieutenants are quietly reinstated. This amendment is about providing Lord Tyler: My Lords, I want to make it clear that due process in Parliament and then clear, transparent the new clause we are proposing fulfils the promises processes for the public to censure and dispense with made by all three party leaders in recent days that the their representatives when it has been proved by the eventual decision about whether a Member of Parliament relevant authorities that they have broken the rules. 869 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 870

[LORD TYLER] leader have been talking about in the last few days. Members of your Lordships’ House will recognise That is what I am talking about. With this amendment that we are somewhat inhibited at the moment by the we seek to give effect to the intentions of all three lack of certainty over the proposed parliamentary party leaders. Today we should agree, in principle, that standards authority. The PSA is still a gleam in the those steps should be taken to give effect to the promises Prime Minister’s eye and, perhaps, in the Minister’s that have been made on behalf of all three major eye. However, my right honourable friend Nick Clegg parties. has already backed the idea of independent monitoring Much has been made in recent days about the and an investigative agency of this sort, and I understand special link between MPs and their constituents. As a that the Conservative leader seems equally well disposed former Member, I know that there can be a very to this. Of course, we cannot specify its precise role in strong sense of connection for constituents in that this amendment because it does not yet exist, so we they talk about their local MP as “their” MP. Many aim to show how responsibilities could be set if and MPs are, in that sense, servants of their constituents, when it comes into being. Incidentally, we do not yet who send them to this building. If they break the rules, know whether the PSA will have a specific role in these surely the constituents, and not their parties, party matters as far as this House is concerned. No doubt leaders, kangaroo courts or the Chief Whip, should we will see that in due course when other legislation is have the right to say, “You are not our MP any more. brought forward. You have broken our trust and you must go”. That is a sound principle for us to agree to. Today is Parliament’s 4.45 pm earliest opportunity to make that statement. If we We can assume that the parliamentary commissioner dodge this issue now, I fear that the public will think for standards will be responsible to that authority and that we have deliberately forgotten it already, despite not to either or both Houses of Parliament. That, at the promises of recent days from all three party leaders. least, is clear. It is surely a welcome development, Delay will be interpreted as a further broken promise. which rightly separates the defendant from the judge Let us show this place, at least, in a good light this and jury. Our whole political system, as well as the afternoon by deciding to change rather than just to individual, is on trial at the moment. Only in those debate change. cases where the independent judgment has been made, Our amendment will not be the final word as it by the proper authorities, that someone has done expressly confers that responsibility on the authorities—the something so serious that they should be suspended Electoral Commission in the first place and in due from the House, would we envisage using this new course on the newly created PSA—to report the details right for the final—and perhaps the highest—court of and to set out options for Parliament to agree. For public of opinion to have its say. I make it absolutely once, instead of just talking about the merits of an clear that if a Member is thought by his or her idea, let us vote this afternoon to make it happen. I constituents to have done something politically wrong— beg to move. such as voting the wrong way on Iraq—as opposed to breaking the rules, this system cannot be triggered. It Lord Borrie: My Lords, I do not know whether I is only triggered when the parliamentary standards misheard the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, but I think he authority has taken full account of the incident and said something to the effect that procedures for local the views of the Member concerned. referendums are not in place. His amendment is quite misconceived. It is putting the cart before the horse. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, does the He wants to put into the Bill before us today something noble Lord not think that it would be difficult to to do with the powers of the Electoral Commission, define the difference between political and other offences? which exists and has several new powers given to it by For example, if a party leader accepted £2.4 million this Bill, but only on the basis that there are procedures from someone who was later convicted for giving that for local referendums on the recall by constituents of money illegally—the money belonged to someone else an MP found guilty of misconduct. The detail of how and the party leader failed to return it to the rightful that would be done, how the referendums would take owner—would that be the kind of offence that could place, or what is meant by misconduct, to which my trigger a recall? noble friend Lord Foulkes, referred, is all left unexplained. That is hardly surprising because, as the noble Lord Lord Tyler: My Lords, I do not think that the noble admits, there are no such referendums for recall at the Lord has been following my argument. We will have, moment. The amendment should be ruled out—not as we are told by the noble Lord’s leader the Prime out of order, although it is practically out of order Minister, a parliamentary standards authority. It will because it depends on things that do not currently be responsible for the investigative system that will be exist. undertaken by the commissioner. Presumably that will be the present commissioner with a new remit. If that Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I have a reservation due process is completed properly, and is not in any that the noble Lord might wish to consider. I sat on way affected by party considerations, with a decision the Members’ Interests Committee in the House of that a particular Member has so infringed the rules of Commons from 1982 until 1994 and on the Privileges the House that he or she should be suspended, it will Committee in the House of Commons from 1996 until be possible—on demand of, say, 5 or 10 per cent of 2001, so I sat through a number of inquiries. The voters signing a special petition—to call a by-election. problem with inquiries is that they have to make a That is what the Prime Minister and the Conservative judgment and such judgments can be fine and on the 871 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 872 margin. In the event that a finding was on the margin, Liberal Democrats is present with us, he might also members of the standards authority might have in consider a situation where a Mr Michael Brown gave a mind the possibility that an elector might choose that huge amount of money to a particular party which judgment as a way of triggering a referendum, and turned out not to be his but to be given illegally. If that that might distort the judgment of those Members party did not return the money, would that come who sit on the standards authority. While I recognise under this particular category? The noble Lord is that electors often strongly want to remove people opening a can of worms with this amendment and who breach the rules, the cases on the margin would perhaps he would think carefully before pressing it. worry me and to what extent the fact that they might trigger that referendum at a local level could influence Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I follow the judgment of the standards authority. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in thinking that much of on the margin judgments could be diluted because of this amendment seems previous in its make-up. The the authority’s concerns. amendment talks of being “guilty of misconduct”, but we do not quite know by whom, about whom or how that procedure will work. It is important to have Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I support the that issue clear in any Bill before we move further remarks of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I down that road. can see exactly that sort of situation arising. We have seen in the media recently vendettas built up against My concern follows those expressed by other noble certain politicians, which is easy when one sees a large Lords. We obviously want Members of Parliament number of newspapers and the BBC taking a particular who will exercise their independent judgment. Indeed, line, which may not be based on fact. I was recently we are talking about greatly strengthening the power involved in a case in relation to the Speaker of the of individual Members of Parliament in the face of House of Commons. Most of the stuff printed in the the Executive, which will mean that they are highly newspapers was downright lies, yet a certain perception controversial. Under the “guilty of misconduct” rule, grew up about the person in this case. A perception one is concerned that the awkward squad might suddenly can be created and acted on. This House could even be find themselves somehow being asked about aspects pushed into taking action against Members because of their behaviour that they might not be asked about of fear of the media, but that applies even more so in if they were more prepared to toe the line of whichever the House of Commons. A political campaign could party they belonged to. Even worse, a Member of be manufactured against a Member of Parliament and Parliament with a particular behaviour—it might be in the constituency there could be a movement to get particular sexual preferences that are entirely within rid of that Member on an entirely political basis. the law—might run into groups in their constituency who greatly disapprove of it, as is their entitlement, The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, ought to think carefully. and in turn might seek to disaffect and build up I hope that he might speak a little more. For example, opinion against that Member. I am particularly disappointed that the seconder of his amendment, my good friend the noble Lord, Lord The power of Members of Parliament needs buttressing Rennard, is not here; he probably knows more about in many ways. They have lived a life where they have all aspects of this subject than anyone present. Could been squeezed and squeezed and, while misconduct the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, tell us why the noble Lord, clearly has to be punished, we have not yet reached the Lord Rennard, is not able to be with us to lend his right or appropriate place to strike the balance, either vocal support to this amendment? in the Bill or this amendment. My last point is the one that I made in my first 5pm intervention, which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, batted away in an insouciant manner as if it was irrelevant, Lord Bates: My Lords, I must admit that I feel but it is very relevant. The reason why we have seen the some professional sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord petitions and campaigns growing up in constituencies Tyler. His amendment seems to be struggling for any about individual Members of Parliament is that MPs support at all, having been demolished pretty effectively have been elected by the first past the post system and by the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Borrie, are accountable. Real democracy lies in that accountability Lord Foulkes and Lord Campbell-Savours. If there of individual Members, which is there in first past the were any stumps still left in the ground, my noble post but not in the arithmetical correlation between friend Lord Hodgson has ensured that they have been the number of votes cast and the number of Members taken out. of Parliament in some fancy scheme devised by the However, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has done the Liberal Democrats or others. House a service by raising this matter. I do not think The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to my own that anybody who has been out on the campaign trail election to the Scottish Parliament. That was through knocking on doors over the past six weeks can be in a system that is entirely wrong—I am its beneficiary, any doubt about the anger felt by members of the but I do not like the system. In a list system, how public at the breach of trust that has been revealed would this work? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord through the articles, mostly in the Daily Telegraph,on Tyler, might explain this. Let us suppose that a list expenses. There is intense anger. We need to ensure system was introduced at the behest of the Liberal that there are degrees of protection for Members of Democrats, particularly one like that for the elections Parliament. that we have just had for the European Parliament. Those who are in favour of representative democracy How could that system work then? The noble Lord’s and the notion of Members of Parliament ought to be proposal is very naive. Since a former leader of the encouraged that people feel so strongly and expect 873 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 874

[LORD BATES] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry such standards from the people who represent them in of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, I thank the noble the House of Commons and, for that matter, in the Lord for raising this topic. The amendment would House of Lords. The fact that people feel so strongly compel the Secretary of State to request the Electoral is welcome. One way of recognising it is to be able to Commission to undertake a review and report on recall a Member of Parliament in extreme circumstances. arrangements that would enable constituents to recall The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was right to say that in a a sitting Member of Parliament. As has been said, a wide-ranging speech my right honourable friend David number of recall systems are in operation internationally, Cameron referred to this as one of the possibilities, most notably, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, just along with a range of other things, including fixed-term reminded us, in 18 states in the United States of Parliaments, that are needed to restore trust in the America. Detailed characteristics vary but they commonly parliamentary process and the trust of constituents in involve a certain number of electors petitioning for the their Members of Parliament. That process has a long holding of a ballot at which an elected official may be way to go. We are at the beginning—I am looking at voted out of office mid-term and/or for a by-election the Minister. Is he about to come in? No. He is just for their replacement. listening intently; how generous. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord said that I agree with noble Lords that there is no doubt that it is not entirely in order or watertight in its present the issues that have arisen in recent weeks have badly form because it does not specify the role of the public dented—if not worse—the public’s confidence in standards agency. I could not see the reference to the politicians of all parties and in the institutions of our public standards agency— democracy. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear last week, there is no more pressing task for all of us involved in public life than to respond Lord Tyler: My Lords, it does not exist. to the public’s demand for reform. In his Statement on constitutional reform on 10 June, the Prime Minister Lord Bates: My Lords, we already have a problem, set out the Government’s intention to bring forward and I am sure that the noble Lord, as a student of new legislative proposals following cross-party discussions matters procedural, will recognise that that makes it as the first stage of this reform. These proposals difficult to proceed. include, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler reminded us Perhaps this is an opportunity to have a discussion when he moved this amendment, the immediate creation about the other issue, which relates to the circumstances of a new parliamentary standards authority and the under which censure would take place. Although the agreement of a statutory code of conduct for all amendment does not mention it, it has been stated in Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister said: the press and by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in his introductory remarks that this would be an option “There will be consultation with all sides of the House to come forward with new proposals for dealing effectively with where a motion of censure had been passed on a inappropriate behaviour, including the potential options of effective Member of the House of Commons. That would exclusion and recall for gross financial misconduct, identified by trigger a mechanism by which a petition, a referendum the new independent regulator and by the House itself”.—[Official or a by-election would take place. We are unsure about Report, Commons, 10/6/09; col. 796.] which at the moment. There already is a mechanism: a Member of the House of Commons whose case has Provision for the recall of elected officials exists in been highlighted and who has not yet been censured 18 of the 50 US states, although not at federal level. has chosen to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, thereby The American experience has been varied. It is certainly causing a by-election in Norwich North and giving true to say that the recall of elected officials has not people a say on this. been common. Until 2003, when the Californian governor was successfully recalled following a recall election, The noble Lord is on to something and does us a despite other attempts, the only governor to be successfully service by tapping into a huge level of anger and recalled was in 1921 in North Dakota. There are concern at the revelations that have been made. He examples at a more local level of government in the may have a point about the mechanism of recall, United States of successful recall. although we would like to see a recall of Parliament en bloc and a general election called as a way of testing The variation in the systems in operation across the the public mood on these matters. But the recall of 18 states is instructive when considering whether similar individual Members of Parliament could be considered. arrangements might be appropriate for the United There would need to be safeguards against the malicious Kingdom. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, prosecution mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. pointed out, the question arises of what constitute the The experience in the United States has not exactly grounds for recall. Specific grounds are required in been wonderful. In California, 5 per cent of the only eight states and most commonly relate to gross electorate—a pretty large number—voted to recall misconduct, violation of oath or criminal convictions. Gray Davis to allow Governor Schwarzenegger eventually All 18 US states have some form of petition process, to be elected. but the thresholds vary. Usually the formula is based There remains a series of questions about the on a percentage of the vote in the last election for the mechanism and how this would take place. If this is office in question, but there are other variants. There simply a probing amendment, I think that it does the are also variations in the way in which the ballots are House a service. If it is a serious amendment, I cannot conducted, including the point at which the individual see how we could possibly support it, unless there were who is subject to the recall is permitted to put forward further evidence as to how it would work. their own case. 875 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 876

No doubt all these questions merit careful afraid that he is ill today. He will be here on Wednesday consideration; indeed, the amendment envisages putting for another day of Report, but I promise to tell him of these considerations into the hands of the Electoral the considerable concern that was expressed by the Commission. However, to task the Electoral Commission noble Lord. with policy work of this nature is inconsistent with the recommendation of the 11th report of the Committee The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is absolutely right on Standards in Public Life, which recommended that, that clearly we will have to develop a very good “the Electoral Commission should no longer have a role in process—a due process—that will have to be a long undertaking policy development in relation to electoral legislation. way away from the present processes, which rely on This function should be the responsibility of the appropriate Chief Whips and special groups in parties. Even small Secretary of State”. groups of people at constituency level decide the fate I think that the commission agrees. Its briefing document of a Member of Parliament. That is utterly wrong. We for the Report stage of the Bill notes, in relation to the should have a due process and proper triggers, so the amendment: noble Lord is right. “The Commission would of course review and report on the If this amendment is passed, the process that I am administration of any procedure to recall Members of Parliament, were we directed to do so. In doing so, we would focus on the suggesting will be looked at carefully by Electoral extent to which any such procedure was run consistently, professionally Commission. I do not think that it would endanger and with a primary focus on voters, in the same way as we the independence of Members of Parliament who may approach our reports on other elections”. take a view that their constituents think of as controversial. The commission clearly envisages that its role will be In this process, the controversial views will not be in limited to the consideration of how any ballot that question; the question will be whether, on the clear was conducted as part of a procedure ran, as in other evidence put before an independent investigation, the elections. Member has broken the rules of their House. Therefore, I am sure that there is agreement on all sides that the recall mechanism, with which the noble Lord, this suggestion merits careful consideration and, indeed, Lord Bates, expressed some tentative agreement, must the Prime Minister has made clear his commitment to be something that both Houses of Parliament should taking this debate forward. I therefore hope that noble look at carefully. Lords will agree that legislating to force a debate on In the past few weeks, politicians have constantly this issue will not be necessary and that, in any event, said to the public, “Yes, we understand your anger. the Electoral Commission is not best placed to undertake Yes, we understand you want to have a bigger role in this work. Again on behalf of the House, I thank the deciding what should happen”. If, now, at this first noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for raising this very current opportunity, the parties say, “Oh well, of course, we issue and I hope that he will consider withdrawing his don’t want you to have any role at all; we want to leave amendment today. it to the parties and those people within Parliament or in the local party structure to make all these decisions”, Lord Tyler: My Lords, I am grateful to all Members there will be real disappointment. The Prime Minister—the of your Lordships’ House who have contributed to Minister just now repeated it—said: this thoughtful, if brief, debate. I hope that it will be “There is no more pressing task”.—[Official Report, Commons, listened to with care at the other end of the building. 10/6/09; col. 795.] In response to some of the points that have been raised, I should say that there are quite well established Your Lordships’ House has an opportunity to take up rules in statute for the handling of referendums. That that challenge from the Prime Minister and we should meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. take it. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord It is true that we do not have the whole system in Campbell-Savours, that it could affect the judgment of place, but very soon we will have a new system in the new parliamentary standards authority if it knew place. Your Lordships’ House would be right to put a that, at the end of this careful process, the result could marker down that we think that, ultimately, the public be a by-election, but we will have to be confident that anger to which the noble Lord, Lord Bates, referred is this new machinery will stand above the party battles very important. The Prime Minister, the leader of the and will be truly independent and approach these Conservative Party and the leader of my party picked issues with due integrity, or there is no point in having that up and see that it is essential to find a mechanism it; we might as well keep the present rules. That is the to which that public anger can be constructively deployed. critical issue that other Members may not have appreciated. This is part of a new regime that we know Look at the contrast between the sort of procedure will come. The Prime Minister has said that it will that I am discussing and the present knee-jerk reactions. come; indeed, he has raised the issue of recall in this Within a few days, a few people in a constituency can context, and the other parties have agreed. give a thumbs-down to an individual constituency For that reason, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is Member. That is surely wrong. This measure would be not right that there could be a vendetta—I think that much better. I believe that we should recognise that that was the word that he used—because the process the public feel that their influence—their power—over will be outwith party discussions and away from all their representatives, especially in those 500-plus safe policy issues. It will have nothing to do with partisanship. seats in the House of Commons, has diminished and is Incidentally, the noble Lord kindly expressed interest diminishing and that this should be reversed. I wish in where my noble friend Lord Rennard was. I am therefore to test the opinion of the House. 877 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 878

5.17 pm Howarth of Breckland, B. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Howarth of Newport, L. Puttnam, L. Division on Amendment 2 Howie of Troon, L. Radice, L. Hughes of Woodside, L. Rendell of Babergh, B. Janner of Braunstone, L. Richard, L. Contents 49; Not-Contents 148. Jay of Ewelme, L. Rogan, L. Jay of Paddington, B. Rooker, L. Amendment 2 disagreed. Jones, L. Rosser, L. Jordan, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Division No. 2 King of West Bromwich, L. St. John of Bletso, L. Kirkhill, L. CONTENTS Lea of Crondall, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. Leitch, L. Sawyer, L. Addington, L. [Teller] Mar and Kellie, E. Scotland of Asthal, B. Ashdown of Norton-sub- Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Lipsey, L. Listowel, E. Sewel, L. Hamdon, L. B. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Sheldon, L. Avebury, L. Neuberger, B. McDonagh, B. Simon, V. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Newby, L. B. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Snape, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Soley, L. Bradshaw, L. B. Chidgey, L. L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Northover, B. McKenzie of Luton, L. Strabolgi, L. Clement-Jones, L. Razzall, L. Cotter, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Redesdale, L. Dholakia, L. Mar, C. Taylor of Bolton, B. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Dykes, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Temple-Morris, L. Falkland, V. Scott of Needham Market, B. Massey of Darwen, B. Tenby, V. Falkner of Margravine, B. Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] Maxton, L. Thornton, B. Fearn, L. Steel of Aikwood, L. Meacher, B. Tomlinson, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Sutherland of Houndwood, L. Mitchell, L. Triesman, L. Glasgow, E. Thomas of Gresford, L. Moonie, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Greaves, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B. Morgan, L. Turner of Camden, B. Hamwee, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Vinson, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Tonge, B. Morgan of Huyton, B. Wall of New Barnet, B. Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Tope, L. Morris of Handsworth, L. Warner, L. Lee of Trafford, L. Tordoff, L. Morris of Manchester, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Lester of Herne Hill, L. Tyler, L. Myners, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Livsey of Talgarth, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. Whitaker, B. Maclennan of Rogart, L. Walmsley, B. Palmer, L. Wilkins, B. McNally, L. Walpole, L. Patel of Blackburn, L. Williams of Elvel, L. Maddock, B. Waverley, V. Pearson of Rannoch, L. Williamson of Horton, L. Pendry, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L. Pitkeathley, B. Young of Norwood Green, L. NOT CONTENTS Adonis, L. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. 5.28 pm Afshar, B. Davies of Coity, L. Ahmed, L. Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] Alton of Liverpool, L. Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, Anderson of Swansea, L. B. Schedule 2 : Civil sanctions: Schedule to be inserted Andrews, B. Desai, L. into the 2000 Act Archer of Sandwell, L. D’Souza, B. Bach, L. Eames, L. Barnett, L. Erroll, E. Amendment 3 Bassam of Brighton, L. Evans of Parkside, L. [Teller] Falkender, B. Moved by Lord Bates Berkeley, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. 3: Schedule 2, page 46, line 10, leave out “a prescribed” and Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. insert “an” Bilston, L. Ford, B. Blood, B. Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Borrie, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Lord Bates: My Lords, the amendment is in the Bradley, L. Gale, B. name also of my noble friend Lord Henley. The Bragg, L. Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Brett, L. Golding, B. amendments in this group follow on from a discussion Bridges, L. Goudie, B. that we had in Grand Committee, at cols. GC 93-96 of Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. the Official Report, on 29 April. We sought there to Brookman, L. Graham of Edmonton, L. elicit from the Minister some examples of offences Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Grantchester, L. which might give rise to criminal sanctions. The Minister Campbell-Savours, L. Greenway, L. said in response, at col. GC 96, that he would “write to Chandos, V. Gregson, L. Christopher, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. me”—to use that famous term—with some examples. Clark of Windermere, L. Hannay of Chiswick, L. I waited with bated breath, thinking of nothing of else Clarke of Hampstead, L. Harris of Haringey, L. during the entire month of May and waiting only for Clinton-Davis, L. Hart of Chilton, L. this letter from the Minister to arrive. And duly it did, Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Haskel, L. at 11 o’clock last night. It ran to some seven pages, Coussins, B. Haworth, L. Craigavon, V. Henig, B. and I am afraid that I have not been as assiduous as I Crawley, B. Hilton of Eggardon, B. should have been and have not managed to digest all Darzi of Denham, L. Hollis of Heigham, B. of it. However, I have a few questions. 879 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 880

I invite the Minister to, in his usual thorough way, I shall give a couple of examples of where reserving walk us through the letter that he sent and highlight certain offences for the criminal sphere might be more what he intended by this measure. Our concerns arose appropriate. Section 61(2)(a) of PPERA makes it an from the Committee on Standards in Public Life offence knowingly to give the treasurer of a party false report of January 2007, which stated on page 35 that, information about donations. This is an example of currently, where the basis of the offence is a deliberate and wilful “the only sanctions that the Electoral Commission has if parties attempt to mislead over the facts of a donation, as do not comply with legislation is to name and shame or, if the opposed to an administrative oversight or error. Also offence is sufficiently serious, to refer it to the Crown Prosecution under Section 61(2)(a), it is an offence to withhold Service for criminal prosecution”. from a treasurer information about donations with In its fifth report, the committee made it clear that the intent to deceive. Additionally, we believe that where Electoral Commission should not have any substantial an individual or organisation deliberately attempts to judicial power. The Government accepted this conceal evidence or intentionally hinder an investigation recommendation and the committee continues to believe by the commission, this behaviour may require the that this is the right approach. We, too, believe that. strong deterrent of criminal prosecution. For example, What we sought in tabling these probing amendments Section 148(1) of PPERA relates to the altering, in Grand Committee was to have on the record some suppressing, concealing or destroying of documents further examples of the types of offences that might relating to the financial affairs of supervised organisations be engaged. I shall carefully listen to, and read, the or individuals, and Section 148(2)(b) makes it an Minister’s response. I beg to move. offence knowingly to supply false information when purporting to comply with a request to provide 5.30 pm information. Lord Bach: My Lords, I start with an apology. I said In such cases where an administrative error in itself that I would write to the Committee, giving examples is not the offence but rather the wilful or malicious of where we felt that it might be preferable to leave attempt to destroy or otherwise conceal evidence, it offences to be dealt with by criminal law rather than may be more appropriate that the deterrent and the by the new civil sanctions. Regrettably, this letter did enforcement are criminal. I stress that these are examples: not go out until last week. It was e-mailed to the noble this is not a full list of the offences that may remain Lord’s office, the Whips’ Office, on Friday. It did not only in the criminal sphere. We will bring that forward go out before then because of the significant pressures when we make the statutory instrument under this involved in readying government amendments. I am clause. sorry that a copy did not arrive in the noble Lord’s Noble Lords may wish to note that it was originally hands until last night. I am glad to have the opportunity—I the recommendation of the Committee on Standards am grateful to him—to outline our approach in the in Public Life that, apart from providing for new House. I am sorry that the noble Lord has not been sanctions for use by the commission, the most severe able to read my long letter to him. If he had managed offences should remain purely in the criminal sphere. to get to the second page, there are a couple of If these amendments, which I am grateful to the noble examples of where we think that a criminal sanction is Lord for describing as “probing”, were passed, they appropriate. Now that I am on my feet, let me say a would prevent us from providing for this option, or at little more. least debating the pros and cons of this or other I will move straight to the examples mentioned by approaches as part of the debate on the statutory the noble Lord. The new range of civil sanctions instrument. I hope that I have explained in rather should be applicable to the vast majority of offences more detail than I was able to give in Committee what contained in the 2000 Act. They represent a proportionate kind of offences we think should remain only in the and flexible approach to enforcement and should remedy criminal sphere. the current situation whereby the enforcement choices range from criminal investigation at one end of the Lord Bates: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister spectrum to, effectively, nothing at the other. This for his response to the amendments and for the additional point was made with force in Committee by the noble information that he has now placed on the record. It Lord, Lord Rennard, who is unfortunately absent—we was felt that there should be in the Bill an indication of wish him well. We know that there is a strong consensus the types of offences that could be involved but I that the current situation is not satisfactory. accept the reasons that he puts forward for why that Some offences are more serious than a mere should not be the case and also the provision of a administrative error, and it would be more appropriate statutory instrument that will contain more detail on to reserve these breaches for the criminal sphere only. the specific offences. For instance, where there is a deliberate attempt to Our concern was that for the most serious offences undermine the 2000 Act on a significant scale, it could there should remain the criminal option. In a previous be that allowing only for the possibility of a criminal debate, we discussed the potential moral hazard that sanction is the appropriate approach, in keeping with could occur if the Committee on Standards in Public the gravity of the offence. This would also send a clear Life assessed a Member and knew that the consequence deterrent signal about the most serious offences in the of its judgment could mean that proceedings for recall earlier PPERA Act. Nothing in the Bill should detract were commenced. In certain circumstances, following from our overriding objective that compliance with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, the law is vital in the context of public confidence in that might give rise to some hesitation on the part of our democratic systems. the committee before it arrived at that conclusion, 881 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 882

[LORD BATES] discretionary requirement imposed by the commission. even if it was the right one. There is a similar concern Amendment 21 would remove paragraph 18(1)(a) of here that, with the civil sanctions that are available, the new Schedule 19C, which allows the Secretary of State Electoral Commission may feel under some restraint to make a supplementary order to allow the commission as to how they will be deployed and at what point it to offer provision for early payment discounts for any would choose to pass over the case to the Crown of the monetary penalties contained in the Bill. Prosecution Service for pursuit of criminal sanctions. Noble Lords present during Grand Committee may Now that those matters have been aired, and the recall that we touched upon the provision of early information secured, I do not want to press the payment discounts and of late payment penalties during amendment and beg leave to withdraw it. our debate. An amendment on late payment penalties that was tabled and debated at Committee has not Amendment 3 withdrawn. returned here. Following the endorsement that late Amendments 4 to 15 not moved. payment penalties have received, I think we can safely suggest that a general consensus exists that this provision will be a useful tool for enforcement. That is certainly Amendment 16 the expressed view of the Electoral Commission. However, Moved by Lord Henley the provision of early payment discounts has received less unanimous support. 16: Schedule 2, page 51, line 12, leave out “early payment discounts or” For those noble Lords not present at Committee, I reiterate that the provision of an early payment discount Lord Henley: My Lords, I speak also to Amendment 21. is replicated from the Regulatory Enforcement and These two amendments deal with Schedule 2 and, in Sanctions Act 2008, on which the civil sanctions regime particular, the part relating to the fixed penalty notices is based. As I have said on a number of occasions, we under the civil rather than the criminal sanctions. If are not minded to depart from that regime and treat the Minister remembers, in Committee I moved probing the commission differently from other regulators unless amendments, seeking to remove both the early payment there is the strongest possible reason for doing so. discounts to the fixed penalty notice and the late That is a view following that of the honourable payment penalties. I received a response in due course Mr Howarth in another place. We need to provide an from the Minister. On this occasion, I have come back incentive for swift compliance in cases when liability is with two amendments to remove the early payment not going to be disputed, offering the opportunity for discounts but leave in the late payment penalties. It a person to deal with it in a timely fashion. The seemed to us that one could put a case for late payment provision would therefore also reduce the workload penalties but that, although early payment discounts that late payment would create for the commission might encourage early payment, they could also diminish and generally encourage compliance, helping to keep the authority of the commission and trivialise a very costs of enforcement down and bolstering the regulatory important message sent out by its power to give those regime. fixed penalty notices. For that reason, I thought that it The key point that needs to be made here is that, would be worth coming back with these two amendments while the Bill provides for the possibility of these early removing the early payment discounts to see whether payment discounts, it in no way requires them to be the Minister had anything further to say on the subject. used. It simply allows that the statutory instrument, I beg to move. which will need to be passed in order to provide more detail about the sanctions procedure, may make provision Lord Tyler: My Lords, in Grand Committee my about discounts. There is no obligation for it to do so. noble friend Lord Rennard expressed some anxiety If a decision is made to allow for discounts in the about this proposition. We are very anxious about the statutory instrument, that instrument will be laid before greater bureaucracy likely to be entailed, on which I Parliament and may be debated. If the statutory think Members on all sides of the House will concur, instrument allows for discounts, it will be a matter for which will be imposed on local treasurers and others the commission to decide when, if indeed at all, it will who have a reporting or other responsibilities. In that be appropriate for it to use this provision. Following connection, we think that it is better simply to stick its consultation on the draft enforcement guidance, with penalties for late submission of information rather it will be able to make a decision about whether to than indulge in what we think will be quite complex use them. arrangements, which may have to be constantly reviewed, for some assistance for early payment discounts. We still stand by that—and probably with the Minister, I 5.45 pm suspect. Simplicity would suggest that a late penalty is Officials from the commission have indicated to us better than an early discount. that, at present, they would be unlikely to use the early payment discount as part of the enforcement regime Lord Bach: My Lords, the amendments both relate during its initial phase. However, we do not think that to early payment discounts for financial penalties imposed is a reason for leaving this provision out of the Bill by the Electoral Commission. Amendment 16 would altogether. If we were to remove that now and the delete the reference to early payment discounts from commission later decided, in light of its practical paragraph 7(3)(b)(iii) of new Schedule 19C to the 2000 experience of operating the sanctions, or of feedback Act, which relates to the availability of early payment from those subject to it, that early payment discounts discounts or late payment penalties in a notice of a added to the fairness or effectiveness of the regime, it 883 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 884 would not be able to use them without further primary and would be covered in a letter. As is indicated by an legislation. That makes the position inflexible. It makes asterisk on today’s Marshalled List, I did not table my sense to keep the option open and allow the commission amendment until late last week when no letter had the scope for using the same powers that are available arrived. I think that I may have been subject to the to other regulators under the RES Act. I believe, same conditions as my noble friend Lord Bates. therefore, that it would be more sensible to leave this In putting down the amendment, I had no discourteous provision in place. After all, the commission’s approach or aggressive intent; I just wanted to ensure that there may need to adapt to the reality of operating the new was a peg on which to raise the issue on Report. civil sanctions, and we may not be able to say with Indeed, my respect for the courtesy of Ministers had confidence at this juncture that this provision will suggested to me a possible circumstantial reason for never be of any use. the Government’s silence, in that Hansard put the I will say that if we are persuaded by strong arguments Government’s assurance into the mouth of the noble on this, we could take another look at making a Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, whereas my mind’s eye and ear change and removing the provision for early payment told me that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, had uttered discounts. But our present attitude is not to do so. it. Therefore, it is possible that the matter fell inadvertently between two stools. Lord Henley: My Lords, I was amused by the I am grateful for the letter from the noble Lord, Minister’s final remarks. It was almost as if his speaking Lord Bach, which greeted my return today. It explains note, written out in Civil Service-ese, had “If pressed” the rationale of the Bill’s text in a way that the Explanatory written there. However, I shall not be pressing the Notes, despite their title, do not in this instance. I shall Minister on this occasion. I was very grateful to hear of course understand if the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the Minister say that he thought that some consensus wishes to put on the record what is in his letter, but I had come into being, particularly on the question of can give him an assurance now that his letter has the late payment penalties, where ourselves, the Liberals wholly satisfied me. I beg to move. and the Government seemed to be in agreement. That is the first occasion this afternoon on which we have Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, my had the use of the word “consensus”. I know that the Amendment 24 in the group is concerned with political noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is not quite as restrictions on staff in Clause 7. Restrictions are imposed keen on consensus as are ourselves and the Government. on people who have held certain posts as to the time We will continue to pursue consensus as and when that must elapse before they are able to become members possible. of the staff of the commission. In this case, I wish to I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, misunderstood increase the basic period of quarantine in proposed me. I was making it clear that I was moving only the new paragraph 11A(2)(c) from one year to three years. amendment relating to early payment discounts, which I raised the matter in Committee and we had an is why I dropped the late payment penalty amendment interesting debate on it. The reply from the Government, that I moved in Committee. I think that we have had in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was: the assurance from the Government that all the Bill “I have nothing to add at this point”.—[Official Report, does is give power to the commission to bring in either 30/4/09; col. GC 132.] late payment penalties or early payment discounts or I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I found that both, that they will not be introduced without some a slightly less than obliging response. Therefore, I am form of secondary legislation and that secondary returning to the matter and I hope that he will give me legislation will be affirmative. I certainly had a nod a slightly better and more fulsome response this afternoon, from the Minister on that first one. I take it that I can failing which I may feel inclined to test the opinion of have his assurance that on the second point the regulations the House. will be affirmative, but I shall keep talking while winged Mercury does his bit to get the information Since we discussed the matter on 30 April, events back to the Minister. With that assurance, I am more have reinforced my view that the 12-month period than happy to withdraw the amendment. presently contained in the Bill is too short. It is a truism that confidence in our democratic institutions Amendments 17 to 22 not moved. has taken a battering in recent years and, in the past few weeks, Parliament has moved to the eye of the storm. This afternoon we do not need to go into why, Clause 6 : Number of Electoral Commissioners how and where, but it is a fact. Many of us believe that the Electoral Commission in its new guise will play a critical role in rebuilding public confidence. If it were Amendment 23 to fail, which we all hope that it will not, the damage Moved by Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville will be extremely serious and severe—doubly so, because expectations will have been aroused in the general 23: Clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out “or ten” public only to be dashed. Therefore, I think that we need a belt-and-braces approach to ensure that not Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, only is it above reproach but is seen to be so. Amendment 23 requires a brief word of explanation. I In Grand Committee, I took a certain amount of raised the issue of the statutory numbers of commissioners incoming fire. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould—I am during the Clause 6 stand part debate in Grand sad not to see her in her place; she was here a minute ago Committee. The Minister said that the matter could —said that what was then government Amendment 77, 885 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 886

[LORD HODGSON OF ASTLEY ABBOTTS] opposition spokesperson, Mr Damian Green. The which I think is now new paragraph 11B, answered my person concerned was very much still an activist. I do concerns. It gives the chief executive of the commission not know how long he had been inactive—I suspect the flexibility to require, following a discussion with not very long. He had previously stood as a Conservative the Speaker’s Committee, other potential members of candidate. We have had the more recent example of a staff of the Electoral Commission to undergo a greater member of staff, somewhere in this building presumably, quarantine period. I entirely agree with the noble who has felt it necessary to leak substantial information Baroness about the need for flexibility. I think that about the circumstances in which Members of the that is an excellent idea and I have no problem at all other House—and, for all I know, Members of this with new paragraph 11B. House—made claims for allowances. Therefore, this The danger is not about posts that are permanently area is very sensitive. sensitive but about those that are temporarily sensitive. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has done us a Junior members of the staff of the commission will great assistance in bringing this back to the House so carry out investigations, putting together documents, that at least the Minister can examine this issue. What searching through files and doing various work, which worries me more than the particular case that he refers may or may not lead to a prosecution. It does not seem to—12 months versus 36 months—is the division between likely that the chief executive will wish to go to the new paragraph 11A and new paragraph 11B. I remind Speaker’s Committee to obtain clearance to ensure the House that, under new paragraph 11B, a number that people who do that have not been involved in of less important posts can be subject to the discretion politics in the immediate past. Therefore, I think that, of the chief executive of the commission. Might the while the noble Baroness’s point is entirely fair, it Minister, in responding to this brief debate, look again provides only half the answer. at where the dividing line between the paragraph 11A The second lot of incoming fire came from the categories and the paragraph 11B categories comes? noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who may feel after my slightly That is important, as perhaps it is in that area that we disobliging remarks on his Amendment 2 this afternoon need to be more clear about what considerations will that he wishes to return to the matter. The thrust of be taken into account, what can be left to the discretion his argument was that it was one of “mindset”—the of the chief executive and what needs to be on the face word that he used—not time bars. I agree with him of the Bill and eventually in statute. that mindset is important, but the problem can be guarded against by lengthening the time bar. If you 6pm have a time bar of a week, a mindset would not be easily overridden. With 12 months, you have a little Lord Henley: My Lords, my Amendment 25, which more coverage and, with 36 months, someone has to is grouped with Amendment 24, relates purely to the have a critical and long-lasting attempt to disconcert new paragraph 11B case, as referred to by the noble the Electoral Commission. That deals with the mindset Lord, Lord Tyler. In Grand Committee, I asked the argument. Minister to give some examples of when he thought the chief executive might wish to make use of the Who would be affected by the amendment? It would power in new paragraph 11B. I said that I had some be a very small number of people who had shown an ideas of my own but that I would be grateful for the above average level of political commitment and interest. Government to give their views as to when they thought They would be an officer or employee of a registered it likely that the chief executive might exercise those party or any accounting unit of such a party, a donor powers. in the register of donations or a participant in the register of recordable transactions under Part 4A. We had no response from the Minister that I can I urge the Government to think again about this. To find or that I can remember at the time. It might be have a situation where an officer or an employee of a that the examples are in the famous letter that my registered party can become a member of the staff of noble friend Lord Bates received last night, which I the Electoral Commission within 12 months seems to got only when I arrived here. That is my own fault for me to be extraordinarily dangerous. It is better to be not arriving until 1 pm, but I have not been able to go safe than sorry. We should have a longer period for through that letter in enough detail to see whether the people who have held these quite senior and sensitive Government can give such examples. I hope that the roles before they are able to switch—if I may use the Minister, when he comes to respond, will deal with vernacular—from poacher to gamekeeper. that question and give some examples of when the chief executive might make use of those powers to vary times under paragraph 11B, which I have suggested Lord Tyler: My Lords, I repeat the point that I through our amendment should be deleted, although made in Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord that is merely by way of probing. Hodgson, has referred. It is extremely important that we should not imagine that the threshold of the number of years will be absolutely the deciding factor; the Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I thank noble Lords deciding factor will be the mindset. In support of the for these amendments. I believe that what I am about argument that the noble Lord has given, I accept that to say will cover the individual inquiries of each of the 12 months is not very long. In recent weeks, we have noble Lords. Amendment 23 would amend Clause 6, had interesting examples of people in very sensitive which sets out the number of electoral commissioners. positions who were still political activists. The classic Currently, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums case was of a member of the private office of the Act 2000 provides that there should be, Home Secretary who then gave information to an “not less than five, but not more than nine Electoral Commissioners”. 887 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 888

Clause 6 of the Bill seeks to increase the minimum commissioners, who are within a minority, and allowing number from five to nine, and the maximum from for the appointment of five or six other electoral nine to 10. commissioners. The noble Lord has already indicated It may be helpful if I explain the rationale behind that he is not going to press this amendment. However, the number of electoral commissioners in Clause 6. I hope that I have given him the background that he The increase in the minimum number of commissioners seeks and that I have placed it on the record. is intended to ensure that commissioners with political I turn now to the amendment of the noble Lord, backgrounds—nominated commissioners—will always Lord Hodgson. This seeks to amend Clause 7, which be in a minority on the commission as a whole. That is sets out the political restrictions on electoral commissioners four out of nine. The increase in the maximum number and staff. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums to 10 is to ensure sufficient room to appoint a full Act 2000 currently imposes a 10-year restriction on complement of four nominated commissioners in the previous political activity for all Electoral Commission event of there being six electoral commissioners, as is staff. Clause 7 of this Bill reduces the restriction currently the case. period from 10 years to five years for the commission’s This amendment seeks to alter Clause 6, to require chief executive, and to 12 months for all other staff. that the commission have exactly nine commissioners The amendment would increase the 12-month restriction at all times. I must resist the amendment as it is period on previous political activity for all of the unnecessarily restrictive and could hamper our policy commission, apart from the chief executive, to 36 months. intent, which is to ensure, in line with the recommendations The noble Lord tabled an identical amendment in of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, that Grand Committee. I gathered from the informative there should be four commissioners with recent political debate that we had on the issue at the time—and experience drawn from across the political spectrum. perhaps my response was out of exhaustion more than Moreover, given that there are currently six electoral any intent to be less than polite—that his concern is commissioners, this amendment would prevent the that a one-year minimum political restriction period is appointment of four commissioners with recent political too short for any member of the staff at the commission, experience. and so should be increased to three years. If the current number of other electoral commissioners I share the noble Lord’s concern to the extent that I fell to five, enabling the appointment of four nominated acknowledge that there may be a small number of commissioners, we feel that there would be an increased posts in the commission, other than the chief executive, likelihood of these nominated commissioners achieving that merit a requirement for a longer restriction from parity with others on the board. So, if, for example, political activity than one year. However, I do not the post of one of the other electoral commissioners agree that we should impose a blanket minimum restriction became vacant, reducing the total number of electoral period of three years on all staff. For the majority of commissioners to eight, there would be the same number commission posts, I firmly believe that a one-year of nominated commissioners as other electoral restriction will be appropriate. It is important to note commissioners. that the Electoral Commission, which has a better We have always made it clear that we believe that it knowledge of what the duties of posts at the commission is important to seek to ensure that nominated involve than anyone, shares this view. For posts deemed commissioners are in a minority on the commission at suitable by the chief executive, he will be able to all times. This is also in line with the recommendations designate them as being subject to a longer restriction of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Our period of up to five years, taking into account the intention is that these nominated commissioners bring seniority of the post, and—crucially—the likelihood their political experience to bear in the commission’s of the person dealing with politically sensitive matters. work, and so help it to become a more effective and I note the noble Lord’s comments during Grand credible regulator. However, ensuring that they are Committee that, although a person may not be in a always in a minority is intended to prevent any perception politically sensitive role all the time—for example, of politicisation of the commission. staff at a more junior level—they could dip in and out Further, this amendment would remove any flexibility of out of politically sensitive activities and so be in a by always requiring the commission to have exactly position to gain access to sensitive information. Therefore, nine commissioners. Potentially, it would take just the they may not be subject to a designation even if they departure, for whatever reason, of one commissioner merit it. In the light of that, he believes that a basic for the commission to fall short of the statutory threshold of three years, instead of one year, for all requirement of nine commissioners. While we note staff is preferable to a longer restriction of period for that Schedule 1 to the PPER Act 2000 provides that senior staff only. the validity of any proceedings of the commission While I appreciate the reasoning behind the noble shall not be affected by any vacancy among members Lord’s argument, I emphasise that the chief executive’s of the commission, we see no advantage in setting an power to designate is not restricted to a particular inflexible number of nine commissioners. The Electoral level of posts. The chief executive will be best placed Commission has also commented in its briefing note to determine whether a person’s access to sensitive on the Bill that such an amendment is undesirable. material is such that the post should merit a longer For the reasons I have given, we believe that a restriction. Overall, the proposal to reduce the restriction requirement for nine or 10 electoral commissioners on past political experience for commission staff has achieves a reasonable balance, ensuring enough room been welcomed during the passage of the Bill to date. to appoint the full complement of four nominated This warm welcome is in recognition of the overly 889 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 890

[LORD TUNNICLIFFE] underlying theme. It is right that we strike an appropriate restrictive rules that apply at present, and the fact that balance between ensuring that the commission is able the recommendations of the CSPL and others for to employ those who have the necessary skills to equipping the commission better to understand the enable it to be more effective and creating any perception field it regulates resonate with many people. of politicising the commission. In its briefing note ahead of today’s debate, the For these reasons, a power for the chief executive to commission recognises that the formulation in the Bill designate certain posts as subject to a longer restricted is appropriate and workable. A blanket provision requiring period is justified. The commission has emphasised a 36-month period is unduly inflexible and imposes an that the power is important, and will enable its chief unnecessarily long restriction on the majority of staff executive to designate longer restrictions from previous of the commission. I hope that the noble Lord will political activity to a handful of posts dealing directly now feel able not to move his amendment. with regulatory activities, policy or boundary decisions, On Amendment 25, and recognising its purpose of which may include matters of significant sensitivity. teasing out the posts to which this might apply, the The chief executive will also take into account the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 extent to which recent party-political activity may be currently imposes a 10-year restriction on previous perceived by others to compromise the impartiality of political activity for all Electoral Commission staff. the post. Examples of posts that the commission has Clause 7 of this Bill reduces the restriction period indicated that the chief executive may designate include, from 10 to five years for the commission’s chief executive, among others, the deputy chief executive, director of and to one year for all other staff. party and election finance, the director of electoral administration and boundaries, and the heads of the Noble Lords will recall that government amendments commission’s Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in Grand Committee sought to provide the chief executive offices. of the commission with the power to designate certain other commission posts as being subject to longer Listing those posts does not detract from the chief restricted periods of between two and five years. Before executive’s responsibility to consider other posts where he decides to designate a post, the chief executive must there is particular political sensitivity. The chief executive reasonably believe that it is necessary to do so in order of the commission would designate these posts on the to maintain public confidence in the effectiveness of basis of deputising for the chief executive, or the the commission in carrying out its functions. In addition, political sensitivities of the posts. The chief executive when determining the length of the proposed designation, of the commission will be best placed to decide which the chief executive must take into account the seniority posts merit a longer restriction period, and what that of the post and, crucially, the likelihood that the period should be. That is why the Bill does not impose person holding the post will have to deal with politically a blanket longer restriction on all senior posts. Some sensitive matters. Once these decisions have been made, senior posts may merit a longer restriction period, the chief executive would be required to consult the while others will not. Likewise, some relatively junior Speaker’s Committee on the posts that he intends to posts may merit designation. designate and take heed of its views. Having said that, we appreciate the valid concerns that the power should not provide the chief executive These government amendments were intended to with an unfettered discretion to designate posts for a address the concerns raised by the commission and my longer restriction period. It is for this reason that the noble friend Lady Gould that the five-year restriction power sets out specific tests that the chief executive should be capable of being extended to other senior must believe have been met, and factors which he must posts in the commission, or those dealing with politically take into account before he designates a post; for sensitive responsibilities. They made the valid point example, the seniority of the post, and how likely it is that a one-size-fits-all policy might not be appropriate that any holder of the post will be required to deal here. with politically sensitive matters. Amendment 25 seeks to remove the chief executive’s power to designate posts, and thereby prevent the chief executive of the commission from increasing the 6.15 pm one-year restriction period on previous political activity These criteria show that we are mindful that the for other commission posts. We are bound to resist chief executive should use this power responsibly. The this amendment, as it removes the flexibility for power also includes a further check on the discretion the chief executive of the commission to determine provided here through the inclusion of a requirement the appropriate restricted period for its staff within for the chief executive to consult the Speaker’s Committee the parameters that the Bill sets. Having heard on the posts that he intends to designate. A duty to representations on the subject, we appreciate that there consult will mean that any view put forward by the may be a small number of posts in the commission, committee in relation to a proposed designation will other than the chief executive, which merit a requirement have to be taken into account, and taken seriously, by for a longer restriction on recent political activity than the chief executive. one year. I reiterate that the commission does not envisage I emphasise that the underlying theme of the reduced that this designation would apply to more than a political restrictions in Clause 7 is to enable the commission handful of posts within the staff body, and in each to recruit staff with relevant experience of the environment case the commission would consider the merits of the that they regulate. A power for the chief executive to case for designation. Additionally, the commission designate posts is not intended to detract from this will publish information regarding the designation of 891 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 892 posts on an annual basis. With the steps that we have procedures, how to vote and explaining any changes to taken to ensure that the power to designate is used the electoral system and connected matters. We believe appropriately, I hope that we have reassured the noble that it is appropriate that the commission focus on this Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. area of its expertise. The amendment is in response to amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in in Grand Committee, which sought to restrict the line with the intimation of my opening speech, I found commission’s duty in Section 13 along these lines. At the Minister’s explanation just as satisfactory when the time, we were concerned that the noble Lord’s uttered in the Chamber as I had when it was on the amendment would prevent the commission commenting written page. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. about systems of local and national government or the institutions of the European Union, which is important Amendment 23 withdrawn. in the context of educating people about electoral systems. However, we are now satisfied that the scope of Section 13(1)(a) will enable the commission effectively Clause7:Political restrictions on Electoral to discharge its duty to educate about existing and Commissioners and staff pending electoral systems. The commission has similarly confirmed that it Amendments 24 and 25 not moved. is not concerned by the amendment. Government Amendment 123 makes the necessary consequential repeals to Section 13 by deleting references to systems Amendment 26 of local and national government throughout the section. Moved by Lord Tunnicliffe These amendments are in line with our acceptance 26: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause— of the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation that the commission should retain “Education about systems of government and EU institutions a statutory duty to educate people on the mechanics In section 13 of the 2000 Act (education about electoral and of the electoral process but should no longer have a democratic systems), paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) (Commission’s duty to promote public awareness of systems of wider statutory duty to encourage participation in the government and EU institutions) are omitted.” democratic process. That is not to say that the wider democratic engagement Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I will speak also to is not important. It is vital to a healthy democratic government Amendment 123 and it will be useful for system that people who are eligible to vote are encouraged me to speak in anticipation of Amendment 27. to do so and participate. The Government are in the process of taking provisions through Parliament that Section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and will place local authorities under a duty to promote Referendums Act 2000 sets out the Electoral Commission’s democracy. The duties to promote democracy are set function to educate people about electoral and democratic out in Clauses 1 to 9 of the Local Democracy, Economic systems, systems of local and national government, Development and Construction Bill which has recently and institutions of the European Union. Government passed from this House to another place. These provisions Amendment 26 would restrict the Electoral Commission’s are intended to work alongside the duty of local public awareness role by removing the commission’s electoral officers to encourage participation which is duty in relation to current systems of local and national set out in the Electoral Administration Act 2006. I government in the United Kingdom and the European hope that noble Lords will be assured that in limiting Union. The commission’s duty to educate people about the commission’s powers to exclude a wider democratic current electoral systems in the United Kingdom under engagement role, these important functions will be Section 13(1)(a) is not affected by the amendment. carried out by local authorities. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the commission’s function under Section 13 is to promote Amendment 27 seeks to require the Secretary of public awareness of current or pending electoral systems State to provide a written response to reports issued in the United Kingdom and any matters which it by the Electoral Commission under Section 6 of the considers are connected to these systems. I should Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 emphasise that the wording of Section 13(1)(a)— within six months of publication. In Committee we agreed to consider an identical amendment tabled by “matters connected with any such existing or pending systems”— the noble Lord. There was significant support for will still allow the commission to provide information the amendment among the Committee Members and about systems of local and national government and from the commission itself. We have given it careful the European Union, but only in so far as it is needed consideration. I fully appreciate the concerns behind in the context of the commission carrying out its the amendment, which are that the Electoral Commission function of educating people about current and pending reports are important and should be given timely electoral systems. So, for example, to help promote consideration. An early response ensures that the understanding about existing and pending electoral commission’s recommendations are appropriately systems, the commission will be able to provide addressed and taken account of. It is right and appropriate information about how Parliament, or the EU or local that the Government should aim to respond promptly government, actually works. to the commission’s report on issues under Section 6. In practice, the commission’s function will be, as it There is no doubt the Electoral Commission has built is now, to provide information on the mechanics of up considerable expert knowledge in these areas. Therefore, the electoral process, including electoral registration I am willing to make a commitment that the Government 893 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 894

[LORD TUNNICLIFFE] I am grateful to the Minister for having listened to will endeavour to respond to the Electoral Commission’s the case advanced in Committee and for bringing report issued under Section 6 within six months. Where forward the amendment. My amendment, Amendment 27, we are not in a position to do so, we will provide the seeks to ensure that reports from the Electoral Commission, commission with reasons why that is the case within made under Section 6 of the 2000 Act, are responded the six month timeframe. to by the Secretary of State in writing within six months I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with such a or for there to be an explanation of why it has not been commitment which, while having the same effect as his possible to do so. amendment seeks, is unlikely to have the potential The amendment has the support of the Electoral adverse consequence that placing a requirement in Commission and enjoyed cross-party support in Grand statute might have. As the noble Lord pointed out Committee. The only resistance came from the Minister, during Grand Committee debates on the issue, there who argued that for the Secretary of State to have to are other examples where the Government have made write and explain if a response was not forthcoming a commitment to respond to certain reports within a after six months would impose a bureaucratic burden. specific timescale, but without a statutory requirement The reaction to that argument from other Members of to do so. For example, the Government seek to respond the Committee persuaded the Minister of the need to to Select Committee reports within two months of reconsider. He has clearly done so. I therefore welcome publication. This requirement is a convention and is the commitment of the Government to respond to not statutory. Our commitment would provide a clear commission reports within six months. It delivers what expectation that the Government would respond to I sought to achieve in my amendment. reports within six months, in effect achieving the noble Perhaps the Minister would confirm that the Lord’s objective. The Electoral Commission has indicated commitment extends to reports made by the commission in discussions with officials that its key interest is in under Section 5 of the Act as well as Section 6. My ensuring a timely response to these reports and it is amendment was confined to Section 6, but the commission not especially wedded to doing so via a statutory has said in its briefing that it would welcome the commitment. On that basis I hope the noble Lord will commitment covering reports made on elections and agree not to press his amendment. I beg to move the referendums. If the Minister is able to confirm that, it government amendment. will be extremely helpful. Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble I commend the Minister for the constructive responses Lord confirm that Clause 6 of the existing Bill would to both the amendments I moved in Committee. What prevent the recent fiasco of ballot papers in many he has brought forward meets the points I advanced. I constituencies being printed in such a way that the think these changes help the Electoral Commission in name of my party, the UK Independence Party, which fulfilling its core purposes. comes at the end of the alphabet, was in some cases printed over the back of the front page of the ballot Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it in order paper and in some cases was almost sealed down? Is for me to ask a question about Amendment 26 as well? that the sort of matter on which the Government If the European Commission is not going to be would expect the Electoral Commission to report? If encouraged to educate the British people about the so, will it do so? I have tabled a specific amendment on European Union, then who is? It is a very sad fact that this for the next stage of proceedings but it is a timely elections to the European Parliament— moment to ask that question.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, it may be appropriate Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I am not going to if I respond to the Minister’s speech in moving the respond to a question in the noble Lord’s second amendment. I very much welcome Amendment 26 speech as this is Report stage. tabled by the Minister and to which I have added my name. The amendment has the support of the Electoral Commission. The amendment meets the points I raised Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, once again in Committee. It helps contribute to what the noble the political establishment has got out of revealing to Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to in Committee as the the British people what they were voting for on 4 June. clarity of purpose of the Electoral Commission. As it stands, the 2000 Act imposes a duty on the commission Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend to promote awareness of systems of government and Lord Norton that we are grateful that the Government of the institutions of the EU. The amendment removes have responded positively to his Amendment 27. I these duties, enabling the commission to focus on presume that my noble friend accepts that his amendment raising public awareness of electoral systems and, as is no longer necessary as the Government have given the Minister stressed, matters connected. an assurance that they will respond within an appropriate As the Electoral Commission puts it in its own time, ideally six months, to any report from the briefing: commission. It might not necessarily have been a good “The Commission’s main focus is already on electoral systems— idea to have had such a provision on the statute book; encouraging and explaining voter registration and providing it is very prescriptive, although it is improved by information on how to take part in elections. The amendment would allow the Commission to continue to provide some information proposed new subsection (2). But as my noble friend on systems of government and democratic institutions where this put it, we are very grateful that the Government have is important in explaining the relevance of the democratic process, responded positively to the amendment he moved in while also providing a clearer focus”. Committee. 895 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 896

6.30 pm It might be or it might not be; that is what this amendment seeks to address. Lord Mackay pressed Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I thank noble Lords his amendment to a Division, and lost. This is, of who participated in the debate. On the first question course, inconvenient to my case, but I point out that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the Electoral the Division took place at about 7.15 pm and, going Commission is independent and would determine which by the noble Lords who supported it, it does not issues to include in its reports. Section 5 of the 2000 appear to have been Whipped by the Conservatives. Act requires the Electoral Commission to report on the conduct of elections and we would expect those Since then, a case has occurred which I submit reports to cover all relevant issues. justifies the Neill report’s original recommendation, and therefore reconsideration of this amendment, I can see no reason why my assurance should not especially with its proposed new subsection (3), to apply to Section 5 as well as Section 6. However, I have which I shall return. I alluded to the case in question to speak with some care; perhaps the best way to leave at Second Reading and in Committee in the hope of this is to say that I can see no reason why not. I will eliciting a lighter and more reasonable touch from the write to the noble Lord confirming that, or not, and if Electoral Commission, but without success. The story he is dissatisfied he can of course bring the matter up is, briefly, this. The largest donor of UKIP—my party— at Third Reading. gave some £370,000 in a year when he had let his house and been inadvertently left off the electoral Amendment 26 agreed. register. He had been a bona fide resident taxpayer all his life, had donated as such in previous years, and has indeed done so since. So the party knew that he was a Amendment 27 not moved. permissible donor but did not realise that he had been left off the electoral roll, without his or its knowledge, Amendment 28 for one year only. I should have thought that that qualified as a reasonable excuse within the spirit of the Moved by Lord Pearson of Rannoch Minister’s Amendment 97, which he so eloquently 28: Before Clause 8, insert the following new Clause— moved and spoke to in Committee on 5 May at “Permissible donors cols. GC 167 to 171 of the Official Report. It was, after (1) In section 54 of the 2000 Act (permissible donors) is all, obviously an innocent mistake. amended as follows. In this respect, I note also the Minister’s latest circular (2) In subsection (2) paragraph (a), after “register” there is on the Bill dated 12 June on the commission’s enforcement inserted “(or eligible to be registered in an electoral register)”. policy in which he says that it is suggested that, (3) After subsection (7) there is inserted— “the Commission may decide to take no action at all if they were “(7A) Where a registered party accepts a donation from an of the view that ‘the contravention was so trivial or inadvertent, individual who is eligible to be registered in an electoral register, and the risk of the regulated entity failing to meet the relevant the treasurer of the party shall report the donation to the Electoral obligation in future so slight, that it is not appropriate to take Commission, together with the reasons for accepting the donation.”.” any action’”. The noble Lord went on to say that alternatively the commission might believe that an individual or Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, noble Lords organisation needed to improve its capacity to comply may recognise the first part of this amendment as the with the law and would then set up some form of same which the Conservative Party tabled to the Political training. I should have thought that either course of Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill in Committee action was pretty obvious in this case. in your Lordships’ House on 12 October 2000, as In its latest briefing on the Bill, the commission reported at cols. 550 to 571 of the Official Report. This says that it does not support the amendment, because followed the recommendation of the report of the the proposal, noble Lord, Lord Neill, which gave birth to that Bill, “to widen the scope for permissibility along eligibility to register that a party should have been able to accept a donation would create additional burdens and present uncertainty for from someone whom it knew to be eligible to be on the regulated entities in confirming permissibility of donors”. electoral roll, even if they were not in fact on it. That is where proposed new subsection (3) of the Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who moved the amendment comes in. If a treasurer receives a donation amendment, cited people who might not want to be on from someone who is not on the electoral roll but the electoral register for security reasons, students whom he knows is eligible to be on it, then he may who failed to register or others who were moving accept the donation but he must report it to the round quite a bit who were inadvertently missed off commission, together with the justification for his for those and other reasons. He repeated, and I repeat certainty. I think that I am right in saying that the now, that the object of that Bill, and this one, was and donation is likely to be more than £7,500 and therefore is to prevent foreign and anonymous donations, not to worth taking just that little bit of trouble over. penalise innocent donors without good reason. I have to say that the Electoral Commission has The Government, in the shape of the noble Lord, behaved in a completely different way. It took the Lord Bassam of Brighton, did not accept these arguments, United Kingdom Independence Party to court, where saying: it lost. The judge found, all the same, that £18,000 of “It would … be no easy matter for a registered party to the donation which had to be repaid was bona fide establish whether a donor whose name did not appear on an and should have been allowed. Not content with having electoral register was nevertheless entitled to register”.—[Official lost in court, the Electoral Commission has now gone Report, 21/11/00; col. 695.] for judicial review, and the case is being referred back 897 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 898

[LORD PEARSON OF RANNOCH] I ask your Lordships and the Minister to think to the court. Further than that, the commission has again about this provision. What is urged against it is made it clear that, if necessary, it will take the case to that it means a difficult inquiry into whether someone the High Court, which is something that the donor in is entitled. It really hinges on whether they can produce question and UKIP cannot possibly afford. I do not proof that they were entitled to be on the register call that a light touch. However, I think that this when they gave money to the local party. The party amendment should help. If a treasurer knows that a can then take the money and send the report to the donor is permissible, it is not difficult to justify that to commission. There is no sidestepping supervision. the Electoral Commission. There will be supervision, but in the rare circumstances There is one other point that I should bring to your where this may happen it seems perfectly reasonable to Lordships’ attention. I believe that I am right in saying allow the text as originally proposed by the committee. that the Bill does not change the present Act’s provisions about legacies to political parties, so bequests can be Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord accepted from anyone who was on the electoral register Pearson, takes us back in history to the 2000 Act, at any time within five years before death. Someone whose passage I do not clearly remember. If, as he could live abroad in a tax haven for up to five years assures me is the case—I have not had a chance to before he dies and still leave a large sum to a political check—my late friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish party. This means that physical presence on the register moved an amendment similar to this one, it must have in the year of donation does not always apply. I been a jolly good amendment. I am glad that he suggest that it should not apply, as the amendment pressed it to a Division. I must confess that I was Chief proposes. I am not criticising the legacy provisions, Whip at the time and I cannot remember what instructions but mention them in support of the amendment, were issued to my late friend—not that he would which I trust your Lordships will be able to accept. necessarily always take them—on that occasion. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, assures us that the vote Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, there may was at 7.15 pm and, from his examination of the or may not be anomalies in respect of legacies, but I Division List, it does not look as though I tried too fail to follow the noble Lord’s reasoning. He seeks to hard to assist my late friend in securing the successful make a general case out of a particular problem that passage of that amendment. Obviously, in the event, affects his party. As I understood it, he suggested that we were unsuccessful. the individual in question had let his house. If that be More seriously, I take the point made by the noble the case, he would not in any event be resident and Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, about how easy it is to presumably not eligible to be on the register. The make an error that will leave one off the electoral roll. noble Lord said that the treasurer would accept I am, like many noble Lords, entitled to put myself on money when he knew that someone was eligible. That the electoral roll in two places: at home in Cumberland begs many questions. How does he ascertain whether and where I live in London when I attend your Lordships’ someone is eligible? There are proper tests. It is, business. This year, purely for administrative reasons, frankly, too difficult and the noble Lord strives too because I happened to be away at the crucial period, I hard to make a general point out of a particular failed to put myself on the electoral roll in London. I matter, which not only affects his own party but is believe that I have now been put on it. Certainly, I have now, in any event, the subject of litigation. written to Westminster City Council and am assured that this is being corrected. It is just an example of Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I declare an interest how easy it is to make a small error of the sort that in that I was the chairman of the standards committee could leave one off the electoral roll. The noble Lord, when it produced its original report on political parties. Lord Anderson, says that in the case cited by the noble Another Member present, the noble Lord, Lord Lord, Lord Pearson, the individual had let his house. Goodhart, was with me on the committee. We indeed Therefore, he ought to have been living somewhere used such language. We may have created the term else or out of the country. He should have known. “permissible donor”, but we then had to define it, However, it is easy to move from one home to another which we did as including people who were on the and forget that you have not registered in the second electoral register or were entitled to be on it. I am not place, having let the first home. One should not addressing any particular case; the noble Lord, Lord dismiss the idea out of hand in the way that the noble Anderson, has argued about the amendment that the Lord, Lord Anderson, did. I certainly give a degree of noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has spoken to. qualified support to the first part of the noble Lord’s In life there could obviously be reasons why somebody’s amendment, particularly since, as he said, he copied it name was not on the register. The simplest example is from one moved by my late friend Lord Mackay of of somebody who thinks that they have sent in the Ardbrecknish. document that will procure their registration but it has been lost in transmission. A second easy example 6.45 pm would be of some administrative error by officials, Lord Bach: My Lords, this amendment relates to meaning that someone had not been registered, although the permissibility requirements surrounding donations the document was duly received. It may even be a case made by individuals. I make it quite clear that, in what where somebody has been negligent and should have I have to say, I am not referring in any way to any case taken a step but did not. In all these cases, the underlying that may be pending on this matter. Currently, the policy is being complied with. The money comes from 2000 Act requires that, to qualify as a permissible somebody who could have been on the register but for donor, an individual must be registered on an electoral this error or fault, call it what you will. register. Parties may accept donations of over £200 899 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 900 only if they are deemed permissible under the terms of Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have no objection to the 2000 Act, although noble Lords will be aware that the noble Lord using my words. If I said it then, I am this threshold is to be raised to £500 under provisions sure that I meant it. in Clause 17 of the Bill. If a party receives a donation from an impermissible source, it is required to return it Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, perhaps I should within 30 days; it is an offence not to do so. Additionally, point out that I had ceased to be chairman of the if a party accepts a donation that is impermissible, the committee when it was referred back for the Bill. Electoral Commission may apply to a court to seek forfeiture of an amount equal to the donation. Any Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble amount forfeited is paid into the Consolidated Fund. Lords. With great respect, we think that the noble Let me respond to Amendment 28, which concerns Lord, Lord Goodhart, was correct on that occasion, the existing requirement in the 2000 Act. As the House just as he is tonight. knows, the Act is based largely on the recommendation The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, seeks to draw an made in the fifth report of the Committee on Standards analogy between what his amendments would achieve in Public Life, then chaired by the noble Lord, Lord and the reasonable excuse provisions elsewhere in the Neill of Bladen, who has already spoken in this debate. Bill. I am afraid that we do not see a clear link between The House and the country owe a huge debt of gratitude these provisions and the amendment. The government to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and the committee’s amendments introducing a defence of reasonable excuse members. The Government agreed with the vast majority in relation to the obligation to report would not give of the report’s recommendations, but on individuals parties carte blanche. We do not think that it would be to be regarded as permissible donors we differed slightly wise to water down the important obligation to verify from what was recommended. The Neill report, as we the permissibility of donations above the recordable have heard from the noble Lord, recommended that a threshold, nor does the Bill seek to do so. It goes without donation could be properly received from a person saying that I will not speak about specific cases. who was on the register or eligible to be on the register. It is for those reasons that we cannot accept the We disagreed with that recommendation and set out noble Lord’s amendment. The recurrent requirement why in our response to the Neill report: for an individual to be registered in an electoral register “Checking that a particular donor appears on the electoral offers a test that is simple to operate for all concerned register offers a test that is both conclusive and simple to administer. and we do not want to change that. It would be far less straightforward for political parties to verify that a donor not appearing on the register was nevertheless entitled to do so. It is in the interests of the parties to have available Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful a test which offers certainty as to the eligibility of a donor”. to all noble Lords who have spoken, including the Our view has not changed over the years. Political noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who rightly said that I parties have an obligation to ensure that the donations was making the general out of the particular. However, that they receive above the threshold are permissible. that is what often happens. This is a particular case, We should not look to add a further measure that but other examples have been mentioned by the noble would increase the administrative burdens on parties. Lord, Lord Neill, and others. The general does exist We are concerned that the measure proposed by the and this case merely proves it. noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would do that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for That view is shared by the Electoral Commission, what I took to be support for this amendment, but I as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, frankly admitted certainly do not intend to press it to a Division. I can in moving his amendment. In commenting on this see that there is little flexibility from the Government amendment, the commission said: on this point, which is a pity. The amendment would “The proposal to widen the scope for permissibility along not make life more difficult or complicated for treasurers. eligibility to register would create additional burdens and present If a treasurer knew that the person could be on the uncertainty for regulated entities in confirming permissibility electoral register, he would merely have to give reasons of donors”. for that knowledge to the Electoral Commission. There I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will is no difficulty about it at all. However, I can see that forgive me for mentioning him. The noble Lord, Lord the amendment will not be accepted, so I do not want Neill, has pointed out that he, too, was a member of to take up more of your Lordships’ time. I trust that the committee at that time. When this matter was what is on the record may be useful for the future and I considered in the debates on the 2000 Act, the noble beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Lord, Lord Goodhart, said: Amendment 28 withdrawn. “The Government put that forward—this was stated in their reply to the Neill committee—because administratively it is a relatively simple matter to check who is in fact on the electoral Clause 8 : Declaration as to source of donation register, but it is much more difficult to find out whether someone who, let us say, sends a cheque drawn on a British bank in a letter from an address in London is in fact eligible to be on the register. Amendment 29 It is not of course difficult for anyone who is eligible to be on the Moved by Lord Campbell-Savours register to put themselves on the register. For that reason, the 29: Clause 8, page 7, line 14, at end insert— Neill committee, when this proposal was put to it, did not object to it being brought forward in the form in which it is brought “(1A) In section 54 of the 2000 Act (permissible donors), in forward by the Government”.—[Official Report, 12/10/00; col. 546.] subsection (2)(a), after “register” there is inserted “who is resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of Part 14 of the Income I am sorry not to have spoken to the noble Lord Tax Act 2007 and is not a non-domiciled United Kingdom earlier and told him that I intended to use his words. resident”.” 901 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 902

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I shall also mayoral election campaign. Do we really believe that speak to Amendment 30. These amendments were that is acceptable? The Electoral Commission has debated at great length in Committee. They were stated: originally tabled in the House of Commons and have “The permissibility requirements in the 2000 Act are intended been vigorously opposed by the Government at all to ensure that only people and organisations with a close relationship stages. I shall argue on two counts: first, the merits of to the UK can donate to political parties. It is for Parliament to the amendment are set out in the letter from Mr Gordon decide if this is appropriate”. Prentice MP; and, secondly, the procedural issues That is what the amendments do. arising out of the handling of the amendments in the How would they work in practice? A person wishing Commons, as set out in the letter from Martin Linton MP. to make a donation simply ticks a box on their tax The case on merit, in my view, turns on whether a return and the Electoral Commission need only certify person who is not liable to tax in the United Kingdom with HMRC that that is the case. It would be a simple should be permitted to make a substantial political procedure in circumstances when a donation could on donation that may well run into millions of pounds to occasion influence the result of a general election. Of a political party, and thereby influence the result of a course, it would apply only in circumstances when a general election. That is the question. I believe that donation exceeded a threshold laid down in regulations. they should not be allowed. Individuals collectively The House may want to consider a letter to Mr Tony pay their taxes in the belief that, having done so, it is Wright, chairman of the House of Commons Public they who should have the right to influence how their Administration Committee and the House of Lords taxes are used—not some person who deliberately Appointments Commission. The letter announced the avoids liability to United Kingdom taxation. It is the changes to the selection criteria for Peers. It stated: payment of and liability for tax that gives us the right “I am writing to notify you of a slight strengthening of the to decide. It is our money and not theirs. It is for us, selection criteria which the Appointments Commission will in who are liable to tax, to decide which Government future use when assessing nominees for non-party-political peerages. The Commission has agreed these changes as part of its review of should be in place to decide how our taxes are used. policies and procedures and in the light of experience”. I shall repeat the scenario I put to the Committee. I A copy of the press notice is attached, which states: shall exaggerate to make my point. If a Ukrainian “The Commission also wants to strengthen the existing billionaire philanthropist, entrepreneur, oligarch, public requirement that a nominee should be resident in the UK for tax benefactor, or whatever acquires British residency, purposes, and be willing to confirm his or her acceptance of the buys a home in London, spends most of his or her requirement to remain so. This strengthening will also be reflected time abroad, refuses to make him or herself liable for in our vetting criteria for future party-political and other nominations tax in the United Kingdom, and then offers a political for peerages”. party a £5 million donation, should the political party Surely, if appointment to the Lords requires UK residency be permitted to accept it? The public would be appalled; for tax purposes and a liability to tax within the the political party would be discredited; and Parliament’s United Kingdom, it must follow that donations of credibility would be further undermined. As the law millions of pounds to political parties, which could stands, that can happen. My amendment would make influence general elections to the elected House of it unlawful for any person who is not UK-liable for tax Commons, must have at the least the same tax liability purposes, and is not a non-domiciled UK resident, to requirement. As many of my colleagues in this House make a substantial donation to a political party. A cap have asked me over recent weeks, how can the Government on such donations would be defined in law. justify the position that they have taken on this issue? The amendment is based on the simple principle: if you want to donate you have to be liable to tax. Of 7pm course, there are limitations. If a person is not ordinarily If the high standards which the public demand of resident, he or she will be liable to tax on income Parliament are to be met in a way that the Prime arising only in the United Kingdom. Only someone Minister recently proposed, surely now is the time to who can spend 183 days or more in the UK is a UK deal with this utterly unacceptable practice in our tax resident under the six-month rule. Someone will be system? The Government last week circulated to Members regarded as a resident if they come to the United on this side of the House—and to all Members, I Kingdom regularly and after four tax years they visit presume, in the spirit of fair play—their explanation during those years for an average of 91 days or more a and, indeed, justification for refusing to accept these year. I am told that that is the current position. amendments. They gave a number of reasons, which I We know that non-UK taxpayers can have a huge shall take individually. The Government’s own circulated impact on the outcome of general elections. The Rowntree document says, report published last year, Purity of Elections in the “The amendments would restrict only one form of democratic United Kingdom: Causes for Concern, states: participation (making a donation) according to tax status whilst “There is substantial evidence to suggest that money could leaving other forms unrestricted”. have a powerful impact on the outcome of general elections, Thatistosay: particularly where targeted at marginal constituencies over sustained “standing as a candidate for and sitting in a legislature, voting or periods of time”. campaigning as a ‘third party’ pressure group”. A well-known public figure, who lives offshore and The Government say: refuses to make himself liable to tax in the United “There is a real Article 11 ECHR (right to freedom of association) Kingdom, converted a £3 million loan into a gift to a issue. It may be lawful to restrict who may give donations if the political party. He then went on to donate a further restriction is justified and proportionate. But a tax status restriction £100,000 to that party and an additional £30,000 to a is problematic if it restricts donations but not voting”, 903 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 904 or, “need to be mindful of commitment in 2008 Budget that there “standing for Parliament”. would be no further changes to the taxation regime for non-domiciles That is their justification. in the rest of this Parliament or the next”. In other words, they are saying that a tax status To that, I reply: there is nothing in my proposed restriction is problematic if it restricts donations but amendments that would increase the liability to tax. does not restrict voting. They then pray in aid Article 11 Indeed, I could not table such an amendment in this of the Convention, somehow likening the right of a House. single individual to cast a vote in the Pimlico Churchill I have been asked what would happen if, despite a Gardens polling station at a general election to the Revenue declaration, a party was found to have been right to donate millions of pounds to a political party misled by a donor and had received an impermissible and thereby influence the result of that whole election donation. In my view, it would be a perfectly reasonable campaign. The logic behind that is ludicrous: one vote defence for a party to argue that it received approval equivalent to a contribution of millions of pounds. I for the donation on the basis of HMRC’s confirmation feel sure that a few lawyers in this House would readily to the Electoral Commission that the box had been make a meal of that excuse. ticked. However, it would concentrate the minds of The Government then say: political parties when seeking to ensure the validity of donations. “There is a risk that the amendments would result in donations being diverted through other routes … companies, unincorporated Finally, I turn to what some people refer to as the associations”. most important argument of all. What happened when My response to that is: why do the Government themselves these amendments were originally moved in the not table amendments in this House on Third Reading Commons? They followed on the important work or, if the amendments were to go through, on the done, over a number of years, by Martin Linton. Commons consideration of Lords amendments to These two amendments were originally moved in the deal with that problem, if it exists? I invited my noble Commons by Gordon Prentice. They were supported friend to do so in Committee. If the principle of a tax by 218 Members of Parliament—probably among some restriction were to be established in this House, there is of the highest signatory endorsements for amendments no reason why further work could not be done by the in the history of the House of Commons. They were Treasury on tax law relating to “companies and supported by nearly all political parties, yet they were unincorporated associations”. not debated. They got caught up in a procedural They then say there is a, wrangle. “difficulty in establishing whether an individual is resident and, These amendments constituted the fourth group particularly, domiciled. HMRC does not routinely hold this out of a total of six scheduled for debate on day two of information for the majority of taxpayers. Establishing residence proceedings on the Bill. I do not want to go into the and domicile would usually require HMRC to undertake an detail, but they caught up in an argument over a investigation at considerable time and expense. It is not clear how Programme Motion, which effectively excluded them parties would satisfy themselves before deciding whether to accept a donation. Resident status is ‘retrospective’ in that it is dependent under House of Commons procedure. As I say, they upon the amount of time an individual has spent in the UK in the were neither debated nor voted on—a classic example previous 12 months, so very difficult to establish at a given point of a Commons failure to properly scrutinise amendments. in the middle of a year if an individual is ‘resident’”. This is our opportunity to show the Commons the It, value of scrutiny arrangements in the Lords. The “also risks treating individuals unfairly who may not know whether Commons are desperate to have the opportunity to they are domiciled or not”. debate and vote on these amendments, and many a These amendments place no responsibility whatever screen is going in that House this evening with people on HMRC to investigate the tax status of an individual. watching our debate. They want the opportunity to It is the individual making a tax return who makes the vote on these amendments. We can give them that declaration; he or she is responsible. If HMRC indicates opportunity. I beg to move. to the Electoral Commission that the donor’s tax return indicates UK tax status, signed off under the Lord Tyler: My Lords, I and my colleagues very statutory declaration by the taxpayer, then the commission strongly support these amendments, as we did in Grand would have met the requirements of the law under Committee. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Oakeshott these amendments, if carried by the House. It would may refer to the specific issue of how the criteria for be for the donor to establish whether he or she was entry into this House now follows the pattern to which domiciled; or, they could take professional advice on the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has already that matter if they were not aware whether they were referred. For goodness sake, if it is practically possible domiciled. to identify the tax status of those entering this House, it must surely also be possible to do the very same They then go on: thing for donors to political parties. I intend to speak “In order to enforce the new requirement, recipients of donations and the Electoral Commission would need to be able to verify only briefly on this issue, as I hope that we shall also that a donation was permissible and would require access to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has put HMRC information. HMRC has a statutory duty to maintain his name to these amendments. taxpayer confidentiality”. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has In reply to that, let me make it absolutely clear that all already said, this set of amendments had the support the Electoral Commission needs to know from HMRC of an unusually large number of Members of Parliament, is: has the donor ticked the box on a tax return? from the Back Benches of all parties. They were tabled Recipients of donations would have no need whatever by Mr Gordon Prentice but not put to the vote; by an to approach HMRC. Then, they say that they, accident of history, they were not passed there. However, 905 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 906

[LORD TYLER] Lord Borrie: My Lords, my noble friend Lord unless we allow ourselves the privilege of putting this Campbell-Savours has made a powerful case not only into the Bill, it will never be discussed in the House of on the substance of the matter, but on enabling the Commons, despite the support of a very large number other place, which was prevented from discussing the of Back Benchers. The effect is that it would require a matter, not only to discuss but to determine whether a permissible donor to be resident in the United Kingdom restriction should be placed on non-UK residents for the purposes of Part 14 of the Income Tax Act 2007, making donations to political parties. not simply to be a non-domiciled UK resident. My noble friend may not have drafted the perfect When we discussed this in Committee, Ministers amendment because, for example, it seems to leave it came up with a number of apparent practical difficulties. possible for non-UK residents to make donations I suggest to them that where there is a will, there is a indirectly through an unincorporated association or a way. It is important that they should be forced to look company, but unless the Minister undertakes this evening carefully at the practicalities of this between now and to bring forward an improved amendment with similar Third Reading, and if they cannot accept that it is objectives to those of my noble friend Lord Campbell- practical to do this at that stage, we should nevertheless Savours, I am inclined to vote for his amendment so demand that there is an opportunity for the other that MPs and parliamentary draftsman can pool their place to discuss this. There is an issue of principle respective skills to improve upon it. here. Members of your Lordships’ House who are steeped in history will recall that the rebels in the 7.15 pm United States went under the great slogan, “No taxation It may be said that restrictions on donations is without representation”. In a sense, we are turning restricting one form of democratic participation according that upside down and saying, “No representation without to tax status while leaving other forms unrestricted. I taxation”. That is the basic fact. It is surely right that do not regard the making of huge, unlimited donations no person who is not liable for tax in the United in the same light as the right to vote, the right to have Kingdom should be permitted to influence the use of fair elections or the right to stand as a candidate for taxpayers’ money, money paid by those who do pay the other place. I doubt the suggestion that a restriction tax and are liable—you and me. That should be an on donations might breach Article 11 of the European intrinsic principle. Convention on Human Rights. This has been raised There is a subsidiary issue that I would like to draw by the Government with no supporting evidence or to the attention of the Minister at this stage because it legal argument; they simply posed the view that this arises out this. In his letter of 12 June, he wrote: restriction on donations suggested by my noble friend would be a breach of the provision for freedom of “I know that concerns have been expressed about the potential association and assembly. There are restrictions on the for making multiple donations just below the thresholds to avoid the recording and reporting requirements”. right to vote in many of the convention countries, including our own. We are contemplating reducing the In the otherwise very comprehensive briefing that he voting age. There are restrictions on the way in which has given at all stages, the Minister has been very elections are run. Surely, if it is suggested that restrictions conscientious in giving us a response to a query or a on the finance that may be provided by a donor to concern of that sort, but no such response appeared in a political party contravene Article 11, it would this letter, at Second Reading or in Committee. A suggest that Article 11 of the convention is rigid, clear foreign donor could very easily avoid the restrictions and specific. However, I am sure that it is not so, and of reporting or recording by simply making a payment I cannot imagine that a full, successful argument every week of the year, but just below the threshold— could be made that my noble friend’s proposal would £1 below the threshold every week of the year—so we result in a breach of the convention. I support my have to be extremely careful. Even if this amendment noble friend. is passed, and I hope it will be, we must be very careful that that other loophole is not still available to foreign Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I agree with donors who, because they keep just below the threshold, the purpose of the amendment. Over 10 years, I have are not required to be recorded or reported to the taken very great care not to criticise on the Floor of commission. this House the legislative procedures in the other If we leave the Bill as it is, without a clear statement place. I say only that I am depressed that an amendment that these sorts of donations from foreign sources are on this question, which was tabled for Report in the not permissible, the Bill will not fulfil the requirements other House in the names of 216 or, possibly, 218 Members that the Government have placed upon it. Even since of Parliament was never discussed because of the the Bill was in Grand Committee, there is greater timetabling, procedures and the use of a programme awareness of the potential corruption of our political motion. It is open to us to adopt the amendment in the system by people with very large chequebooks who name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, can buy their way into influencing a relatively small thus making it possible for the other House to discuss number of constituencies, the marginal seats. It takes the proposal, so let us do that. us right the way back to the purchase of seats before the Reform Act 1832. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell- Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I rise Savours, said, unless we stand up for the right of with a little trepidation to put a slightly different point citizens of this country who pay taxes to be the people of view. I have great sympathy with the fact that this who decide how our political system works, the House was not discussed in the House of Commons, and it of Commons will not get its opportunity, and the Bill should have been. It says an awful lot about the will be weaker for it. procedures of the House of Commons that 216 MPs 907 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 908 can support an amendment and then it is decided not more than 1,000 individual donations would need to take it. I can only say thank goodness we do not verification annually. That would be an extraordinarily have procedures like that in the House of Lords. I difficult job. genuinely hope—and I have said this to my noble My other real concern is about the implication for friend—that there might be the possibility of some constituency parties. At present political parties can solution to this before we reach Third Reading. However fulfil their compliance duty to check that an individual if that is not possible, I shall vote with the Government. is on an electoral role, or a company is registered at I will do so because the amendment is so badly Companies House, by consulting public records. Obliging flawed that I do not feel able to support it. It does not parties to check the residence status of donors for tax do what it is attempting to do. I have great sympathy purposes would be an impossible task and I am sure it with what it is attempting to achieve. I think it is is nowhere near as easy as putting a cross on the tax diabolical that large sums can be spent prior to an form. Tax records are not public documents and, in election in the way that they have been in the past, but any event, there is no single record of individual tax this amendment does not solve that problem. It does status. I am not sure whether, even if a cross would not solve the problem of a non-UK taxpayer putting satisfy it, it would be possible to use that cross because money through companies or unincorporated associations. information would then be being disclosed about that To prevent that would need another amendment, which person’s tax. The consequence of that could be that a we do not have in front of us. Nor does it do what I constituency party could find itself in difficulty and would like it to do, which is to say that large donations may end up having to repay the money. So there are should not be spent before a general election from many flaws in the argumentation. That is not to say wherever they come. I can only cite from my own that there is not a problem. Maybe there needs to be a constituency, where one of the candidates spent wider discussion on the issue of tax status and £90,000 of his own money prior to the last general participation in politics generally, but that is not a election. There is nothing in this amendment to stop discussion for this Bill and this amendment does not that happening next time. I wish there was, but this achieve what it is intending to achieve. amendment does not do what a lot of people believe it will do. Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, my noble Lord Goodhart: My Lords, might the noble Baroness friend recognises that there is a problem and argues consider dealing with that point by supporting the that the amendment does not wholly meet it. Of amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell- course that is true, but I agree with the noble Lord, Savours, and then supporting my noble friend’s Lord Tyler, who made the point that, even though this amendments to cap the contributions? House should probably be reluctant to intervene in elections since we are a unelected House, this amendment Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I do gives the opportunity for the elected House to make its not think the two things go together, with the greatest own decision, and this is what we should allow it to do. respect. We will come to the capping of donations I can see no reason for the Government’s rejection later. The noble Lord does not know what my view is of this. The Government, in a rather civil-servant way, on that; he will have to wait and see. But this amendment give 1,001 reasons why we should reject this, but do does not do what a lot of people believe it does. I am not come forward with any real reasons why this not certain what the procedure would be to get an particular anomaly should not be met. The mischief amendment which eliminated that loophole in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, seeks respect of companies or unincorporated associations to meet is very clear; it is the mischief of the buying of through the Commons if this amendment went back elections by rich individuals who are not domiciled in to the other place. I am not certain that it would be this country. Quite properly the noble Lord, Lord feasible. Tyler, mentioned the good inverted US principle of no We have had some discussion already on the concerns representation without taxation. Why should individuals the Government have raised in response to this have a disproportionate effect on our electoral process? amendment. One is the anomaly about democratic I am thinking, for example, of a very competent participation. It may be said that there is no relevance colleague in the House of Commons, who lost his seat between giving money to a political party and affecting in 2005 and watched a tidal wave of money pour into the outcome of an election. My constituency won his marginal seat from certain individuals in the years irrespective of the £90,000 donation from another prior to the period when it was banned. He could do candidate. But I accept it has an effect. Also, if we say nothing about it. Clearly, only a relatively small number that a person cannot give a donation but can be a of marginal seats are laser-beamed in this way. This is Member of this House or a candidate for the Commons not a partisan position. I hope the main Opposition and can win, does that not have an enormous influence also see the danger to our democracy of having elections on how taxpayers’ money is spent? It is not just a bought in this way by very rich individuals. The awful question of how it is spent in elections, but also of thing for this individual was not that this tsunami of how it is spent on all the other issues that we deal with. money poured into his constituency and overwhelmed Those people have the right to sit in this place and the him but that the money came from someone who was other place and spend that money. That is another non-resident in this country. That is clearly the mischief flaw in the argument. that the noble Lord is seeking to meet. I share the concern raised by the Electoral Commission I simply ask this question of the Government: do about the need to verify whether a donation is permissible. they recognise that this is a problem at the very root of The Electoral Commission’s own data suggest that our democracy? Over the years, step by step, we have 909 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 910

[LORD ANDERSON OF SWANSEA] I also agree that the amendment does not do certain tried to remove the influence of money on elections other things that may or may not logically be part of a and corrupt practices—mostly, I concede, thanks to jigsaw puzzle. Equally, I pick up the point that something the Liberal Party over the centuries—from the great needs to be done and that, if this amendment is Reform Act through to secret ballots, seeking to remove carried, the Government must realise that they will various forms of corrupt practice and the effect of have to put their brain to this with more urgency, so money on elections, so that one individual does not that when it gets back to the House of Commons—I have a greater say in the determination of an election doubt that that will be by Third Reading, but it may result than other, ordinary folk. Why can we not seek be—unless the procedures of the House of Commons some means of doing it? It is not good enough simply are even more incomprehensible to Members of this to parade a series of individual objections to the House, the mysterious authorities there cannot simply points raised. Why will the Government not do something say for the second time: “No, we are not going to take about it? And is the Conservative Party content to the amendment”. allow this possibility to pervert our democracy without accepting what is here and giving the House of Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, briefly, Commons—the elected House—the opportunity to I support this amendment and the excellent speeches debate it and put it right if it is able to do so? made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and my noble friend Lord Tyler. The speeches were in Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, there are two support of the amendment, with the sole exception of debates going on. The first is whether the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. She made two points. is in substance correct, whatever nitpicking one can First, she broadly agrees with the amendment but indulge in. The other is that we have a duty to give the thinks that it does not go far enough. That is no other place a chance to vote on this issue. If I may take reason to oppose it. Her practical point was that it the liberty of pretending to be a member of the public, would be very difficult for parties to check whether if asked, as a man in the street, whether I would donations met this test. I do not think, off the top of approve of a wealthy foreigner—not even a member of my head, that it would be difficult. All one would need the EU—paying a huge sum of money to one political would be a requirement that any person making a party in the run-up to a general election, and it being donation signed a form to say that they were wholly acceptable under the rules for influence to be wielded resident or domiciled in this country for tax purposes, in that way, the only possible answer would be, “What that a donation could not be accepted if that were not an absolutely outrageous suggestion—of course not. so, and that it would be a criminal offence to accept a Surely that’s not allowed”. One would have to say, donation without that form and a criminal offence to “Well, as a matter of fact, it is at the moment. We are sign it if that were not true. It would be very easy talking about an amendment to stop it being possible”. indeed for the Electoral Commission to check with the I am sorry to fantasise, but I believe this is how people tax authorities whether any person had signed the would react: “Well, I am all with it”. form wrongly. I cannot see that that is a problem. I see On the second issue, we now want to give the other that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, is here. I know that place—we call it the House of Commons out in the he is very sympathetic to the drift of all this, and I am street—a chance to vote on this portion of the Bill. sure he will quickly tell me if I have not got this quite The man in the street might say, “I thought this Bill right. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is looking for came to you from the House of Commons. It must problems where they do not exist. have thought about this”. One’s response would be, “No, I’m afraid I have to enlighten you on that point. Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I am It often does not consider very important parts— sorry to intervene. The noble Lord has talked about sometimes great chunks—of an Act of Parliament. individuals, which seems fine. That seems to be a very The House never had the opportunity to debate this easy solution to the problem. However, the donations proposal. We are not suggesting chicanery. It somehow do not come from the individual directly; they come came out through the machinery; there was no chance indirectly. How would he solve that particular problem? of debate”. My ideal man in the street would say, “That is ridiculous. Give them a chance”. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, this is what I mean when I say that we should not accept any 7.30 pm donations from companies at all. That is the solution Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, it is probably to that one. incumbent on members of the Labour group who are My Bill, which is currently in Committee, requires inclined to support the amendment to explain themselves that no one who is not ordinarily resident or domiciled very briefly. in this country shall sit in this House. The Government At a time of constitutional renewal, and with the say that they are very sympathetic to that. I am very absurdity of the overuse of the guillotine in the House glad for that sympathy, and I hope that it will soon be of Commons, there is a very powerful argument here. converted into practical action. However, the amendment To put a shot across the bows of those who talk about before us today is arguably even more important than constitutional change without having any way of meeting my own Bill. It is outrageous that non-resident Peers it—the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, produced a Bill on this can sit and vote on our laws in this House, but it is earlier, and it seems to have been debated for a long even more outrageous that a person who does not pay time—I am very interested in and sympathetic to the full British tax can pay millions to a political party— premise with which my noble friend Lady Gould, who money that is, in effect, filched from the British taxpayer has enormous experience in this field, began. by that person because he is not resident here and does 911 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 912 not pay tax but can influence millions of votes. If the skilled speeches and debates about the detail of this Government believe that this is wrong and must be legislation. I shall touch on a few of those points stopped, why will they not accept the noble Lord’s without detracting from the outstanding experience amendment? If they say—as to some extent they have that is present in this House and which I do not been saying, although I hope that has changed—that possess. my Bill is the wrong way of dealing with the abuse of In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord non-resident Peers sitting in the House, what is the Campbell-Savours, touched on a point with which we right way of dealing with the abuse of donations that certainly agree: the procedural way in which matters we all accept is happening? Why will the Government are conducted down the other end of the Palace of not act while they still have the power to do so? We are Westminster—the over-frequent use of the guillotine at the eleventh hour. and the stifling of debate—leaves much to be desired. That is not the case here. This amendment was moved Lord Rooker: My Lords, I did not intend to speak, in Grand Committee, again very ably. It sparked a but I must say that I wholly support the amendment in debate that went on for an hour. During that time, the the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. Minister gave a detailed, almost line-by-line, rebuttal I have two brief points to make. of the reasons why the amendment would not work in In June 1997 in a committee in the other place, my the way that it was proposed. I found that argument late colleague Audrey Wise and I tabled amendments quite persuasive. to the Finance Bill. As well as being told that the There is a need, which has been articulated by my amendments were inconvenient, we were told that they right honourable friend David Cameron on a number were in the wrong place in the Bill and were technically of occasions, to remove big money from British politics. deficient—all those reasons. Our view was: “Make That desire is there and all parties of the House need them okay. Put them in the right place in the Bill”. to agree on how it should move forward. Hayden That is what the Government did, but they would not Phillips had almost reached that point before, sadly, have done so if we had not tabled the amendments. I the Government abandoned that pledge. Therefore, must say to your Lordships, although I would not dare we are left with the difficulties before us. Very detailed to give examples, that on several occasions at the restrictions are put on people who want to donate to Dispatch Box in recent years I have moved government political parties in this House. They have to be registered amendments or agreed to amendments to government or be on the electoral register. The money has to come Bills from noble Lords around the House that were not from a UK-registered corporation. In both those respects, perfectly drafted. Our view was that we needed them it could be argued that there is some level of interest; so that the draftsmen in the other place could get to namely, that either the person is resident and is on a work to achieve our objective. That is done every day register or that they are part of our economy and of the week. That is what parliamentary counsel is for. paying through a company which is registered here. The general view among the population now is that We also need to bear in mind that context is important we have banned donations from foreigners. Morally, as regards the notion and the language of buying you cannot argue that case if you allow the status quo elections. I can understand why people use that sense on the taxation argument; the noble Lord, Lord Neill, of hyperbole— made that point. If the amendment had not been on the amendment paper in the House of Commons, it would be quite wrong for us to try to put it in from Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble here. The fact that it was on the amendment paper but Lord for giving way. I accept that he is making a very not debated means that it was still part of the Bill’s balanced speech. But does he not accept that there is a proceedings. core argument in your Lordships’ House, which addresses Generally speaking, if anyone outside this place the role of an upper House, a revising and scrutinising asks us what we do, one of the key answers that we House? The argument is that on a matter of significant give is that we ask the House of Commons to think interest, particularly if it affects how we carry out our again. It will not think again unless the issue is on the politics, it is appropriate for this House to give the amendment paper, and we can get it on to the amendment opportunity to the other House to make a determination paper only if my noble friend’s amendment is accepted. on an issue of fundamental importance that it has not I shall vote for it. so far had the opportunity to decide. Lord Warner: My Lords, briefly, I support all those Lord Bates: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord’s who have spoken in favour of the amendment in the argument. There is a sense in which it could be argued name of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I that the other place had an opportunity when Mr Gordon have one very simple point to make. Over the past few Prentice presented those Bills. The fact that that months, we have heard from all the leaders of the opportunity was denied by the business managers in political parties their undying commitment to cleaning the Commons is regrettable and we are redressing it by up politics. If we collude in supporting this Bill without having a more reasoned debate in this place. I do not an amendment of the kind which my noble friend has doubt that. Because they have behaved in a certain moved, we are colluding in not cleaning up politics. way once, the argument is to pass it back to see We should support the amendment. whether they will behave in the same way again. I am not entirely persuaded of that because of another Lord Bates: My Lords, this has been a debate of point, which was touched on by the noble Baroness, outstanding quality. I am new to your Lordships’ Lady Gould, who pointed to some of the difficulties. House, and it is incredibly impressive to hear such On the way through this Bill and the legislation, we 913 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 914

[LORD BATES] public services and would not choose to fund political have talked about the difficulty of too onerous a parties at this time. With those comments, we await requirement being placed on volunteers within associations the Minister’s rebuttal on these matters and we will who could potentially make innocent mistakes, and support him in that. the boundaries of knowledge. Certainly, it is possible to check whether a company Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendments 29 and 30 would is registered in the UK for tax purposes and to check add to the permissibility requirements relating to donations the electoral register to see whether an individual is on from individuals. In addition to the existing requirement that register. It is not possible for the average person to that an individual be registered in an electoral register, scrutinise tax records, which are private, in order to Amendment 29 would provide that an individual would ascertain whether that is not the case. The solution is have to be resident in the United Kingdom for the that there should be voluntary disclosure. In Committee, purposes of the Income Tax Act 2007 and would have the Minister’s response pointed to some of the difficulties to not be a non-domiciled United Kingdom resident. which that can land one in, because tax status is Amendment 30 would amend proposed new Section 54A determined retrospectively. Tax returns are filled in at of the 2000 Act by requiring any declaration by an the end of a year. A register of electors is for the year individual donor as to the source of a donation to ahead. In terms of those types of arguments, there is state that he satisfies these additional requirements. I something to be considered. agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, that this has been an outstanding debate and I thank all noble 7.45 pm Lords who have spoken. In addition, we are roping into funding and taxation As the House knows, these amendments were originally the whole issue of residence and domicile for tax debated at some length in Grand Committee. The purposes. I am no tax specialist, but many learned Government have listened carefully to the points that Members seem to make a very handsome living out of were made then and have been put again today, but I determining who is and is not resident and domiciled must inform the House that the Government continue for tax purposes. It may not be as clear cut as one to have serious concerns about these amendments on might suggest as far as this proposal is concerned. principled, practical and legal grounds. I want to Those big money elements of politics also need to reiterate these concerns and I apologise in advance if it caution people. Before the intervention, I referred to takes a little time. I hope to address additional points hyperbole and the buying of seats and the buying of raised in Grand Committee and in today’s debate. elections. Big money has been around in politics for a As we have said before, the Government recognise long time. If I feel slightly saintly on this, it is because and understand the sentiment behind the amendments, I spent a glorious weekend walking around the which is that those who donate to political parties in grounds of the Earl Grey’s house, Howick Hall in this country should pay tax in this country. We also Northumberland. I feel at least some moral element of recognise, however, that making a donation is just one authority. In that respect, we are talking about nothing way in which an individual can participate in our of that here. democracy. There are many other ways, ranging from Especially in the days of the media, elections are exercising the right to vote to standing as a candidate won and lost by the veracity of the arguments and the for the House of Commons and sitting in a legislature compelling nature of the case put forward. If my party as we are tonight in the House of Lords. We believe happens to be doing better in the elections at this time, that there is a spectrum of political involvement from it is because of the positive alternative offered by voting at one end to sitting in the legislature at the David Cameron to this country, which is put forward other, with large political donations somewhere in-between. by the party. The electorate is capable of making those The Government have stated their firm belief that it independent judgments. To minimise them or to use would be wrong in principle to create an anomaly by inappropriate language to question whether they are introducing extra restrictions on only one form of capable of making that judgment is perhaps unfair at participation without considering whether equivalent these times. restrictions should be placed on other forms of In conclusion, the matter has been aired and discussed. participation. We believe that the issue of what should In Committee, the Minister gave a vigorous defence of be the correct relationship between an individual’s the reasons why this is difficult to bring about from a taxation status and their right to civic and democratic legal point of view. We on this side of the House look participation needs to be looked at as a whole. I can forward to the day when big money is genuinely taken tell the House tonight that this will be one of the issues out of politics and those cross-party agreements— that will be covered by the democratic renewal council in its deliberations, which are taking place now, on the wider constitutional reform agenda. I can give that Noble Lords: Oh! commitment to the House this evening that it will be part of its brief to look at this issue as a whole. Lord Bates: My Lords, that is genuinely the case. Notwithstanding this objection of principle, significant The Liberal Democrat Benches laugh at this, although legal and practical difficulties must be given detailed their idea is that big money should not come from consideration before any restriction on donations relating trade unions or businesses, but from the taxpayer. to tax status could be introduced. I am afraid that we They want public money to fund their coffers. They are of the view that the amendments fail to deal want big money that is public money.That is unacceptable adequately with these difficulties. As a result, they risk to the British public who are facing many pressures on introducing a new restriction which could not be effectively 915 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 916 enforced and which could be open to legal challenge. Lord Bach: My Lords, noble Lords laugh, but that Moreover, the amendments—and this is a crucial point, is a little unfair. The advice that we have received from in our view—would not achieve their intended objective, our officials and that I mention to the House in as since non-UK taxpayers could continue to have a role moderate and as cautious a way as I can is that there is in funding political parties and other political entities a risk. If I was advised that there was no risk, I would through companies and unincorporated associations. not say that there was a risk. If we are told that there is For this combination of reasons, we are duty-bound, a risk, I think that I am duty-bound to tell the House we feel, to resist these amendments. that, even if I have to do it through the laughter of If carried and enacted, there is a risk—I choose my noble Lords. words carefully—that the amendments would interfere If we are to focus only on donations, as the with Article 10, Article 11 or Article 3 of Protocol 1 of amendments propose, rather than on the full range of the European Convention on Human Rights. democratic participation, we think that concern would be heightened because, for a restriction of this type to Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will all respect to the be lawful, it has to be justified and proportionate in Minister, that seems to be a highly improbable the interests of a democratic society. Focusing only on interpretation of Articles 10 and 11 and Article 3 of donations, as this amendment does, begs a question the Protocol. Is there any authority that binds the when assessing the compatibility of the proposal with Government not to accept legislation of the kind ECHR rights. Why place a restriction on donations in covered by this amendment? this way now, but not on other forms of participation, on the grounds of tax status? There may be no easy Lord Bach: My Lords, will the noble Lord just hear answer to that question, especially if we have not my argument on this, which I hope will deal with the considered, at the same time, whether it would be point that he raises? Those articles are the right to justified and proportionate to impose similar restrictions freedom of expression, the right to freedom of assembly on other rights as well as this one, or, indeed, instead and association and the right to free elections. The of it. We see that a wider review of the range of articles might be engaged by limitations on the making possible restrictions is essential in order to ensure that of donations and any steps taken in this area would the approach taken here is lawful and proper. Without need careful legal consideration—I do not go further it, the risk of a finding that the proposal is incompatible than that—in order to ensure that the proposal was with the ECHR is increased. This sort of review is compatible with the relevant convention rights. We do exactly what we propose and the position of the not say that it would breach them; we say that, if we lawfulness of this sort of restriction will be much do not consider imposing the restriction alongside the clearer for it. A review such as this, however, is a major other restrictions—those on voting or being able to piece of work and is not possible within the timescale stand for Parliament—the risk of breach is, we believe, to which this Bill is working. on advice, greater, because of the anomaly that it creates, for which there would be no obvious justification. Finally, we must not forget that the effects of these This strengthens the argument for wider consideration amendments would, in some cases, be to restrict the of the whole matter, as we propose. I concede that the rights of UK citizens to participate in the democratic legal position is difficult and needs very careful system. This will add extra difficulty. Any proposal consideration. If we are going to do something like that seeks to link an individual’s taxation status to this, we need to get it right. Without wider consideration, their ability to donate would require clear information we genuinely risk not getting it correct. on the taxation status of all potential donors to be readily available. That information would need to be accessible to political parties and the Electoral Commission Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, is it seriously for the purposes of checking whether a donation was the Government’s intention to suggest that the European permitted. There are obvious and serious concerns Convention on Human Rights would restrict the about data protection. prevention of an election from being bought by people who are not even resident in the European Union? The Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is the body Minister has not answered in one respect my noble that can establish whether an individual is resident friend’s inquiry as to whether there is any legal justification and domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. However, or legal precedent for the astonishing assertions that as this information is relevant only to the tax liabilities he has made. of certain people with non-UK income, it does not routinely hold this information for all taxpayers. Even Lord Bach: My Lords, the advice that the Government for those individuals who self-assess their residency or have received on this issue is, I repeat, that there is a domicile status, this information is not in an easily risk that we would be held in breach. I cannot do more accessible, retrievable or list-based form. than that; the noble Lord can make up his own mind. Of course, HMRC can, where necessary, undertake an investigation to establish the residence and domicile Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I have a status of any particular individual. Such investigations simple question. Was that advice based on any authority? can involve considerable time and expense and are made on the basis of a risk assessment. To conduct an Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to be investigation into every individual who makes a political able to answer that. donation would require an investigation into an individual’s status at a given point. This would be a Noble Lords: Oh! very significant undertaking and would need to be 917 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 918

[LORD BACH] I note once again that the Electoral Commission based on facts that would require additional information has expressed concerns about the workability of these gathering. An individual’s tax residence status can proposals and their impact on political parties and change from year to year and is, effectively, retrospective, other regulated entities in its briefing notes in advance as it is often based, among other criteria, on the of Committee and Report. On workability, the amount of time that an individual has spent in the UK commission noted: in the previous 12 months. Uncomfortable though it “In many cases it may be difficult for the recipient of a may be to hear, it could be very difficult to establish at donation to verify whether the donor is a resident in the UK for a given point in the middle of a tax year whether an taxation purposes and not a non-domiciled UK resident. Further, individual was or was likely to be regarded as resident Parliament may wish to consider the administrative implications for HMRC should the amendment be agreed. Commission data at the end of that year. suggests that more than 1,000 individual donations would need verification annually”. 8pm Commenting on the impact on parties, the commission An individual’s domicile status is separate from his said: residence status. Domicile is a common-law concept “In order to assess whether any donation from an individual is relating to the country that a person thinks of as permissible, the recipient would need access to authoritative home. This is composed of a number of factors, such information about that individual’s tax status. The Commission as the birth country of the father and the country with would also need access to that information to confirm compliance. which a person feels that they have the most ties. It We think it highly unlikely that this will be achievable in practice, or (if so) that the resulting burden on regulated entities and on is not always straightforward for an individual to HM Revenue and Customs would be proportionate”. determine their domicile status. Many individuals are When we considered this point in Grand Committee unlikely even to be aware of their domicile status, and, of course, tonight, my noble friend Lord Campbell- since it is irrelevant to their tax affairs, and they could Savours and others suggested a number of ways in therefore unwittingly commit an offence by making a which they thought that this problem might be addressed. donation that would be impermissible under these My noble friend suggested that tax returns could amendments. include a tick-box for donors to indicate their taxation It is quite possible for someone to live in the UK for status and that the Electoral Commission could then a number of years without acquiring UK domicile. certify with HMRC that a ticked return had been For example, an Australian might live in the UK for received. 20 or more years but have family in Australia and I have to advise noble Lords that tax returns already intend returning to Australia on retirement. Despite allow for people to declare whether they are resident the fact that this person was paying full UK tax on all and/or domiciled. However, most people are not required earnings, their domicile could still be in Australia, to complete a tax return at all. About 9 million people meaning that, under these amendments, it would be an complete a return each year out of a UK population offence for them to give a political donation. I would of 60 million—that is about 15 per cent. I remind the be grateful if my noble friend would deal with that House that you have to make a return only if, first, example in his reply and explain to the House why the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs sends you one or, amendments in his name would not lead to that completely secondly, if you have tax to pay and it has not sent you unfair result for that individual. one. A vast majority of people pay the right amount Even if Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were of tax under PAYE or because tax is deducted at able easily to establish the taxation status of all donors, source, as with bank interest, so there is no tax to pay questions would remain as to how the requirement in and no return needed. Fifty-one million people in the the amendments could be enforced. Recipients of UK do not make a return each year; 9 million people donations and the Electoral Commission would face do. Thus, for my noble friend’s suggested solution to great difficulty in verifying whether what a donor told work and to ensure that all donors had declared their them about their taxation status was accurate. As the residence status via a tax return, Her Majesty’s Revenue House will know, the 2000 Act requires a donee to and Customs would have to issue many more tax verify that a donation is permissible before accepting returns for non-tax reasons. That would involve significant it. Requiring donees to be certain that a donation is additional public expenditure, including potentially, from an individual who is both resident and domiciled we have been advised, the need to overhaul IT systems in the UK for tax purposes would be a significant to enable them to cope with the routine of tax returns. obligation that the House should be careful about imposing. The obligation could result in a reduction in Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting the income of political parties. that any of the people who pay solely through PAYE are likely to make a massive donation to a political Realistically, the obligation could be satisfied only party? if parties and the commission were granted access to the information held by HMRC, either routinely or on Lord Bach: My Lords, I am explaining that a very a more limited basis. HMRC has a statutory duty large number of people do not fill in tax returns, but under Section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue there may well be people who, as in the Australian and Customs Act 2005 to maintain taxpayer example that I gave to the noble Lord, are not domiciled confidentiality. I hardly need say that the data-sharing in the country but pay UK tax through PAYE and and confidentiality implications of granting an exception have done for many years. That would mean that in the case of all donors are, whether we like it or not, HMRC would have to change the way in which it did significant and would need to be thought through very things at large public expense and with new IT if the carefully. amendments were to be carried and became law. 919 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 920

Requiring donors to tick a box on their return is realistic. My point is that, while in principle it might would not overcome the retrospection objection to be possible, it would require huge amounts of public which I have referred. People are required to complete money and huge changes to the way HMRC works a return 10 months after the end of a tax year. If an before it could be put into operation. I hope that that individual makes a donation in the middle of one tax is a powerful point in suggesting that these amendments, year, it might not be reasonable to expect them to attractive as clearly they are to a number of Members know at that point what their residence status would of the House, are unrealistic and cannot work. be by the end of the year. Even if this information I will come to a conclusion. I apologise for going were collected, it would, as things stand, be illegal for on— HMRC to share it with the Electoral Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, noted tonight as well Noble Lords: Ha! as in Grand Committee that the House of Lords Appointments Commission announced recently that Lord Bach: Well, it is important that the Government it would strengthen the existing criteria requiring that case is put, my Lords, particularly as this is a matter of nominees should be resident in the UK for taxation some controversy in the House. I am sorry if noble purposes. He argued that this process sets a precedent Lords are becoming slightly impatient. As I have said, that could be used to confirm the permissibility of we understand completely the argument that my noble donors. However, the number of people seeking friend makes so well in raising the issue again through membership of your Lordships’ House is far smaller these amendments. I hope that he and other noble than the number who make donations to political Lords have no doubt that the Government take the parties. As we have heard, Electoral Commission data concerns seriously. We are continuing to reflect on suggest that more than 1,000 individual donations how the issue might be taken forward. As I have said, would need verification annually. By contrast, fewer the new democratic renewal council will have the issue than 10 people are appointed to this House annually on its agenda—but as a whole, not in part. These are on the recommendations of the Appointments complex issues—I do not think that any noble Lord Commission. would disagree—that must be considered in detail Indeed, the relationship between the Appointments before any change in this area can be made. Failure to Commission and HMRC is not a formal gateway for do so would leave us with flawed and unworkable law. sharing information. HMRC simply informs the It is all very well for us to talk about our scrutiny role, commission whether an individual meets all the criteria. but that is to make sure that laws are not flawed or These criteria include residence, but also whether there unworkable. Our strong view is that if we pass the is an indication of any tax irregularities such as an amendment, we would be left in that position. investigation being under way. It is important to note Noble Lords will be aware that the issues of that HMRC’s response does not go into detail other constitutional change and renewal are at the top of than to give a yes or no response to the query as to our political agenda. Many options for reform are whether there are any issues of concern in an individual’s being considered and discussed. The amendments before tax records. us, and the debate that we have had today, which I have praised already, are an important part of that Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I must have discussion. However, the Government’s point is that it misunderstood what the Minister said, and I would be would be wrong to make change in only one small area grateful if he would clarify it. The Appointments now, as the amendment seeks to do, without considering Commission, as we all know, is not yet subject to the the whole picture. It would be wrong to pass legislation Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, which stipulates a that would not achieve its objective. It would be statutory appointments commission, and deals in effect particularly wrong to do so before the logistics and only with Cross-Benchers. Am I right that these Cross- data-sharing issues around such a proposal have been Benchers are the people we are talking about? fully worked through. That is a major project, and realistically not one that can be completed between Lord Bach: My Lords, indeed not. It was suggested now and the Summer Recess, which we hope is the that the House of Lords Appointments Commission’s deadline for the Bill to obtain Royal Assent. method of proceeding was a way that Her Majesty’s Of course I ask my noble friend to withdraw his Revenue and Customs could proceed. However, the amendment. If he feels that he cannot, I ask my noble numbers are vastly different—that is the point at issue. friends and other noble Lords to support the Government There are very few people each year who apply to join in the Lobby tonight. the House of Lords compared to the large number of people who make donations to political parties, so it Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend would not be an easy job for Her Majesty’s Revenue had very little to say about the position of the House and Customs to supply answers, whereas it is comparatively of Commons—many of us will wonder why. The hour easy for it to do so for those who apply to join the House. is late, everyone is waiting to vote and there are many Lord Tyler: My Lords, is the Minister saying that, things that I would like to say in response to my noble in principle, it is perfectly possible, and that it is just friend’s contribution. What I will recall from this the numbers that are the problem? debate is his likening of the casting of a single vote to the contribution of millions of pounds to a political Lord Bach: My Lords, in principle almost anything party. They cannot be the same, yet the Government’s is perfectly possible. Those of us here whose job it is to case seems to rest on that proposition, along with all pass legislation that will work in the real world have to the administrative difficulties that they say will arise in look beyond that to see whether what we are suggesting the event that the amendment is carried. 921 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 922

[LORD CAMPBELL-SAVOURS] Sawyer, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. I simply dispute their case. We took widely available Scott of Needham Market, B. Tomlinson, L. advice on the question of what the impact would be Sewel, L. Tonge, B. Sharp of Guildford, B. on the department. The arguments that my noble Tope, L. Sheldon, L. Tyler, L. friend has used this evening are new in that area alone. Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] Wallace of Saltaire, L. All the other arguments that he used are in response to Snape, L. questions, and are arguments that I used in my own Soley, L. Walmsley, B. Walpole, L. contribution and answered quite comprehensively. I Steel of Aikwood, L. Sutherland of Houndwood, L. Warner, L. am indebted to the noble Lords, Lord Tyler, Lord Taverne, L. Whitty, L. Borrie, Lord Williamson, Lord Anderson, Lord Lea Thomas of Gresford, L. Williamson of Horton, L. of Crondall, Lord Oakeshott, Lord Rooker and Lord Thomas of Walliswood, B. Young of Hornsey, B. Warner, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for their contributions. In particular, I NOT CONTENTS would like us to reflect on the words of the noble Ahmed, L. Hooper, B. Lord, Lord Neill. He questioned what the public—the Andrews, B. Howard of Rising, L. man in the street—would say if asked what he expected Anelay of St Johns, B. Howe, E. of Parliament. In his view, my view and, I believe, the Bach, L. Howe of Aberavon, L. view of the great British public, this should be sorted Bassam of Brighton, L. Jones, L. out now. This is our only opportunity and I call upon [Teller] Jopling, L. Bates, L. King of West Bromwich, L. my noble friends to join me in the Division Lobby to Brett, L. test the view of the House. Lindsay, E. Bridgeman, V. Liverpool, E. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. 8.17 pm L. Luke, L. Division on Amendment 29 Brookman, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. McDonagh, B. Contents 107; Not-Contents 85. Carter of Barnes, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Amendment 29 agreed. Chandos, V. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Colwyn, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Division No. 3 Cope of Berkeley, L. Mancroft, L. Crawley, B. Marlesford, L. CONTENTS Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Addington, L. [Teller] Howarth of Newport, L. Davies of Coity, L. Montrose, D. Alton of Liverpool, L. Hughes of Woodside, L. De Mauley, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Anderson of Swansea, L. Hylton, L. Desai, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Ashdown of Norton-sub- Jay of Ewelme, L. Dixon-Smith, L. Myners, L. Hamdon, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Dundee, E. Noakes, B. Barker, B. Jordan, L. Eccles, V. Norton of Louth, L. Barnett, L. Kilclooney, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Perry of Southwark, B. Berkeley, L. Kirkhill, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Pitkeathley, B. Best, L. Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Bilston, L. Layard, L. [Teller] Prosser, B. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Lea of Crondall, L. Filkin, L. Radice, L. B. Lee of Trafford, L. Fookes, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Borrie, L. Lipsey, L. Ford, B. Scotland of Asthal, B. Bradley, L. Livsey of Talgarth, L. Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Seccombe, B. Brennan, L. Maclennan of Rogart, L. Gale, B. Sheikh, L. Campbell-Savours, L. McNally, L. Gardner of Parkes, B. Shrewsbury, E. Carter of Coles, L. Maddock, B. Garel-Jones, L. Simon, V. Chidgey, L. Mar and Kellie, E. Gilbert, L. Skelmersdale, L. Clark of Windermere, L. Mawson, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Smith of Finsbury, L. Clement-Jones, L. Maxton, L. Hanningfield, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Craigavon, V. Meacher, B. Harris of Haringey, L. Temple-Morris, L. Dholakia, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Harris of Peckham, L. Thornton, B. Donoughue, L. B. Henley, L. Tunnicliffe, L. D’Souza, B. Mitchell, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Ullswater, V. Elystan-Morgan, L. Moonie, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Wall of New Barnet, B. Evans of Parkside, L. Morgan, L. L. Young of Norwood Green, L. Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Neill of Bladen, L. Falkner of Margravine, B. Newby, L. 8.27 pm Fearn, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Foulkes of Cumnock, L. B. Garden of Frognal, B. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. Amendment 30 Golding, B. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. Goodhart, L. Palmer, L. Moved by Lord Campbell-Savours Graham of Edmonton, L. Quin, B. 30: Clause 8, page 7, line 37, at end insert— Grantchester, L. Razzall, L. “(3A) A declaration under this section must also state that the Greaves, L. Rea, L. person P is resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Redesdale, L. Part 14 of the Income Tax Act 2007 and is not a non-domiciled Hamwee, B. Rees of Ludlow, L. United Kingdom resident.” Harris of Richmond, B. Rendell of Babergh, B. Hart of Chilton, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Amendment 30 agreed. Haskins, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Haworth, L. Rogan, L. Consideration on Report adjourned until not before Hollis of Heigham, B. Rooker, L. 9.28 pm. 923 Legislative Reform Order 2009[15 JUNE 2009] Legislative Reform Order 2009 924

Legislative Reform (Minor Variations to which include the prevention of crime and disorder, Premises Licences and Club Premises public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. Licensing officers Certificates) Order 2009 will decide if applications meet this basic test, consulting Motion to Approve responsible authorities like the police as necessary. Secondly, the minor variation process cannot be 8.28 pm used to add the sale of alcohol to a licence, to extend Moved By Lord Carter of Barnes the hours during which alcohol is sold and allow the sale of alcohol between 11 pm and 7am. This is very That the draft Legislative Reform Order laid resonant with the findings of the first public consultation before the House on 26 March be approved. document on this exercise. Relevant Document: 7th Report from the Regulatory Thirdly, the applicant must post brief details of the Reform Committee proposed variation on the premises so that residents know about the application and can tell the council if The Minister for Communications, Technology and they have concerns. The local authority must take Broadcasting (Lord Carter of Barnes): My Lords, the residents’ views into account in reaching a decision measure before you is part of the Government’s but it is not required to hold a hearing. These safeguards programme to remove unnecessary burdens on business. should ensure that only genuinely minor variations are The minor variations process will provide an easier, allowed through this simplified process. If, exceptionally, cheaper and quicker way for premises to make small there are any subsequent problems at a premise, local changes to their licences. This is particularly relevant residents can ask for an immediate review of the at a time when pubs and clubs are struggling to licence. survive. It will save the licensed trade valuable time In summary, the order before you today will cut red and money and benefit thousands of voluntary bodies, tape, reduce bureaucracy and save licence holders such as sports clubs, political clubs and village halls, significant sums of money. It will help a wide range of which wish to make small changes to their licences. businesses and voluntary organisations in these difficult A licence holder who wants to change any aspect of economic times. However, it will have appropriate their licence must complete a 16-page application form, safeguards on the impact of risk to residents and copy the application to around eight responsible the public. I beg to move that this House approves authorities, advertise the variation in the local newspaper the order. at an average cost of £200, post a notice outside the premises and pay the local authority a fee, which can Amendment to the Motion range between £100 and £2,000. If local residents and businesses have concerns about the proposed change, Moved by Lord Clement-Jones the local authority must hold a hearing to consider the at end to insert “but that this House regrets the evidence and decide whether the variation should indeed Government’s decision to proceed with the draft go ahead. This process can last up to two months and Legislative Reform Order before section 177 of the costs on average about £600 per application. Licensing Act 2003 has been amended to provide In the Government’s view, it is absolutely right that for an effective exemption of some performances of these safeguards should be in place for variations that live music in certain small premises”. might affect the licensing objectives. However, the full variation process is disproportionate and burdensome for a small, low-risk, low-impact change to a licence. Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that the This might be, for example, relocating a bar, removing Minister will be only too well aware of the interest an out-of-date condition or holding an event once a taken on these benches in the future of live music. week. Since the Act first came into force, a wide range Consistently, my noble friend Lord Redesdale, who I of stakeholders including local authorities, licence am delighted to see here today, during the passage of holders, and live music organisations, have been asking the Licensing Act 2003, and subsequently myself, have for a cheaper, fast-track process for these minor variations. argued that ensuring the ability of musicians to play The proposal before you today is the Government’s music live in small venues, untrammelled by too much response. red tape at best and the full weight of the criminal law How exactly will the minor variations process work? at worst, is vital. Licence holders will make an application to the licensing At the time of its passage, Ministers were confident authority in the normal way but, unlike the full variation of the likely impact of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord process applicants, they will not be required to copy McIntosh of Haringey, the then DCMS spokesperson the application to responsible authorities or advertise in the House of Lords, told this House on 26 November it in a local newspaper. The form will be shorter and 2002: easier to complete. Applications will be decided in “My view is that there will be an explosion of live music as a 15 days with no hearings or appeals and applicants result of removing the discriminatory two-in-a-bar provision”.— will pay a flat rate fee. [Official Report, 26/11/02; col. 736.] While we believe that this process is a significant On 3 July 2003, the noble Lord said in this House: change, it does contain important safeguards and “I would be astonished if there were not a significant increase protections. First, applications will be refused if they in the proportion of pubs putting on live music as a result of this could have any adverse impact on the licensing objectives, Bill”.—[Official Report, 03/06/03; col. 1061.] 925 Legislative Reform Order 2009[LORDS] Legislative Reform Order 2009 926

[LORD CLEMENT-JONES] or fewer and, secondly, the reintroduction of the two- However, the Licensing Act has not delivered an in-a-bar rule for non-amplified music. As the chairman, increase in live music, despite these promises. Back in Sir John Whittingdale, rightly said, 2007, the Live Music Forum, which had been set up in “Youngmusicians often get their first break through performing 2004 by the then Minister, now the noble Baroness, live at small venues”. Lady Morris of Yardley, to advise on the impact of The purpose of today’s amendment to the Motion the Licensing Act on live music, published a report is, yet again, to attempt to flush out the Minister’s and that confirmed that neither an explosion nor even a the DCMS’s intentions. Is there any settled view within significant increase had taken place, and that there the DCMS as to what amendments are desirable and were numerous occasions on which local authorities possible? With whom has it had discussions beyond had adopted widely varying interpretations of the key the MU, UK Music and the LGA? Will the consultation elements of the Act. It turned out that the complexity paper be forthcoming and the consultation be started? of the process involved and the impenetrability of the If so, when? wording of Section 177 of the Act—which was held up during the passage of the then Licensing Bill as a There is no doubt that today’s minor variations great concession for live music in small pub and restaurant order is inadequate and will not deliver what we on venues—had led to the forum being unable to find a these Benches, the Select Committee and UK Music single example where Section 177 was used by licensing want to see. Minor variations to an existing licence are officers or venue owners. So the forum recommended no substitute for a new small-venues exemption under new exemptions for small gigs as a matter of some the Act. The Department for Culture, Media and urgency. Sport itself, in its evidence to the Regulatory Reform Committee included in the committee’s second report, The Live Music Forum’s report was followed by a has warned that many live music applications would BRMB survey commissioned by the DCMS. This not qualify as a minor variation. Licensing experts confirmed that live music in smaller venues had shrunk have already criticised the amendment as being of by 5 per cent overall. In restaurants and cafes, the limited value. The DCMS said: figure was a drop of 12 per cent; and in church halls and community centres it was 24 per cent. As a result, “In many cases the extension of music and dancing beyond 11pm, or the addition of the playing of music to a licence, will not the then Secretary of State, James Purnell, pledged to fall within the definition of a minor variation”. explore exemptions for some venues. In fact, the minor variations procedure has become I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, considerably more complicated as a result of the said in a recent debate in the House, which backs Regulatory Reform Committee’s own views on the that up: previous draft order, published last December. As a “This restrictive legislation has had serious implications for result, the DCMS laid a revised order. Key changes jazz. It has removed hundreds of venues where young musicians have been made: first, to require applicants to advertise can perform and learn to play to an audience”.—[Official Report, proposed minor variations on a white notice outside 4/6/09; col. 316.] the premises for 10 working days; secondly, to give In 2007, 2008 and 2009, the noble Lord, Lord Davies local residents and businesses the right to make of Oldham, on several occasions—notably in the debate representations in writing to the local authority; and, on the guidance under the Act in October 2007 and in thirdly, to require the local authority to consider any reply to subsequent Written Questions—has given such representations received within the 10-day period categorical assurances that amendments to the Act, in arriving at its decision. The Licensing Advisory designed to exempt low-impact or de minimis licensable Group has expressed disappointment as reported in activities, including live music, were being considered. the Explanatory Memorandum to the order in the Discussions with interested parties were happening following terms: and formal consultations would take place. Last May, “All members were disappointed that the original proposal the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that consultations had been diluted and felt that this would render the process less would take place “by the summer”. Last July, he said attractive to applicants with a consequent reduction in take up by that they would take place, “by the autumn”. licensees and therefore in cost savings”. Disappointingly, despite the passage of time, nothing The order has been criticised more heavily by expert at all has emerged. Indeed, the DCMS appears to be commentators. This from a leading licensing lawyer: back-tracking. In the latest reply to a Written Question, “It is likely that the current ‘minor variations procedure’ the DCMS, adopted by many licensing authorities, simply because the Government hadn’t proposed one, will now become a thing of the past. It is “continues to consider how best to encourage live music”.—[Official therefore arguable that the new procedure will make the licensing Report, 20/4/09; col. WA351.] process even more cumbersome than it was before”. “We shall consult,” they say, but there is no longer any Another expert writing in the Morning Advertiser in timing promised at all. April this year said: Most recently, however, and encouragingly, the House “What started off as a helpful gesture by the Department for of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Culture Media & Sport (DCMS) to overcome the elaborate report into the Licensing Act has accepted the case procedure for varying a licence has turned into a pedantic nightmare … We had a simple form of minor variations procedure under the that something needs to be done to encourage more old law, with the licensing justices giving instant decisions, and it live music in smaller venues. It describes the licensing worked pretty well. Residents were not prejudiced, but it gave laws as absurd in this respect. It recommends, first, the operators the opportunity to alter their premises, usually for exemption of small venues with a capacity of 200 people the better”. 927 Legislative Reform Order 2009[15 JUNE 2009] Legislative Reform Order 2009 928

In any event, the order will not benefit the thousands led to the cancellation of performances. This is totally of events in venues that are not already licensed under unreasonable, and at variance with the intentions of the Act. the Act. When asked, the Government were wholly The Government have brought forward this mouse unable to produce evidence that live music generally is of a regulation when they should by now have been linked to disorder. consulting energetically on a new exemption for live I urge the Government to use this opportunity to music in small venues as they promised. The absurdities state clearly what their intentions are regarding the of the Act generally in respect of live music are licensing of live music and to give concrete assurances manifest. The interpretation of the Licensing Act about their intentions towards amendment of the Act. varies widely from local authority to local authority, I beg to move. with some taking a lenient view of incidental music and others a much more restrictive approach. The 8.45 pm guidance, as I foresaw in 2007, definitely needs changing to ensure consistency. Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment We even have the ridiculous situation where the and his explanation of it. The House has heard that former Secretary of State Andy Burnham—I have Section 177 of the Licensing Act was a last-minute talked about a lot former Secretaries of State—recently compromise at a very late stage of the passage of the went to the Knotty Ash Youth & Community Centre then Bill in July 2003. The Bill had twice ping-ponged to hear performances of live music on the centre’s between this House and the other place on the issue of launch as a rehearsal and performance venue. All well an exemption for small gigs. This exemption had been and good but it had no licence: the performances were supported by my party and by the Liberal Democrats, illegal. I have no doubt that there are some very who at the last minute withdrew their support when competent Liverpool City Council officers and DCMS the DCMS offered Section 177 and an exemption for officials, but if they cannot get it right who can? morris and similar dancing. I have even more recent examples of the anomalies The Section 177 amendment demanded by this of the Licensing Act in its treatment of live music. House before the Bill could be approved was intended From 23 June under the Play Me, I’m Yours scheme, to protect certain forms of live music in small premises. 30 pianos will be delivered to the streets of London as The whole process exposed the Act’s absurd overregulation part of Sing London and the City of London Festival of the most innocuous live music against the light 2009. Located on streets, in public squares and parks, touch for canned entertainment, such as big-screen train stations, and street markets, the pianos are there sport in bars. The Act effectively removed the old “two for any member of the public to play. The pianos will in a bar” rule that since 1961 had been available in be in place until 13 July, after which time they will be premises as an exemption from the general requirement donated to local schools and community groups. to hold a public entertainment licence for live music. The initiative, backed by Mayor Boris Johnson, has As I said in the debate on 4 June, the restrictive been widely praised in the national press. However, it legislation had serious implications for jazz. turns out that the provision of pianos in this way is I am sure that the Liberal Democrats have regretted caught by the Licensing Act as provision of an their decision. Section 177 is notoriously difficult to “entertainment facility”. Without a licence obtained understand; it is not any kind of exemption, merely a from the local authority, the organisers would be suspension of certain live music licence conditions in committing a potential criminal offence. It has been a venues already licensed for live music up to a capacity bureaucratic minefield, with every venue and street of 200 people. space that is not already licensed having to be covered The noble Lord has explained Section 177 very either by a new premises licence or a temporary event clearly. It is a complex, probably unworkable provision, notice. I could come up with myriad more exemptions. introduced in the late stages of debate in the Licensing Ministers call the new licensing legislation a licensing Bill in June 2003. As far as I am aware, no venue and regime for the 21st century. However, where live music no local authority has ever used it. It is likely that only is concerned they actually turned the licensing clock a small number of premises will want to take advantage back more than 100 years. A case in 1899 established of these exemptions, which would be of limited value that a pub landlord could let customers use a piano on to most commercial operations. There is no exemption his premises without an entertainment licence. Today, from actually holding the required licence. The such a landlord could face criminal prosecution where Government considered that such exemptions were the maximum penalty is a £20,000 fine and six months not necessary to protect live music, but were forced in prison. Contrast that with the freedom to show to compromise in this House to secure the passage large screen broadcasts of football matches without a of the Bill. licence under this legislation, because the Government Amending Section 177 to create an outright exemption granted that form of entertainment an explicit exemption. for certain small gigs would go a long way to meeting What kind of cultural bias does that show? the demands of the Musicians’ Union, the former Live Finally, the CMS Committee was rightly very exercised, Music Forum and the tens of thousands of musicians as many of us are, by the introduction of what is called and music lovers involved with this debate over many form 696 by the police. This forces all promoters to years. With a little imagination, such an amendment provide personal details of artists: names and dates of could extend exemption to other premises, venues birth, the music they are playing and their target such as hospitals or schools that are not usually licensed audience 14 days before an event. Failure to do so has for live music. 929 Legislative Reform Order 2009[LORDS] Legislative Reform Order 2009 930

[LORD COLWYN] livelihood—or even face six months in prison or a If the public need protection from small gigs, as is £20,000 fine over this. I find such penalties incredible. so often insinuated by the Government, there is a If you said that this was a law passed by a one-party plethora of legislation already in place to address the state, I could understand it, but it was passed by the risk of noise, nuisance, crime, disorder and public Government, claiming that they are doing something safety. How else could big-screen sport in bars escape to increase the amount of live music. entertainment licensing? I find it almost laughable that the Department for The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Culture, Media and Sport can hold its head up and Jones, draws attention to the Government’s failure, call itself cultural. We fought very hard for live music. despite many promises and the recent recommendations I know that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, is taking a of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, to implement personal pop because I was the one who had to stand any exemption for small-scale performances. Bearing down. People tend to forget that we took this to a in mind the high level of interest in matters relating to record number of Divisions. I never get the credit for licensing and the concerns expressed by some local this so I am going to say it now and blow my own authorities, the Government’s recommendation is trumpet in the same way that the noble Lord has done surprising. I support the noble Lord’s amendment. many times. If we had taken it to a further vote, it would have stood as a record for the number of times Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I should perhaps give that we have ping-ponged a single issue between the some history. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has two Houses. It was at that point that the Secretary of alluded to the great battles that we had over the State in another place, the right honourable Tessa Licensing Act 2003. I declare an interest as chairman Jowell, offered me morris dancing. I had 600 morris of Best Bar None, which looks at improving the safety dancers dance in honour of the DCMS in Trafalgar of pubs and nightclubs in the night-time economy. I Square. The Act would have killed morris dancing. At have a great understanding of this issue and have the last minute, when the Secretary of State offered me talked to many publicans about it. Therefore, although morris dancing on the phone, I said, “Excellent. You the Minister’s words sounded very positive, I meet are offering morris dancing. You have got your Bill”. them with a slightly hollow laugh because we have She thought that she had gone too far and said, “It been arguing over this for a long time. does not include cloggers”. There was an intake of The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who has moved breath from another DCMS official on the line; I had from his place quite dramatically in the last couple of not realised that it was a conference call. Another seconds, said that the Liberal Democrats retreated voice on the line said, “Secretary of State, it does from their position. He knows that we have fought this include cloggers”. That is so good, because clogging for a very long time. Before the Licensing Act we both would have been killed as an art form in this country. I took part in a stunt to prove how important live music take this opportunity to hope that the Minister was. We played in the Red Lion pub. When the noble will back morris dancing at the Olympic opening Lord wanted to blow his own trumpet, as a member of ceremony, to show that the DCMS backs culture in the jazz group, we had to throw him out because he this country. would have been the third person to take part in a The problem with the amendment is that it sounds performance, which would have been illegal. Of course, as if the Minister has suddenly spotted a slight problem we did not get much publicity because it happened to with the way in which the Licensing Act has been dealt be the same night that the noble Lord, Lord Archer, with. The Act has been a massive constraint on live received his four-year holiday from the House and the music in this country and has destroyed a vibrant and press seemed to be rather more interested in that. I economic area of the country. Large numbers of bands could never understand that. that have made great wealth for the country started in It was an issue that we then took into the debate on the pubs and clubs, and they are being denied that the Licensing Act because we thought that the “two in opportunity. If we can have live-screen TV—we know a bar” rule was unfair. It stifled a great deal of creativity. that there has been disorder because of live-screen TV, We thought that the Licensing Act would give us great even though it was denied that that would happen—but freedom and the rules would be opened up. Indeed, we cannot have live music when people playing in a the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said: pub tends to calm the situation rather than causing “What the Bill does is to make it much cheaper and easier to violence, we must address the situation. I hope that the get a licence where one is needed”.—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. 1050.] Government do not use this as an opportunity to He went on to say that there would be a great explosion bring something forward and then not keep their eye of live music, which did not turn out to be the case. I on the ball, so that we end up with a bureaucratic mess have talked to many publicans and the amount of red that causes so many problems. tape and bureaucracy, and the difficulty of understanding the regulations, mean that nolicensing will go forward. Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, any attempt, This morning on the radio there were some buskers however modest, towards reducing bureaucracy and playing in a square, which was against the Licensing the burden of red tape must be welcomed. Before Act. I am sure that nobody at the radio station understood going further, I declare some interests. I am a district that. There was that large spontaneous dance at Liverpool councillor. I own an ancient monument and have to Street, which was totally against the Licensing Act. apply for a licence under the Act, and I am chairman There are many examples, which people laugh off, but of the National Playing Fields Association as well a publican faces large amounts of regulation and as chairman or president of my local football and could lose his licence— and therefore his income and cricket clubs. 931 Legislative Reform Order 2009[15 JUNE 2009] Legislative Reform Order 2009 932

On a previous occasion when Section 182 guidance 9pm of the Licensing Act 2003 was debated at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, speaking for The Minister for Communications, Technology and the Government the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, Broadcasting (Lord Carter of Barnes): My Lords, although commented that their Lordships were using the occasion this debate has not packed the Chamber with the same to debate the main principles of the 2003 Act as much number of noble Lords as the previous debate, I, for as debating the guidance which was the subject of the one, recognise its importance. Indeed, tomorrow I debate. It is difficult to debate any aspect of licensing shall be making an Oral Statement to the House on without a reference to some, if not all, the problems the Government’s White Paper following the conclusion created by the 2003 Act. I speak in the hope that one of the work on Digital Britain where, among other day the words spoken in this House will fall on more things, we shall discuss the future of digital radio. I fertile ground than they have done so far. have long held the view that that has the potential to be a driving force for providing outlets and support, The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has spoken particularly for niche music interests and, indeed, far more ably than I could on licensing and music, for jazz. assisted by my noble friend Lord Colwyn and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I again draw to Her I have sympathy with the issue, then, and as noble Majesty’s Government’s attention that the 2003 Act Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has imposed a disproportionate burden on small may know, I have had the good and occasionally organisations, such as social and sports clubs, especially challenging fortune to have spent quite a bit of time in in rural areas where bar receipts can constitute a the past nine months with the music industry on this significant part of income. It is difficult in small issue, among others. While I am afraid that I do not country communities for money taken out of the have the history in my mind that other noble Lords community in the form of licence fees to be replaced have of the debates on what became the Licensing from other sources. Act—I am not overly complaining about that—I am well aware of the level of passionate support on this The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in question, particularly from colleagues on the Liberal another place recently commented that it was highly Democrat Benches. I was not surprised, then, at what unsatisfactory that not-for-profit and sporting clubs could be described as the astonished explosion of with modest turnover and laudable aims should be passion on this issue tonight. The Government are treated in exactly the same way as commercial operations. well aware of the arguments, particularly the debates The committee also concluded that although the Act that still rage around Section 177. had improved the process the system was still too bureaucratic, complicated and time-consuming. I shall try to answer the specific points raised by the Recent press reports have said that the noble Lord, noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and other speakers Lord Carter, is leaving the Government in July after who supported him. I shall come back to deal with presenting the Digital Britain report. I cannot say that some specific questions on the minor variations point I blame him, although I am sure that it will be a loss later. I am afraid that I shall disappoint the noble for the Government. I hope that he will listen to what Lord by saying that the Government cannot agree that has been said today and, before he goes if he is indeed the Licensing Act has made it harder to put on live leaving, make the point to his successor that there are music. Indeed, as the noble Lord will know, the Live issues that need addressing. Music Forum chaired by Feargal Sharkey, who also now chairs UK Music, found that the Act had had a Before finishing, I should comment that the wording neutral impact on live music, while the Live Music in new Section 41B(3)— Survey in 2007 indicated that there had beena5per “could not have an adverse effect”— cent reduction, but that licensing was rarely a factor in is the same wording used in new Section 86B(3)(a). It decisions about whether to put on live music. In fact, is hardly ever possible to say that something could in 2008-09, live music provision increased in licensed never have an adverse effect. The adverse effect might premises by nearly 8 per cent and, with the addition of come from something exceptional and improbable, members’ clubs, there are now more than 90,000 venues but if it could happen, however unlikely the event, the licensed for live music. order says that the local authority must reject the Nevertheless, the Government recognise that there application. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that is evidence to suggest that small-scale, informal gigs the intention behind the wording is for it to be in may have been negatively affected by the Act. We ordinary or reasonable rather than any or exceptional believe—I checked this in the briefing I received—that circumstances. the Government have tried to honour their commitment The Minister might also clarify the wording on the to explore options for further live music exemptions. 15-day limit, which says that if approval for an application As I am sure noble Lords will know, discussions were is not given within 15 days then it is automatically held last year with musicians’ organisations, local rejected, although a reapplication can be made. The authorities and others on draft exemptions for small reapplication, and any subsequent ones, could equally live music events. However, I have been reliably be ignored under the 15-day rule, thereby allowing the informed—and I pressed officials on this point—that application to be rejected without giving any reason as it proved impossible to agree on exemptions that would is required in new Section 86C(5), the last paragraph deliver an increase in live music but still protect the in the order. I would be grateful if the Minister could rights of local residents. It is not the case that the confirm that the Government do not intend the order Government have turned their eye to this question, to be used in that way. but rather that we have sought to find a balance of 933 Legislative Reform Order 2009[LORDS] Legislative Reform Order 2009 934

[LORD CARTER OF BARNES] We still appear to be going backwards. The noble interest. On this basis, the Government have agreed Lord, Lord Carter, talked about the impact of the new with the Musicians’ Union and the LACORS to explore minor variations order on live music, but I thought other ways of encouraging live music. that, forensically, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, had While I understand the noble Lord’s frustration on it absolutely right. This is a minnow of an order, but some of these questions, I was slightly disappointed such as it is, as a lawyer, I could come up with all kinds that he dismissed the entirety of the benefit of the of objections under it. minor variations. Our view is that the minor variations “The variation proposed in the application could not have an bring some advantages, for live music in particular. We adverse effect on the promotion of any of the licensing objectives”. think that the minor variations process, appropriately If I had taken the order seriously, I would have made implemented, will help venues to put on more small points similar to those made extremely well by the live music events. The statutory guidance states: noble Lord, Lord Howard. Frankly, the order will not “It is the Government’s intention that applications to vary a give rise to a greater amount of live music in small licence for live music should benefit from the minor variations venues or in social and sports clubs. process unless there is likely to be an adverse impact on the I am not going to push the amendment to a vote. licensing objectives”. Frankly, I do not think this minnow of a minor The Musicians’ Union, which the noble Lord, Lord variation order merits it. As the Minister knows, over Clement-Jones, mentioned, is one of the bodies we both tobacco advertising and casinos, I have been have engaged with and is the main body representing quite prepared to do the Government’s work for them musicians. It recognises the potential of minor variations and prompt them into action. As regards live music, to increase live music provision. It has formed a new the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has group with local authorities to explain and promote made it plain that the Licensing Act needs primary the benefits of the new process for live music. The legislation to ensure that the necessary exemptions for group is also developing a communications programme live music are created. It seems extremely sad that the to explain the current exemption for incidental music, Government appear to have given up the ghost in the which we accept has had a limited effect, and will see face of objections from the LGA. whether it can tackle other live music issues as they I therefore intend to introduce a Private Member’s arise. We share the noble Lord’s view that these measures Bill that will provide a conditional exemption for live will help to deliver an increase in small live music music in small venues licensed under the Licensing events. The Government undertake to review the situation Act 2003. This exemption will be conditional on in a year’s time when the minor variations and the Section 177, which will be triggered so that a licence other initiatives outlined have had time to take effect. for live music can be reviewed, and if complaints by If necessary, we will revisit the subject of exemptions. local residents are made, then there can be a full, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will take proper hearing. The second element of the Private up the question of Olympic endorsement for morris Member’s Bill will be to reintroduce the two-in-a-bar dancing with my colleague in another place. The rule so that any performance of unamplified live music amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement- by up to two people will be exempt from the need for a Jones, was supported by the noble Lords, Lord Colwyn licence. Thirdly, the Private Member’s Bill will provide and Lord Redesdale, and I ask that the House reject it a total exemption for hospitals, schools and colleges before I return to answer the other questions posed. from the requirement to obtain a licence for live music when providing entertainment where alcohol is not sold and the entertainment involves no more than Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister 200 people. for that reply. Strangely enough, when I started thinking about the kind of response that I was going to put I look forward to debate on that Private Member’s to the Minister, even before this debate, I wrote Bill, which I hope to persuade Members of this House, “disappointing”. The Minister rightly anticipated that and later the Government, to support. I know that I am pretty disappointed by his reply. I suspect that he those provisions will have great support, not only feels that he is coming into a conversation that has down the other end of this building through the been taking place for some time, but it is an important Culture Media and Sport Select Committee, but also conversation for the future of live music. We all thought from all those who have an interest in the spread of the Government were taking part in the conversation, live music in small venues. I withdraw my amendment but it now appears that they have almost given it up, at this point but I look forward to future debate. which is rather sad. Amendment withdrawn. I thank my noble friend Lord Redesdale and the noble Lords, Lord Colwyn and Lord Howard of Rising, Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, I thank the noble for their contributions, all of which were extremely Lord for the gracious and considered manner in which constructive and reveal some of the flaws not only in he withdrew his amendment. I am always shocked to the current Licensing Act, but in the minor variations the core by his disappointment and I hope it will not order. I enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, be repeated tomorrow. This debate clearly needs to Lord Colwyn. I am always willing to have my tail continue and the Government acknowledge that twisted in that fashion. At the time, we accepted a new there is a legitimate debate still to be had around Clause 117 in good faith, and we have now been able Section 177. It is unreasonable to characterise the to repent at leisure, having seen that it is a completely Government as being completely in awe of the LGA’s useless clause that nobody has taken advantage of response—although it is a voice—and we look forward throughout the history of the Licensing Act 2003. to the debate. 935 Legislative Reform Order 2009[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 936

I know I may be slightly out of order, but I was Specifically, Amendment 32 seeks to add clarity to asked a question in the debate on that amendment the process of making an alteration to an existing around the relevance of Form 696 and I wanted to notice appointing a responsible person. The amendment clarify— explicitly states that a notice of alteration takes effect from the day it is received by the commission or from a Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, with some particular date specified in the notice. Previously, the reticence I interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who clause did not explicitly state when a notice of alteration is well respected in these matters. I am confused with would take effect, which could have led to a potential regard to the procedure we are following this evening. dispute over the date on which the appointment took Clearly, I will have to take it up tomorrow to inquire effect. This could be unhelpful; for example, in a case whether the Government intend to introduce a new where it is not clear who is acting as the responsible procedure for the putting of a Motion. I understood person for a members’ association on a particular the Minister to say very courteously that he intended date, which could be important if called into question to answer particular questions after the Motion. It is as part of an investigation. our custom that questions are answered before the Amendment 33 clarifies that a notice appointing a vote on the Motion is put and that the whole of these responsible person has to be in force for a minimum of proceedings are concluded when the noble Lord, Lord 12 months from the point that a donation is received Clement-Jones, in this case, withdraws his amendment. or a loan entered into which triggers the requirement Therefore, we are in uncharted waters but we are a to appoint a responsible person. This was already self-regulating House. I feel that noble Lords wish to implicit in the provision given in Clause 11(4)(b), hear what the Minister has to put on the record but it which states that a notice appointing a responsible is perhaps an unwise development tonight. person, “shall lapse at the end of the period of 12 months’. The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): But it was not explicit that the notice appointing a My Lords, it is my mistake. I should have put the responsible person could not be terminated before Motion straight away. 12 months had elapsed. This amendment puts that requirement beyond doubt. Motion agreed. This is a small but important clarification, given 9.14 pm that one of the key benefits of the policy-reforming regulation of members’ associations is the fact that an Sitting suspended. identifiable individual will be responsible for complying with the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and liable for any failures Political Parties and Elections Bill to comply with that Act. The benefit of this policy is Report (1st Day) (Continued) increased by retaining that individual in post for a significant period. If the members’ association could 9.28 pm appoint somebody when it receives a reportable donation and then terminate that person’s appointment immediately, Amendment 31 not moved. the benefits of the policy would be significantly reduced. It is also worth noting that the requirement does not prevent a change in the responsible person in-year: the Clause 11 : Control of donations to members provisions in the Bill already allow for a notice of associations: responsible persons alteration, altering any details of the responsible person. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these amendments Amendment 32 represent sensible clarifications of this clause. Moved by Lord Tunnicliffe Amendment 34 is a technical amendment concerned with Clause 12 on compliance officers. Specifically, it 32: Clause 11, page 11, line 44, at end insert— relates to the way in which a holder of elective office, “A notice of alteration takes effect on the day on which it is or the compliance officer himself, may inform the received by the Commission or (if later) on such date as Electoral Commission of an alteration to the arrangements may be specified in the notice.” under which the compliance officer has been appointed. The Bill already provides a notice of alteration procedure Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, these are technical which allows any necessary changes to be made, including amendments to Clause 11 on the control of donations the appointment of a new officer. It also enables the to members’ associations. The amendments do not commission to be kept up to date when a compliance materially alter the policy intentions here: rather, they officer’s details, such as their home address, change are intended to ensure that the clause is as clear as it during the period for which he or she is appointed. I can be and that the procedure to be followed when will not speak at length as the amendment is simple giving a notice for the purposes of these provisions is and I hope that it will be welcomed, bringing as it does easily understood. As has been helpfully noted in a little additional clarity to new paragraph 18(7) of previous debates, members’ associations are often Schedule 7 to PPERA, as inserted by the clause. This voluntary organisations and we must make sure that is the provision for giving an alteration notice to provisions regulating them are free of the potential the commission. This amendment mirrors that to to confuse. Clause 11. 937 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 938

[LORD TUNNICLIFFE] Amendments 35 and 36 to Clause 16 clarify that the This amendment will add an additional line scope of these provisions has been broadened so that clarifying the proper effect of a notice of alteration loans as well as donations made by unincorporated by plainly stating that an alteration contained in a associations may trigger the reporting requirements. notice takes effect from the date of receipt of the This is done by replacing the word “donations” with notice by the commission. Alternatively, it will take the term “contributions” or “political contributions”. effect on a date specified in the notice. I hope that this The majority of the amendments in this group are clarity could help to avoid potential disputes over intended to carry through this change. Amendment 37 responsibility that could arise; for instance, if the relates to the powers available under Section 62 of commission was investigating a donation received the Electoral Administration Act 2006 to allow the during a period of transition between individuals in a Government to put in place a regime for regulating compliance officer role. I hope that this clarification loans to third parties and permitted participants in will be welcomed. referendums. The amendments make it clear that those I turn now to Amendments 35 through 37 and 40 powers may amend Schedule 19A to ensure that such through 63. Clause 16 of the Bill and Schedule 4 to the loans would be counted as “political contributions” Bill propose to put in place new regulations applying and would count towards whether the £25,000-plus to donations from unincorporated associations—UIAs. threshold had been exceeded. These provisions would require unincorporated Amendments 40 to 46 flow on from the broad effect associations donating more than £25,000 in a calendar of Amendments 35 and 36 by providing that, where a year to any recipient or combination of recipients UIA’s “political contributions” exceed the £25,000 regulated by PPERA, including political parties, to be threshold in a calendar year, it will be required to subject to a new reporting regime, requiring them to notify the Electoral Commission of that fact within give details to the Electoral Commission of those that 30 days. A UIA could exceed the threshold in several had given significant sums to the association. A significant ways, such as by the making of a single donation or sum in this sense means a sum of more than £7,500. loan or by the making of several donations or loans The amendments that I have tabled will extend the over the recordable threshold, whether they are to the scope of this regime so that it covers situations where same recipient or to different recipients. As before, the unincorporated associations exceed the threshold by result of exceeding this threshold is that the requirement means of giving a loan instead of, or in addition to, a to report gifts received by the association in question political donation. will then kick in. I regret that loans were not covered when we originally Amendment 47 defines “political contributions” tabled these provisions. However, I am keen to ensure for the purposes of the additional reporting requirements that we do not leave any loopholes that could ultimately on UIAs. The provisions as drafted already mean that jeopardise our objective of the transparency regime relevant donations from UIAs to registered parties, for unincorporated associations—that of bringing much regulated donees, recognised third parties and permitted greater transparency to the source of political funding. participants can trigger the additional reporting Without the amendments before us today, I fear that requirements. The amendments that I have tabled Clause 16 and Schedule 4 as they stand could give rise mean that, in addition, the reporting requirements can to situations where UIAs choose to give loans to be triggered by relevant regulated transactions, such parties and regulated donees rather than donations, to as loans to parties or controlled transactions such as avoid the additional disclosure requirements. Let me loans to regulated donees. assure noble Lords that I am also anxious to ensure that the provisions do not place an unnecessary and Amendment 51 clarifies that in the case of loans or disproportionate regulatory burden on unincorporated other regulated or controlled transactions, the value of associations. the contribution that counts toward an assessment of whether the £25,000 limit has been reached is the I will explain the detailed effect of the amendments actual money loaned or liability discharged. This differs and in so doing set out the ways in which we have from the 2000 Act, under which the value of the loan sought to minimise the burden of the requirements. I or other regulated transactions is taken to be the value will talk in detail only on the substantive amendments contained in the regulated transaction under which in this group, rather than trying to address each the loan, credit facility or security is made. This means amendment individually in detail. It is worth my saying that, for example, a political party, in declaring a loan at the outset that these amendments do not fundamentally to the Electoral Commission, is required to declare the alter the underlying policy or the detailed requirements maximum amount that can be drawn down under the applying to unincorporated associations. There are terms of the loan. By contrast, the proposal here is to two exceptions to this, however. One is the key change look at how much money is actually lent. The latter that means that loans from these associations to regulated approach is justified in Schedule 19A to the 2000 Act, entities now fall within the new regime and have to which is inserted by Schedule 4 to the Bill, because, be counted by an unincorporated association when in our judgment, the provisions ought to be as calculating whether the £25,000-plus threshold—and straightforward and easy to operate as possible. the ensuing reporting requirements—has been triggered. The second is that we wish to make it clear that the This is particularly true given that UIAs are not statutory instrument that defines what sorts of gift otherwise directly regulated by the Electoral Commission. have to be reported by an unincorporated association This straightforward approach will mean that UIAs may include loans of money to unincorporated will have certainty, knowing as they will that all outgoings associations in excess of £7,500. from them to political parties or other regulated recipients, 939 Political Parties and Elections Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 940 whether in the form of donations, loans or a combination in the case of an individual donor would be treated in of both, could trigger the requirement on them to effectively the same way as a donation. It is entirely provide additional information about funds they have right that the Minister is spelling out, for example received. in new sub-paragraphs (2)(b) and (2)(d), the ways in Amendment 63 extends the ability of the Secretary which, if the amendments were not incorporated in of State to define the meaning of “gift” in secondary the Bill, these loopholes could be used as a way of legislation so that it can include loans and securities getting around the spirit of the Bill. received on non-commercial terms by an unincorporated association. Unincorporated associations that trigger 9.45 pm the reporting requirements under the terms of the new I will make one further point. I am sure that the transparency regime will be required to report gifts to Minister and his team are fully confident that the them in excess of £7,500. By virtue of this amendment, generic term “contribution” is sufficient to cover all regulations may provide that those gifts might comprise the potential problems and that the definition is sufficiently donations or loans at preferential rates. Provisions substantial and resilient to resist any challenge from setting out the detail of how unincorporated associations our legal friends. I notice in Amendment 125, which is should value such gifts—that is, how they should not part of this group but nevertheless flows from it, decide whether a gift is worth more than £7,500 and the change in title. It is spelled out in slightly more should be reported—will be made in the same regulations detail as “loans and related transactions”, which seems after the passage of this legislation. more comprehensive than simply “contribution”. Requiring UIAs to provide information about loans These are sensible amendments. We are grateful to they receive as well as donations is necessary since Ministers for explaining them in detail this evening failure to require such information might result in and also in the letters that they have sent to prepare us UIAs seeking “loans” to avoid having to reveal any for the changes. We welcome them. information about their supporters. That would clearly run counter to the objectives of the unincorporated association provisions, which have already been agreed. Lord Henley: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the However, in drafting this sort of provision in regulations, Minister for taking so much trouble to explain to the we will of course be mindful that the resulting provisions House the 27 amendments in some 14 minutes—and must be well understood so that the reporting requirements also for writing to us, setting out the various government can be complied with, without undue further burdens amendments, including these, that would come before or complexity being imposed. us. I think that the letter was sent by his colleague, the I believe that Clause 16 and Schedule 4 will bring noble Lord, Lord Bach, on 9 June. We are grateful for additional transparency to large donations to political the clarity that the Minister has added to matters. He parties and other elements of the system. Since these might have got away with a slightly shorter introduction provisions, which bring much desired greater transparency to these amendments by using the letter that he had to donations from unincorporated associations, were already sent out; but no doubt he felt that it was tabled on Report in another place, I am pleased to say important to get it all on the record; and no doubt, that they have commanded a broad political consensus, should a Pepper and Hart situation arise, it will be especially in this House. I hope that we can proceed on useful to have the full and considered response of the a similarly consensual basis on the amendments that I Minister to the amendments. We have no objection to have tabled which make the scheme more transparent the amendments, we are grateful for the explanation by removing the potential incentive for UIAs to change and we look forward to seeing them in the Bill. behaviour to avoid the additional reporting requirements. I commend all the amendments to the House. I beg to move. Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the support that they have given to however Lord Tyler: My Lords, I think that we are all many amendments it was—27. I fear that it was necessary grateful not just to the Minister this evening for explaining for me to read into the record the various reasons. I the rationale behind the amendments but also to his did it as quickly as I could. If I had gone faster, it team for writing to us and explaining the background. would have taken more time. I am assured by officials Although these issues may not seem as controversial that “contribution” is sufficient to cover all relevant as some of those which we have discussed earlier, they matters. I am assured that it is defined as “loans are very important because they close some potential and donations” by government Amendment 51. I beg loopholes. If we have learnt nothing else from the way to move. in which this whole issue has been addressed over the years—not just in this Bill—it is that attempts to find Amendment 32 agreed. loopholes constantly cause us concern, and I am sure that there will be greater ingenuity in future. Amendment 33 We should congratulate Ministers and their team Moved by Lord Bach on the way in which they have tackled the particular problems of unincorporated associations both in 33: Clause 11, page 12, line 4, leave out “A notice under this paragraph” and insert “A notice under sub-paragraph (1) that has Clause 16 and, perhaps even more so, in Schedule 4. I been in force for at least 12 months” notice, for example, that Amendment 47 contains very careful explanations of how loans can be used in a way which is clearly just the same as a donation and which Amendment 33 agreed. 941 Political Parties and Elections Bill[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 942

Clause 12 : Control of donations to holders of elective 36: Clause 16, page 17, line 39, leave out “donations” insert office: compliance officers “contributions” 37: Clause 16, page 18, line 20, at end insert— “( ) In section 62 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 Amendment 34 (c. 22) (regulation of loans: power to make provision for candidates, Moved by Lord Bach third parties and referendums), after subsection (3) there is inserted— 34: Clause 12, page 14, line 46, at end insert— “(3A) The provision that may be made by virtue of “A notice of alteration takes effect on the day on which it is subsection (3)(e) includes, in particular, provision amending received by the Commission or (if later) on such date as paragraph 1 of Schedule 19A to the 2000 Act (requirement for may be specified in the notice.” unincorporated associations to notify Commission of political contributions over £25,000) so that, in the case of a recognised Amendment 34 agreed. third party or a permitted participant in a referendum, a “political contribution” includes a relevant matter.””

Clause 16 : Reports of gifts received by unincorporated associations making donations Amendments 35 to 37 agreed.

Amendments 35 to 37 Consideration on Report adjourned. Moved by Lord Bach 35: Clause 16, page 17, line 36, leave out “donations” and insert “contributions” House adjourned at 9.48 pm. GC 175 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 176 Grand Committee (i) is”— these are the important new words— “or is treated as being subject to sanctions for the purposes of Monday, 15 June 2009. section 20A of the Jobseekers Act 1995”, which covers the denial or reduction of joint-claim Welfare Reform Bill jobseeker’s allowance. I should like the Minister to explain what difference Committee (3rd Day) exactly the new wording makes. Why are we treating members of a couple as being subject to sanctions and 3.30 pm not individuals within that couple? I expect that there is a very good reason, but the drafting is a little The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): impenetrable and I would welcome the light of clarity Before commencing proceedings, I must advise the being shone into the Stygian drafting gloom. Why is Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber “treated as being” so important that the draftsman, while the Committee is sitting, the Committee will be having had his attention drawn to subsection (5), adjourned as soon as the Division Bells ring and decided to leave paragraph (b) as it is? I beg to move. resume after 10 minutes. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Clause 1 : Schemes for assisting persons to obtain Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of employment: “work for your benefit” schemes etc. Luton): Subsection (5) is a technical provision and ensures that there are no loopholes for members of joint-claim couples who do not participate in “work Amendment 24 for your benefit”. It is important to ensure that the Moved by Lord Skelmersdale new provisions we are introducing for “work for your benefit” do not have undesirable and unintended effects 24: Clause 1, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (5) elsewhere in social security legislation. Removing the entire subsection would mean that if Lord Skelmersdale: I have been taken by surprise, as one member of a joint-claim couple is sanctioned for I rather expected the Deputy Chairman to announce not participating in “work for your benefit” and the that if this amendment were agreed to, it would pre-empt other claimant is subject to a sanction for benefit the next amendment in the large group of government fraud, JSA could still be payable. That would undermine amendments that follow. the incentives to participate in the programme, and I tabled Amendment 24, which removes subsection create an inconsistency between “work for your benefit” (5) from proposed new Section 17B, because I was and other employment programmes. curious as to just what the Government were up to. I As the noble Lord just identified, Amendment 25 is tabled the amendment before the Government got a government amendment which deletes part of this round to tabling their own, which is now listed in the subsection, and I shall come on to why we need to do Marshalled List as Amendment 25, which removes the that when I speak to that amendment. However, to first part of the subsection. I expect that we will hear delete the entire subsection would have the effects that why in a moment. However, I decided to table this I have outlined. I hope that the noble Lord will not amendment so that I did not steal the Minister’s press his amendment. thunder in the next group. I think that Amendment 25 It may be helpful if I place on the record a rather is perhaps consequential on later amendments in the convoluted technical description, so that the noble Government’s list; or perhaps it is the other way Lord and others may be able to peruse it at their round, and those amendments are consequential on leisure. Clause 1(5) amends Section 63(2)(b)(i) of the Amendment 25. Whichever it is, they are sensibly Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 grouped. However, I will hold out for a brief explanation and Section 8(2)(b)(i) of the Social Security Fraud Act of what subsection (5)(b) does—the bit that is left 2001 by inserting after “is”, “or is treated as being”. after the Government have drawn a red line through The purpose of this subsection is a little convoluted, their own drafting. as the noble Lord noted, but it is essentially consequential Subsection (5)(b) amends Section 8(2)(b)(i) of the on new Section 17A(7) of the Jobseekers Act 1995, as Social Security Fraud Act 2001, which deals with the inserted by Clause 1(2). New Section 17A(7) is about effect of committing an offence on the allowance for sanctions for persons who fail without a good cause to joint-claim jobseekers—in other words, couples. With turn up for a “work for your benefit” session where he the inserted words, that part of the 2001 Act will read: or she claims jobseeker’s allowance as a member of a “8 Effect of offence on joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance … joint-claim couple. New Section 17A(7) states that in (2) The allowance shall not be payable in the couple’s case for so those circumstances the participant is “to be treated much of any period comprised in the disqualification period as is as” subject to sanctions for the purposes of Section 20A a period for which— of the Jobseekers Act 1995. (a) in the case of each of the members of the couple, the restriction in subsection (2) of section 7 would apply if the In other words, it switches on the provisions of entitlement were an entitlement of that member to a sanctionable Section 20A, which is an existing provision of the Act. benefit; or Section 20A concerns sanctions for a member of a (b) that restriction would so apply in the case of one of the JSA joint-claim couple who fails without good cause members of the couple and the other member of the couple— to comply with a jobseeker’s direction or to attend a GC 177 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 178

[LORD MCKENZIE OF LUTON] Lord Northbourne: Having listened to the Minister’s training scheme or an employment programme. If exposition of the position, I was only going to say that only one member of the couple is subject to a sanction, of course we all understand entirely what he said—but a reduced amount of JSA is payable to the couple for it might not necessarily be wholly comprehensible to the period of the sanction. If both members are subject the ordinary jobseeker. That seems very bad PR. If to sanction, payment of JSA is suspended altogether. our advisers are trying to be jobseekers’ friends, surely Section 63(2) of the Child Support, Pensions and we want to try to make the Bill simpler so that people Social Security Act 2000 and Section 8(2) of the Social can understand what it is saying. Security Fraud Act 2001 apply where a sanction is imposed on one member of a JSA joint-claim couple Lord McKenzie of Luton: We are dealing here with who has breached a community service order—this is a technical provision to ensure that the legislation the provision that we are going to remove—or been works as we want it to. Bits of it will not routinely be convicted of benefit fraud and the other member is consulted although customers may have a technical already subject to a sanction under Section 20A of the interest in those bits if they want to challenge something. Jobseekers Act 1995. In these circumstances, benefit is This provision ensures that the technical framework is stopped altogether until the earlier of the two sanctions right and facilitates an appropriate sanctions regime. expires. Clause 1(5) therefore ensures that Section 63 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 and Section 8 of the Social Security Fraud Lord Skelmersdale: I have clearly hit on a most Act 2001 would work properly where one member of a abstruse and difficult point. By no means do I regard JSA joint-claim couple was sanctioned for a breach of myself as a lawyer, and I hope that the rest of the a community service order or for benefit fraud and the Committee do not regard me as a barrack-room lawyer other member was sanctioned for failing to turn out either. I note, however, that the Notes on Clauses say, for “work for your benefit”. as did the Minister, that the same approach is being followed as in Section 68 of the Welfare Reform and That is the logic of the technicalities behind the Pensions Act 1999, but that the Social Security Fraud provision’s original construction. Perhaps when I move Act came afterwards. Perhaps we had a different the next amendment I can explain further why we draftsman, or perhaps something else happened, but believe that part of it should now be deleted. clearly there was an error in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 in this respect. As I said, I will read very Lord Skelmersdale: I think that I understand the carefully what the Minister has said. I doubt whether Minister’s explanation. Perhaps I should have tabled it is a subject to which it will be necessary to return at an amendment to line 31 on page 2 to leave out the the next stage of the Bill. However, a meeting or an words, exchange of letters might be an appropriate way forward. “is to be treated as”. Although the Minister has explained that the person Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am certainly happy to would “be treated as”, why not just get on with it and have a meeting with the noble Lord to give him a more do so? detailed explanation. I want to place on record that we are not saying that we think the Social Security Fraud Act was incorrectly drafted in this respect. These Lord McKenzie of Luton: I hope that the technical provisions will ensure that the pre-existing provisions note I have just read out explains the connection with are properly tied into what we want to achieve in the the existing sanction provisions that needs to be made Bill. However, perhaps we can discuss that elsewhere. for these new arrangements, which is, “is to be treated as”. Lord Skelmersdale: The phrase “buckets of salt” It is the link to the provisions in the Bill and to Section comes to mind. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the 20A that drives this action. Not only do we need the amendment. word “is”, we need “is to be treated as”. That is why we need to insert the phrase. Amendment 24 withdrawn. Lord Northbourne: I can envision an adviser— Amendment 25 The Deputy Chairman of Committees: A Division Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton has been called in the Chamber. The Grand Committee 25: Clause 1, page 4, line 12, leave out paragraph (a) will resume at 10 minutes to four.

3.40 pm Lord McKenzie of Luton: I shall speak also to the other government amendments in this group. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. In 2001, the Government introduced a pilot scheme in four areas to apply a benefit sanction to those found to be in breach of their community orders. The pilot 3.50 pm covers Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Teesside and the The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble West Midlands and is a joint initiative run between the Lord, Lord Northbourne, was in full flow. I apologise Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry for interrupting him. of Justice. GC 179 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 180

The aim of the pilot was twofold: to link the receipt compliance and if, as the Minister said, the costs of of benefit more closely to the fulfilment of responsibilities sanctioning and of transferring information between to society, and to encourage greater compliance with the courts, the benefit system and the potential community community sentences. The scheme applies to those offender outweighed the benefits of the scheme, are offenders in the pilot areas who are aged between there any lessons to be learnt from the evaluation in 18 and 59 and receiving jobseeker’s allowance, income terms of the work we are doing on this Bill? There support or certain training allowances. should be some questions about hardship payments, The new clause to be inserted after Clause 22 will for example, because they were part of the pilot and bring the pilot scheme to an end, and the other may be part of the new legislation that we are putting amendments are consequential on this. It was always in place with this Bill. the intention to evaluate the overall impact of these It is a little casual, if I may put it that way, for the pilots before making a decision to introduce it nationally. Minister to say, “These plans were put in place in Evaluations of the scheme have shown modest 2001. They were too expensive and did not work very improvements in compliance, but any savings made in well, so let us take them out of the legislation”. I think running it are outweighed by the overall running costs. that we are entitled to a little more than that. A Additionally, new measures introduced since the written evaluation of the scheme must have been introduction of the pilots have proved to be more shared between the department and the Ministry of effective in holding offenders to account for non- Justice, if no one else, and I for one would not mind compliance of community sentences. The Criminal seeing it. If it is not classified information—although I Justice Act 2003 strengthened measures on compliance am always looking for state secrets if I can find and enforcement and courts must hold offenders to them—perhaps the Minister can put a copy of it in the account in all cases where they do not comply with Library. There may be lessons that are directly apposite their order. This includes the power to send the offender to the legislation we are considering. If that is so, the to prison for up to 51 weeks. In weighing up the Committee should see the fruits of the conclusions improvements made with the introduction of other that the Government reached in withdrawing the scheme. measures against the total cost-effectiveness of running the pilot scheme, we have concluded that it should not 4pm be rolled out nationally and should come to an end. Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the person who I reiterate that the amendment to the first part of had the honour, privilege and pleasure of introducing the provision that we have been debating is consequential this in the first place, I congratulate my noble friend on this new clause. I beg to move. on coming to a clean decision on it. The easy way would have been to have let them fall into disuse Lord Skelmersdale: Unlike with local housing without actually changing the legislation. My noble allowance, there has been a fairly prompt evaluation friend is to be congratulated on cleaning it up in of this pilot. I note that the Minister said that it did this way. not appear to make much difference and, in any case, At the core of the problem—this is why the pilot at that it was not cost-effective. That is a very good the time was limited in its geographical areas—was the reason for not pursuing it. We shall deal with pilots issue of double jeopardy. The question was whether it more generally later in our deliberations. However, was legitimate to sanction someone for failing to can the Minister tell me when the pilot finished and observe a community sentence which meant, if that how long the Government took to evaluate it before sentence was being properly monitored, that that person the decision was made? should have gone back to prison anyway. At the time, the changing direction of the Probation Service had Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: This is an interesting not been sufficiently clarified so we were putting financial moment at which to stop and reflect on how the pilot sanctions in that would not have been needed if the worked out in practice. I remember it very well. It was Probation Service had been working effectively; they very controversial in 2001—when, indeed, the noble would not have applied or, indeed, been relevant. Baroness, Lady Hollis, was at the sharp end—which What has happened, as I think my noble friend was quite a while ago. If the pilot was carried out said, is that since 2003 we have sharpened that aspect. under Section 19 of the 1995 Act it should have been Given that most of those offenders should not be in a limited to one year. It may have been introduced position where they are receiving any benefit in the through joint legislation in conjunction with the Ministry first place, there is not much point having sanctions on of Justice or the Home Office—I do not know—but benefit for people who are not receiving it. Clearing up 2001 is a long while ago. I would like to know exactly the legislation has made that section of the original when the pilot ended and when the evaluation was 2001 Act largely redundant. made available. It was uncomfortable because we were trying to The potential sanctions were for up to 26 weeks’ work out whether it was reasonable to go for what benefit. That will be familiar to Members of the some people were alleging was double jeopardy or Grand Committee because those are exactly the kind whether, in the absence of an even degree of involvement of sanctions that are applicable under the provisions by the Probation Service in enforcing community orders, of this Bill. Although the community service sanction, anti-social orders and so on, it was legitimate to have as it became known, is not in point with our this as an additional penalty. We were trying to steer a unemployment scheme—I understand that perfectly line through that, and I am delighted that we do not well—the possibility of improving compliance is an have to continue to do so. We should congratulate my essential part of the Bill. If the pilot did not improve noble friend on clearing it up for us. GC 181 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 182

Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am grateful to my noble evaluation, and indeed any follow-up evaluation that friend, as ever, for her explanation of her engagement is in the public domain. I should be very happy to do in this at an earlier stage. In February 2004 the DWP that. I hope that that will reassure noble Lords. There published an independent evaluation of the community is nothing sinister in this. sentences on withdrawal-of-benefit pilots. The evaluation highlighted a small increase in the number of people Lord Skelmersdale: What I think the noble Lord, who complied with their community sentence because Lord Kirkwood—I am putting words into his mouth of the sanctions policy, and it was agreed that the now—and I would require is a timetable, not least a length of the pilot would be extended to test the timetable between the decision to end the pilots and scheme further, looking at any lessons learnt before the finish of the independent evaluation, showing how making a decision to roll it out nationally. long it took. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said, The introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, this is directly relevant to the pilots within the ambit of to which my noble friend has just referred, brought the Bill—which of course are extended from one year new rules to manage the breach. Any need for the to three years, except for one or two of them which pilots to continue was effectively ended by the measures suddenly become two years. I shall have a lot more to introduced by the Act to address breach; the Act say about that a bit later in our proceedings. Judging replaced existing community sentences with a new by the speed we are going, I do not think that that will community order, which was implemented with effect be today. from April 2005. The Act removed the court’s discretion on whether or not to punish breach, which meant that Amendment 25 agreed. a court then had to take action. Will we learn the lessons from this? Yes, of course. We hope that piloting an evaluation will always lead to Amendment 26 learning lessons, so that we can ensure that we put into Moved by Lord Skelmersdale effect in future policy development those things that we have learnt. 26: Clause 1, page 4, line 16, at end insert— A Statement was made by the right honourable “( ) No provisions in this section shall come into effect unless the Secretary of State is satisfied with the readiness of job centres Jack Straw in February this year indicating that the to manage “work for your benefit” schemes.” pilots would be brought to an end, so that is already on the record. I am happy to make details of that independent evaluation available to the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale: We now come to an even knottier problem: what exactly is going on in jobcentres up and down the country? I have suggested that we insert the Lord Skelmersdale: Like the noble Baroness, Lady words of this amendment at page 4, line 16, and I was Hollis, I am delighted to discover that when a pilot very pleased to see that the noble Baroness, Lady does not work very well, as this one did not for the Thomas, has added her name to it. reasons that the Minister gave in his opening address, As discussions on new proposed new Section 17A it is done away with within a legislative framework. have shown, the Government, with the backing of my I am getting more and more confused, though. party, are embarking on what by any standard is a Again, this needs explanation outside the Committee. huge and complicated endeavour—getting millions of If the original legislation was in 2001, presumably the people back into work in any of the past 10 years first pilot started in 2002. At that point it was allowed would not be quite so daunting as it is at present. to run for one year, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, Given that unemployment decreases always lag behind said. It was then carried on to 2004, at which point any growth in GDP, this huge task must start in each there was an independent evaluation. It was then case with human contact, personal understanding and extended, presumably until 2005—or as it 2006? It was tailored support, on which we have amendments a not until February this year, three years later, that the bit later. right honourable Mr Straw made a Statement on the Throughout our debates in the last two sittings we subject. Does it really take three years for the final have had those thoughts as the background to our evaluation? I think that there is more to this than speeches. The time has come to crystallise those thoughts meets the eye. However, I doubt that the Minister, at into a single narrative—that is, the type of person, and this moment, can go any further—although he is his work parameters, within Jobcentre Plus. Clearly looking fairly pregnant, so perhaps he can. the jobseeker cannot have the required contact, who is unable to give personal understanding and tailored Lord McKenzie of Luton: No, I was just looking to support without an aid—a minder, if you like. This aid scotch the suggestion that there is more to this than is called his personal adviser and is to be found in a meets the eye; generally there is not, so far as I am jobcentre. Jobcentres have been on my mind ever since aware. These pilots were introduced and the change to becoming a health and social services Minister in the the law which I indicated was the key issue which Northern Ireland Office. I set myself the goal of caused these to be, in a sense, outdated. In any event, visiting each of the then 23 jobcentres in the Province. on a value-for-money basis they have proved not to be Alas, I was decommissioned before I could achieve it. effective. It is no more complicated than that. If it will I did, however, manage to visit the majority, including help, I will circulate to all noble Lords attending this the Falls Road—but that is another story. On the sitting a copy of the Statement made by the right whole, I expressed myself as confident that what they honourable Jack Straw and a copy of the independent were doing was both needed and effective. GC 183 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 184

Under this Bill, each personal adviser will have a on refurbishing the remainder? How many jobcentre number—presumably a very large number at the moment, jobs have been made redundant? This has sensibly though hopefully it will decrease in due course—of stopped because of the severity of the recession, but jobseekers on his or perhaps the jobcentre’s books. He the system I have described goes on. In this age of is, as I said, already working in some capacity in the instant communication by computer, is it really necessary local jobcentre—within, that is, its remit and current for the jobseeker to have to repeat his details again and practices. My honourable friends and I have been again? What I have described is what is happening investigating what happens now in jobcentres. The now. Proposed new Section 17A tacks on yet more unemployed individual enters. After some time, because work to a system which, to coin a phrase, is already there is likely to be a queue, he is seen by a job adviser. not fit for purpose. Is personal advice a new job Although the latter has a number of jobs available, it is description or is the role of the personal adviser to be unlikely that there will be a vacancy suitable for the carried out by the existing job advisers? My own view individual. The Minister should tell us how many of is that they are two completely separate jobs and the 1,464,100 people claiming JSA on the last occasion should be seen as such. that my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy asked After the jobseeker has seen a job adviser—not about the unemployment figures—22 April—accepted necessarily the same one—numerous times, he will be jobs that were actually advertised in jobcentres. Does referred to a personal adviser. What will the personal he feel that all local job vacancies are known to job adviser know about him? On current form at jobcentres, advisers? I was told that one jobcentre did not even the answer will be “nothing at all” until the jobseeker know what public service or council jobs were available goes through his work history, if any, and his long locally. That is not a happy picture, as I am sure noble period of unemployment. These facts will no doubt Lords will agree. have been repeated time and again over however many The net result of such interviews, especially in these years he has had contact with the jobcentre. How straitened times, is highly unlikely to be fruitful in that many millions of pounds have this Government spent rarely will the jobseeker be offered an interview for a on computers in jobcentres since 1997? Why are they job. What is next? The answer is that he will be not used to short-circuit what, by any definition, is a referred to a financial adviser. In most cases, he or she burdensome process to DWP staff and jobseekers will be advised to claim jobseeker’s allowance. To alike? achieve this, he then has to telephone the contact centre, and when eventually he gets through, he will 4.15 pm have to give the information he has given to the two Combing through pages 1 and 2 of the Bill, we have previous advisers all over again. The claim for JSA is learnt a lot about the relationship between the unemployed then sent to the delivery centre. At present, I am told, person and the personal adviser. We have learnt about there is a massive processing backlog and it is many the sort of things that the personal adviser suggests days before the individual gets any benefit. Often he are appropriate in moving his client closer to the job will have to apply for a crisis loan from the Social market. However, we have not heard about the context Fund, in the course of which he will have to repeat his in which the personal adviser is doing his job. circumstances yet again. In the future this may be Before I finish with this amendment, I wish to say contracted out under Clause 15 of the Bill, which we how grateful I am to the Minister for the letter with will come to, and no doubt occasion still more delay. case studies that I received on Thursday morning. Not What is the current time between applying for JSA surprisingly, all of them are best-case scenarios with a and actually receiving it? happy ending in each example. They all show without What a system to cope with the deepest recession in peradventure the sensitive and continuing involvement living memory. It is both time-consuming and repetitive, of the case officer, now known as the personal adviser. and suggests that the 19th century is alive and kicking. This is even more vital when we get to Clause 2. We Can you imagine the frustration this causes to jobcentre need to be assured that this will not overload an front-line staff who are, to a man and woman, dedicated already busy jobcentre which already suffers from the to helping unemployed people? Can you imagine, too, hang-ups that I have described and that personal the stress of these hoops that the jobseeker has to go advisers will be properly trained for the work that they through? It is almost as though the system is designed are to undertake. I understand that this training is to to put people off. I do not believe that for a moment, comprise a three-day course. How on earth personal but what I do believe is that the jobcentre has become advisers can possibly detect the effect of drug addiction dysfunctional. Part of the problem is the Government’s or mental health after such a short time beggars box-ticking and target mentality. Every weekday, description. I hope that I am wrong about the three-day thousands of job-focused interviews take place and no course and that the Minister will slap me down. On doubt all the targets are met and the boxes ticked, but that basis, I beg to move. how demoralising it must be for the staff. It is not their fault that their clients do not find a job, and it is not Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I congratulate the the client’s fault either. However, it is within their noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on this amendment, remit to make the system more user-friendly unless, of which gives us the chance to discuss whether all Jobcentre course, directions have to be given from on high, Plus offices around the country will have enough meaning Whitehall. I rather hope that that is not required. high-quality trained staff properly to manage “work Ministers claim that all is well. Jobcentres are doing for your benefit” schemes. As the noble Lord said, the the best they can, yet how many jobcentres have been Minister has kindly provided us with interesting case closed in the past year and how much has been spent studies—which I would call positively Panglossian—in GC 185 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 186

[BARONESS THOMAS OF WINCHESTER] Lord Rix: This amendment tills the ground for my which personal advisers were crucial in providing the own amendments on learning disability which come right help and advice, and in understanding different later. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, situations and being flexible in a number of challenging for moving it. I received the Part 1 case studies from circumstances. However, I should like to know who the Minister and was grateful to receive them, though will monitor each Jobcentre Plus to ensure that these there was nought for my comfort in them. I certainly personal advisers and decision-makers, who are to do welcome the amendment. such crucial work in the future and who will have such an enhanced role in their clients’ cases, are up to Baroness Turner of Camden: I, too, support the the mark. amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I do not know whether any noble Lord listened to for bringing it to our attention. “You and Yours” before lunch today, in which there The noble Lord uses the term “user friendly”. This was a section all about people’s experiences in Jobcentre is complex legislation and the people entrusted with Plus offices. It was not a very happy programme to the task of providing a service have to be effectively which to listen. When it had just finished, the programme- trained in order to provide it. I know from such makers were inundated with phone calls and e-mails, contact as I have had that it is a tough job now with people saying that their experiences were not very working in jobcentres. I can recall jobcentres where happy at all. there are barriers to prevent people leaping over and I have also had the benefit of some very interesting assaulting the staff. Often the staff have to deal with input from a large CAB in the north of England. dissent, various problems and so on. Quite obviously a It said: degree of training will be necessary in order to cope “DWP policy, as stated in the Jobcentre Plus Service Standards, with this extensive and complicated legislation. Exemptions is to offer assistance completing forms to people who, because of will have to be dealt with, and by the time that we have disability or a language barrier, would struggle to complete forms finished with this legislation in Committee and on themselves. We had a case recently where a disabled client sought Report there may be even more exemptions. There has a face-to-face appointment at a Jobcentre for help completing a to be a training programme that enables those who are form. Our adviser went through ten people at JCP, citing the Service Standards each time, before he managed to obtain an responsible for putting it into operation, so that they appointment for the client”. can provide the service that we all expect them to Another problem is the use of telephones. A lot of deliver. I support this amendment and hope that my people are told when they go to Jobcentre Plus offices noble friend the Minister will accept it either in this to go away and use the telephone. DWP policy is that form or in another appropriate form. jobcentres should provide phones, but this does not seem to happen in practice. My informant said that it The Countess of Mar: I, too, support the amendment. troubles him that people inquiring about crisis loans I have tabled a later amendment in regard to people are routinely treated in this way in direct contravention with fluctuating conditions and the training necessary of paragraph 23 of part 3 of the Social Fund guide, to deal with them. which states: I was horrified to hear the noble Lord, Lord “customers who are already in the office must never be told to go Skelmersdale, say that there would be three days’ home and telephone”. training. I told the Committee last week that I worked The role of Jobcentre Plus personal advisers and in the Ministry of Pensions 50 years ago. I had six decision-makers is becoming more important as the weeks’ training, and things were much less complicated Flexible New Deal is rolled out this autumn and the in those days. I therefore hope that the noble Lord is “work for your benefit” schemes are piloted. They are wrong. expected to deal with those who can hardly understand I am particularly concerned about the over-50s. On English, who may be unable to read and write, who Friday, there was a little article in the Telegraph which have learning difficulties, or those who have multiple stated: problems. Their clients may be violent, abusive, angry, “White-collar professionals have been hit hard by the recession clinically depressed, truculent or just desperate for a … the number of managers and professionals claiming Jobseeker’s job. A lot is being asked of these people, the number of Allowance jumped by 154 per cent”— whom has had to be increased very quickly as Jobcentre I do not have dates— Plus offices have become busier. How confident can we be that the training is now adequate to cope with “while for skilled trade workers the increase was 77 per cent”. this increased caseload? Who will judge when a JCP is These are big numbers—118,700 managerial people ready to roll out of a “work for your benefit” scheme, and 589,000 skilled trade workers. That is a lot of provided, of course, that it passes all the evaluations people to cater for. The noble Lord’s correspondence after the pilot scheme? of last week showed that advisers will spend a lot of time with each client, but how will jobcentres cater for Baroness Afshar: Will specific training be given on these increases in unemployed professionals, let alone how to deal with minorities, among whom any kind of unskilled workers? I am very seriously concerned nervous disease or depression is seen as unacceptable about that and I expressed these concerns at Second and who do not admit to having any such disease? It Reading. even takes people familiar with the problem a long time to find out that it is not just a headache but a Lord Northbourne: I strongly support the amendment, long-term depression. Will the appropriate training not unnaturally in the context of what we discussed be given? last Thursday; namely, the need for advisers to understand GC 187 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 188 about the family dynamics of the person who is being 4.30 pm interviewed. I also support it in the context of everything In addition, table 2 at page 102 of the May 2008 that has been said around the Committee. It increasingly departmental annual report envisages, as I read it, a sounds as if an adviser’s job is an extremely complex reduction in spending on employment programmes and difficult one and that much longer training than is from £825 million to £494 million in 2010-11. A at present envisaged ought to be put in place. complicated note, number 7 on page 106, seeks to qualify that, but a reduction from £825 million to Lord Skelmersdale: Before the Minister replies, I £494 million between 2007-08 and 2010-11 is a big fall. say to the noble Lord and to the noble Countess, Lady It may be that other money is floating around. The Mar, that the three days I mentioned was on top of the Government’s stated position is that they are spending training that already exists within Jobcentre Plus. £1.3 billion a year on employment programmes. I cannot find that figure in the annual report. Perhaps I am not correctly adding up the tables, or perhaps I am Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: I add my support for looking at the wrong pages. However, there is an awful Amendment 26. We are indebted to the noble Lord, lot of difference between that and being able to say Lord Skelmersdale, for bringing it forward. It is easy with confidence that for the next three to five years we to forget that Clause 1 is about an employment programme shall spend £1.3 billion on employment programmes, that will largely be contracted out. This amendment is as has been broadly described. apt as regards not only this clause but the totality of That will also affect staff numbers, because table 6 the Bill. I hope the Minister will understand that we of the departmental report shows that the number of are raising these issues because the Bill is so ill constructed working-age permanent staff would fall from 73,980 that it is very difficult to get hold of issues such as in 2005-06 to 66,697 in 2008-09. Are these figures still resourcing, which is a fundamental part of the Bill. I appropriate and relevant? These programmes will take have a couple of points to make on that front. It is very careful implementation. The fundamental point easy to underestimate the amount of benefit churn of this amendment is that we have to be sure that the that we will see over the next three to five years. The weight of this policy can be carried by the resources number of people who will be reassigned to this and that the Government are devoting to it. All I am that and the amount of effort, money, back-office saying is that my reading of the departmental annual inquiry, checking, rechecking and reassigning will all report does not give me any confidence that that is be unprecedented in the 20 years of experience that I happening—indeed, the reverse. It shows that resources have in following these policies, and that is saying are leaching from the system. If that is true, we need to something. A huge amount of administrative work face up to it and we should be told about it. will be done that will benefit no one, although it is I hope that I will be proved wrong and that the important that it is done correctly, efficiently and Minister can correct my arithmetic and point me to speedily so that people can get the services to which more updated tables. It is not safe to proceed in these they are entitled. An enormous change is envisaged in debates, even on the basis of Clause 1, if Jobcentre the Bill and we should not forget that. Plus is being affected by the plans that were published I shall try to relate my second point more to Clause 1 in May 2008. We deserve and will be looking to the than to anything else. The departmental expenditure Minister to give reassurances that the money is actually plans should come with a health warning, because we there to deliver this policy properly. should have had the 2009 expenditure plans by now. I wonder why they are late. The previous ones were produced in May 2008. We are now past May 2009, so Lord McKenzie of Luton: This has been an interesting all the figures to which I am about to refer are out of if somewhat extensive debate around a range of issues date in more ways than one. All the figures arise—I which focused on training. If I may, I should like to hope I can get this confirmed—against a background deal in more detail with training in respect of mental of the 2007-11 Comprehensive Spending Review envelope, health and learning disabilities when we consider those which requires the department to make annual savings amendments shortly. I can deal with them now if of £1,225 million. I should like to have that confirmed noble Lords so desire. because the 2007-11 Comprehensive Spending Review This amendment is focused on the “work for your is very ambitious. It was cast in a very different set of benefit” provisions of Clause 1 which, obviously, we economic circumstances and will run to 2010-11. If shall start by piloting. With respect, the noble Lord, the DWP still anticipates saving £1,225 million each Lord Skelmersdale, conflated the routine procedures year, we should know that. and process through the JSA route. People to whom Table 1 of the May 2008 document, at page 98, “work for your benefit” will be relevant will in general shows that the total departmental expenditure limit have been in the system for two years. These are not peaked in 2007-08. It was at £7.994 billion and was new claimants but people who would be known to projected to fall to £7.460 in 2010-11. Those figures Jobcentre Plus and have gone through the three stages will have changed by now, and I expect to see the and the Flexible New Deal and then moved on to changes referred to if not in the May 2009 annual “work for your benefit”. report then certainly in the Pre-Budget Report Statement I am bound to say that some of the descriptions I that we are expecting in the autumn. A fall in the total have heard of what happens in Jobcentre Plus offices departmental expenditure limit is already built into do not match the reports that I get or indeed my own the system; that was announced for the 2007-11 experience of visiting such offices. I know that when Comprehensive Spending Review period. you go on a visit as a Minister you do not necessarily GC 189 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 190

[LORD MCKENZIE OF LUTON] There is a big opportunity there. Maybe my noble see things warts and all, but you get a chance to talk to friend can tell me that we are already doing this, but I people and get a flavour of the situation. I do not am not sure that we are. know if my noble friend Lady Turner has had the opportunity recently to get around a number of Jobcentre Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Plus offices, but the configuration of them has changed I was thinking that a member of staff from a jobcentre dramatically. They do not have the old grilles in place; could, for example, read the local paper. The information they have been refurbished. It was a successful is available, but not necessarily to the client at the time refurbishment programme, and both customers and when he wants it. The noble Baroness has made a staff see the benefit. There was some apprehension at valuable suggestion. the start of the process when the grilles were going and people felt that they might be vulnerable, but I understand that the reverse has proved to be the case. Lord McKenzie of Luton: I believe it to be the case I offer some statistics about the scope of Jobcentre that part of the operation of Jobcentre Plus is to have Plus. It records about 5,200 of its customers moving teams who do go out into the economy to see what into work every day. It receives over 7,600 jobs from vacancies are available. They are in touch with employers, employers. In response to the noble Lord, Lord particularly major employers, partly to engage with Skelmersdale: no, of course the Jobcentre Plus system those who can assist with specific programmes that does not include all vacancies that exist in the economy; Jobcentre Plus is involved in. There is that process and obviously it accepts all those that are reported to it, there are the people whose job it is to see what is but it does not routinely go and try to identify every happening out there in the market. I am sure, as I said, vacancy that there is. that more can be done, but there are also processes— particularly with some of the newly unemployed, who Jobcentre Plus advisers conduct something like 45,000 in a sense do not necessarily need the support and interviews every working day. It processes 16,000 new motivation that others would need to access the job benefit claims every working day, and prosecutes 42 market—to get external support and advice as well. people for benefit fraud. It takes over 60,000 calls These processes are under way. every weekday at our contact centres. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, with regard to the The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred to the idea of people turning up at Jobcentre Plus offices and departmental expenditure plan. I do not have the queues forming, that overwhelmingly the process is benefit of having the tables to which he referred in that people contact the contact centre and are given a front of me, but perhaps I may say something on the date and time for their appointment, to prevent what generality of the resources available to Jobcentre Plus. the noble Lord suggested from happening. There will As he may recall from previous debates, both in the still be people who just turn up routinely, but the Pre-Budget Report and in the Budget very significant process is to go through a contact centre to get a date additional resources were made available to the DWP for your appointment. for the tasks of Jobcentre Plus in tackling unemployment, particularly to support the Flexible New Deal and the programmes that are already under way. I think that it Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Could my noble friend was £1.7 billion over the CSR 07 period and something develop one of the points that he has made? I recognise like £1.3 billion in the Budget earlier this year. the attractiveness of Jobcentre Plus as a result of the amalgamation of the old employment exchanges and The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the the DSS offices; however, I think I am right that—I fact that we have fewer staff now than we used to. Yes, am inventing this figure, but it will not be far wrong—fewer and we have fewer offices than we used to. That is part than 20 per cent of all job vacancies go through of the programme to address the very issue he highlighted Jobcentre Plus. I may be wrong on that. of people having to give the same sort of details time and time again. Jobcentre Plus has been focused on That is fine when you can rely on three-quarters of getting more effective processes in place. Therefore, all people on JSA going back to work within six until recently that has meant fewer staff overall—I will months so that there is a churn; in a way, Jobcentre come on to that point—and fewer offices. A more Plus does not need to be much involved in the job-hunting extensive office closure plan was proposed but a procedure because people can do it themselves. If, moratorium has been put on that. I think that 25 however, unemployment continues to rise or the recession offices were identified which are now not currently to continues to deepen, will my noble friend, in response be the subject of closure. In recent times we have to something that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, already recruited some 5,000 more staff, and are aiming said, think about discussing with officials whether to recruit 2,000 per month into 2009-10. Jobcentre Plus could be encouraged deliberately to widen its reach into the field of job vacancies? I was thinking about the public sector, such as local government Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: That is what I suspected. or junior jobs in the education service—not necessarily My point is that it is very hard to trace this. It may be teaching, but the ancillary jobs. The same goes for that the Government have responded immediately, health authorities. Given the new range of clientele efficiently and all the rest of it, as the Minister says, that is coming on to JSA and the need for wider job but I cannot find any of that written down. I will opportunities to meet those clients’ needs, could senior happily settle for an assurance that when the departmental Jobcentre Plus staff be more proactive so that more plan for 2009-10 is published, it will be transparently jobs were simultaneously advertised in jobcentres as obvious exactly what money has been allocated, over well as individual employers seeking to fill them? what period and for what purpose. GC 191 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 192

Lord McKenzie of Luton: Indeed. I believe that that Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity to quiz will be the case and if it is not—if the noble Lord Ministers about operational readiness as we lay regulations would prompt me on it—I will make sure that he gets for the “work for your benefit” pilots. The piloting the detailed figures. Apart from new staff being recruited, regulations operate under the affirmative procedure 2,000 staff have been redeployed from within Jobcentre and will therefore be debated in full. Evaluation of the Plus to deal with the increase in JSA claims. Some pilots will give us a further opportunity to judge their 4,000 more staff than the number given in our original operational impact and inform decisions on whether spending review plans have been hired in the November we roll the programme out nationally as well as how it 2008 to February 2009 period. In line with the recent can be done most efficiently. Pre-Budget Report, Jobcentre Plus will be in a position However, I accept that changes in the economy to deploy some 6,000 additional staff by the end of have placed additional pressure on Jobcentre Plus and 2009-10. So, considerable extra resource has gone into that is why we announced in the Budget an extra Jobcentre Plus. The announcements mean that we will £1.7 billion to help ensure that Jobcentre Plus as well be able to recruit up to 10,000 more staff on top of the as contracted providers have the resources they need 6,000 new staff already announced in the Pre-Budget to cope with the additional workload, which is in Report. Those are considerable increases in staff numbers. addition to the £1.3 billion in the Pre-Budget Report. If they are not apparent from the departmental To recap, this means that Jobcentre Plus will be able to expenditure plans then I am sure that we can find a recruit up to 10,000 more staff on top of the 6,000 new way of supplementing the information for the noble staff already announced in the Pre-Budget Report. Lord. These are significant increases in resources and as There was also a strong theme about training. I such I believe that Jobcentre Plus will be well placed to understand that and I am not going to duck the issue, deal with the current period of rising unemployment. because we will be discussing it later in some detail. It is able to manage current volumes and has put in Perhaps it is best if we do so collectively then. However, place plans to function effectively if numbers increase I also bear in mind that Amendment 26 is to do with further across all benefits. Bearing this in mind, ample “work for your benefit”. It covers those who are safeguards are in place to ensure that Jobcentre Plus is work-ready, not the progression-to-work group. These ready for these changes, and we must remember that are not people on employment and support allowance. as an organisation, it has shown an enviable capacity We will have the opportunity of getting into these for implementing change successfully, and there is no things in some detail shortly. reason to believe that that will change. The amendment deals with Jobcentre Plus readiness I hope that I have provided some assurance to and in particular seeks to ensure that “work for your noble Lords. I am conscious that the second part of benefit” is not implemented unless Jobcentre Plus is our debate in this area on the adequacy of training ready to operate the programme. The noble Lord, and monitoring is important and I hope it will Lord Kirkwood, acknowledged that “work for your follow shortly. benefit” is a contracted-out programme that initially will be the subject of pathfinders. The involvement of Jobcentre Plus will be around referring claimants to Lord Skelmersdale: Rather like the Government the provision and changes to the way that jobcentres never apologising for either inflation or, as we have work, so its involvement will not be extensive. now, deflation, I do not apologise for conflation. The whole point of what I was trying to say, and I was very 4.45 pm ably backed by virtually all noble Lords—not quite all since the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has been moderately Baroness Thomas of Winchester: Would the Minister silent on this; she made a specific point which I undertake to write to me on the questions I raised commented on earlier— about help with filling in forms and the use of telephones? These are important practical matters about which we have heard much from my informant in a citizens Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Can the noble Lord advice bureau. It is not right that Jobcentre Plus explain the word “moderately”? offices should tell people to go to the citizens advice bureau when all they need is help with two specific things: calling the DWP helpline and filling in a form. Lord Skelmersdale: I will not explain what I mean by “moderately” because it might be embarrassing to Lord McKenzie of Luton: I agree that the role of all of us. Jobcentre Plus should be to help with that process, but As I said, I do not apologise for conflation at all I will write specifically to the noble Baroness. Perhaps because Clause 1 is clearly about the next step after she could exchange with me some of the detail that Pathways to Work has finished. I think that the Minister prompted her inquiry; I shall certainly take it up. might even quote stage 4. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment and I would like to assure noble Lords that the department examines the impact of any new programme before Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am sorry to interrupt implementing it. Projects like “work for your benefit” the noble Lord. “Pathways” has nothing to do with also go through a gated review process where operational jobseeker’s allowance; it is to do with the employment readiness must be clearly demonstrated before authority and support allowance. However, we are talking about to implement the pilots is given. In addition, both “work for your benefit”. GC 193 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 194

Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord is quite right; Baroness Thomas of Winchester: This clause breaks my terminology was wrong. Clause 1 is indeed about new ground and is the cause of grave concern for welfare to work, which, as we all know, involves many different voluntary organisations. There seems contractors and, as I think we all know, subcontractors. to be a lot of confusion about it and about Clause 2 Someone is going to have to monitor all this. As the —not least earlier in the Grand Committee—and I contractors in the pilots will be localised—I have invite the Minister to clarify this part of the Bill. I have somewhere a list which the Minister helpfully told us already spoken to him about it and I think he will on Thursday was on the DWP website—and in specific welcome the opportunity to do so. geographical areas, it is logical to assume, although no The first thing we need to have spelt out so that one has yet told me, that the monitoring will be done, everyone is clear about it is who will and who will not in part anyway, by the jobcentres in those areas. This fall under Clause 1. In particular, it is important to monitoring is on top of the work that they are already know at what stage lone parents, mostly mothers, will doing. Over and above that, of course, there is the come under this “work for your benefits” scheme, movement from the current job adviser to the personal assuming that it is rolled-out across the country. We adviser, as I tried to explain. I am suspicious, if I may do not know, of course, when income support will be put it that way. abolished. This is causing its own problems. Those Lord McKenzie of Luton: Again, I am trying to be moved off income support onto jobseeker’s allowance helpful to the noble Lord. We have contracted out the will not come under Clause 1 either, as they will not be evaluation of the “work for your benefit” pilots. expected to look for work in spite of being labelled “jobseekers”. When will they come under Clause 1? Lord Skelmersdale: To whom? The Minister might also make it clear that “work Lord McKenzie of Luton: To the same organisation for your benefit” is intended to be a pilot scheme, that is involved with the Flexible New Deal evaluation. presumably in a few areas of the country only. We are I can write to the noble Lord with the name. told that it will be fully evaluated before—and if—it is rolled-out across the country, but this is not in the Bill. Lord Skelmersdale: That would probably be helpful. Could “work for your benefit” be rolled-out without None the less, there is a movement from the jobcentre a pilot, even by another Government? I suppose it to the contractor. Someone will have to organise that could be. movement for the individual claimant, and I cannot We have to hope that the employment situation, see anyone, other than the job adviser, who is likely to which is now expected to reach over 3 million unemployed do that. Therefore, as I said, I make absolutely no next year, will have improved when and if “work for apology for conflation. I could have prolonged my your benefit” is rolled out, so that the number of speech even further by delving into the 2008 financial people out of work for two years is much smaller than report of the Department for Work and Pensions, as predicted. Even though we are hearing about a few the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, did, but I decided green shoots in the economy, unemployment is what I that my speech was probably long enough already and believe is called a “lag indicator” and will continue to that, if there were a valid point there, someone else— rise for some time after definite green shoots appear. almost certainly the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—would People are desperate now for real jobs; there will be make it, as indeed he did. more of them desperate for those jobs soon and they As I said at the beginning, I am extremely grateful are likely to become very angry if they are pushed into to all noble Lords for contributing to this short debate. compulsory make-work schemes, in return for minimal There is such comity around the Committee that I JSA, which will do nothing for their long-term prospects. have absolutely no doubt that this subject will come back on Report—in quite what guise, I cannot yet say Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: Following on my noble for the simple reason that we have not finished our friend’s questions, as we leave Clause 1 there are discussions on Clause 1, let alone Clauses 2 and 3. practical issues still to be resolved—certainly in my However, I can tell the Minister that something will mind if in no-one else’s. For the avoidance of doubt, I arrive. declare an interest as a non-remunerated, non-executive director of the Wise Group, which provides intermediate Lord McKenzie of Luton: Perhaps I may help on labour market jobs in Glasgow; it is a social enterprise one further point concerning contract monitoring. I of which I have been a director for three or four years. should make it clear that employment programme It is exactly the kind of organisation that may in contracts are managed at the centre of the DWP and future take advantage of bidding for these contracts. not in individual Jobcentre Plus districts. That does not negate the point that they need to be monitored, Reinforced by the previous debate about whether but it is done centrally, which is where the expertise is 2001 was a long while ago, I should like an assurance built up. about the timetable. I am not looking for hard and fast dates but for an impression of how long it will take to Lord Skelmersdale: Of course, the centre of the complete due diligence and get the scheme up and DWP is not dysfunctional, which I accused the individual running. If everything that can go right does go right, jobcentres of being. I beg leave to withdraw the when does the department expect to be able to offer amendment. this employment programme? It is important for us to have an idea about that as we leave this clause. Amendment 26 withdrawn. The Minister will know that the preferred bidders Debate on whether Clause 1, as amended, should stand are already out for the Flexible New Deal contract, part of the Bill. phase 1 of which will start in 2009 and phase 2 next GC 195 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 196 spring. I expect the employment programme set out in to go into the old ESA category where there is no Clause 1 to come in after the second year of the conditionality of any kind. That should be an option, Flexible New Deal has been gone through by customers because at that stage we may have uncovered difficulties and claimants, who would then be available for “work that were undetected earlier. for your benefits”. So one way of looking at this is to say, “The scheme is at least two years away after the Can we have an assurance that there will be a programme starts, so we have plenty of time”. system for complaining that is absolutely transparent to customers? I have read the case studies; I know However, there are some fast-track provisions in what the Government say; I also know, however, that the legislation which I want to understand. If a if you are working with an employment provider, it is discretionary power is available to a personal adviser very difficult to complain to them if it is them that you and a customer or claimant comes in who would be are complaining about. If I am on the “work for your particularly assisted by gaining access to a “work for benefit” scheme and I have a real issue about how I am your benefit” scheme, could that be anticipated before being handled, what is the complaints procedure? Can the end of the two-year period normally expected the Minister give us a guarantee that there will be before these programmes become available? some easily identifiable way to deal not with your immediate job supervisor but someone in authority If there are going to be pilots—my noble friend either in the contracted-out provider—or, probably made the powerful point that there is no guarantee better, in Jobcentre Plus—to whom you can say, “I am that there will be—will one be in a rural area? Can we not getting a fair deal here. I need some support”, and explicitly have an assurance that there will be pilots in that that will be addressed? rural areas? Finally—I think I know the answer to this—it We have had a very good debate about childcare, would be excellent if the Minister could give us a and the Minister has been very helpful in trying his categorical assurance during the passage of the Bill best to respond to the questions, but I suspect that that voluntary activity, as decided by the claimant, will there is still scepticism about whether this will all work be possible under “work for your benefit”. That is to out in the way that he thinks. We will not be able to be say, if I go through year one with Jobcentre Plus, then sure about that in rural areas unless we study it in year two with the Wise Group, or whoever, and then I great detail. I make a plea for that and hope that he really want to volunteer with the Salvation Army and can give us an assurance. think that there is a case for me doing that because it will help me get long-term confidence and work experience 5pm and get me back into the employment market, I should Can he give us an idea of where the scheme will fall be entitled to do that as part of “work for your on the scale of price per customer claimant? Colleagues benefit”. The important part of that volunteer work probably understand that in employment programmes, within the scheme is that it is determined by the a range of costs per head are used to price contracts of claimant—obviously in conjunction with the personal this kind. Some can be as low as £2,500 a year per adviser. He or she cannot be told to do something that customer for very basic Jobcentre Plus support. In they do not want to do, but if there is something that some employment areas I have had experience of they are keen and enthusiastic to do, they can. some customer claimants having upwards of £10,000 I have seen that work in schemes in Glasgow where, a year spent on them. That sounds like a lot of money, if you get a well-organised framework for placements, but if it gets people into sustainable, long-term work, it is almost like an intermediate labour market and is a it always saves the taxpayer money. I should like to cheaper way to do it, to get some weeks, if not months, have an idea of where this will fall in the scale of of some volunteering activity—volunteering with a things. I assume that for it to work and work well, it capital “v”—at the discretion of the claimant. If it was will need to be at the upper end. If we are trying to get made clear that that was possible, that would make the specialist providers to do that very difficult work, I success of the scheme more likely than it otherwise would expect the programme cost to be framed towards might be. There are some practical details here that we the £10,000, not towards the £2,000 figure, as the need reassurance about before we leave Clause 1 and contracts are worked out. move on. I am very nervous about recycling. I am very nervous about people coming to the end of 26 weeks of this Baroness Afshar: I thank the noble Lord for his programme and being recycled into stage three of suggestion. I suggest that pilots should also include Flexible New Deal. That is going round in circles. If densely populated minority areas, which still lack most nothing else happens, they can go round in circles facilities. indefinitely. That is in absolutely no one’s interests. I should like some assurances about what plans, if any, there are to deal with people who go right to the end of Lord Skelmersdale: We have had two and a half year one in Jobcentre Plus, right to the end of a year of days on Clause 1 and there are still questions to be Flexible New Deal in the hands of the Wise Group, or asked, as both the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, and whoever, right to the end of the 26-week period of this the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, have pointed out. I scheme and then go right back to stage three of have said I do not know how many times during those Flexible New Deal. We need to think very carefully. two and a half days that it all revolves around the There should be provision in that circumstance to personal relationship between the personal adviser reclassify them as people who have no job requirement, and the claimant. GC 197 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 198

[LORD SKELMERSDALE] want to look at the characteristics of those who reach With regard to the need for pilots in rural areas, the end of “work for your benefit” and adjust the urban areas or wherever, the only guidance we can get design accordingly. If people who have been through is the notice to the providers on the DWP website. the two-year programme and “work for your benefit” That covers virtually the whole country but we do not have still not accessed the labour market, that should know, out of that list, where the pilots are going to be. raise real questions about the need to adjust the Will there be 10 or 12 pilots? programme. In response to the question abut whether there will be room for complaining, I have here a clear Lord McKenzie of Luton: Two. “yes”. However, I think that we need to be clear about the processes and ensure that they are readily available. Lord Skelmersdale: Two pilots? In that case, it Just to clarify matters, the programme will be seems unforgivable if there is not one in a rural area contracted out and we will ask providers from the and one in an urban area. I am surprised by the idea of private and voluntary sectors to source work experience only two pilots, though, with 14 preferred bidders. placements. In order to maximise people’s chances of Something very odd is going on here, and I hope that finding work, we want “work for your benefit” to be the Minister can explain. personalised and tailored to individuals’ needs. As such, we anticipate that placements will be sourced on Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am grateful for the an individual basis with a variety of organisations. opportunity to try to allay fears and explain on the Some of these will be community-based, but we would record what Clause 1 and “work for your benefit” not want to rule out participants being placed with schemes are all about. As the Committee will be private companies if that provides the best chance of aware, we recently began to reform the jobseeker’s moving them back into work. Our primary driver allowance system, including the introduction of the must always be to get people back into the labour Flexible New Deal. This is designed to ensure that, as market and out of poverty. We will of course include a JSA claim progresses, the support that a jobseeker safeguards within contracts to ensure that placements receives increases. The quid pro quo is that jobseekers in host organisations are in addition to any existing or have an increasing duty to engage with that support. planned vacancies. That will ensure that participants “Work for your benefit” is designed to fit after the do not displace other workers, and we will work Flexible New Deal and continue that progression in closely with our partners to monitor the effects of the terms of support and responsibility. pilot programme on the wider labour market. The programme is completely separate from the “Work for your benefit” is aimed primarily at those progression-to-work group and will therefore not apply who have been unemployed for long periods. We know to lone parents with children younger than seven or to that many of these people will be divorced from the those who are on the employment and support allowance. labour market and will have complex barriers to work. If we want to look at this in terms of the Gregg To ensure that these barriers are addressed, focus will proposals, this would apply only to the work-ready be maintained on job-search activity. We will ask group—those claimants who are actively seeking work providers to include relevant employment support and are available for it. The programme should be seen alongside work experience. We want to encourage in that context. people to build on the work skills that they learn, but Clause 1 creates a framework for “work for your we also intend to allow personal advisers the flexibility benefit”, which is, as I have said, a new employment to refer claimants earlier than the two-year point. programme that we intend to pilot from 2010. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked if we technically Baroness Thomas of Winchester: Before the noble have to pilot; the answer is no, but we have a clear and Lord leaves that point, how early could they be referred? stated intent to do so. We intend to pilot from October 2010, which is at the end of the first year of the Lord McKenzie of Luton: We have no particular Flexible New Deal; it logically follows on from that, timescale in mind. I think that it will be when a given what I have just said. We expect it to run over personal adviser sees a benefit in moving someone two years. We have not yet determined where the pilots straight to that role. I think that that opportunity will will be, but obviously one understands the thrust of become apparent when we go through the pilots, and the issues about urban areas, particularly those that it is hoped that that will help directors in deciding have concentrations of disadvantaged people from whether we need to include a cut-off point, although minority ethnic communities, raised by the noble Baroness, one is not envisaged at the moment. Lady Afshar —Luton springs to mind as a good place We anticipate that “work for your benefit” could to focus on. We are still looking at the pilot areas. have a deterrent effect on those who may be playing Can it be available more quickly? The reason for the the system and are not serious about looking for work. two-year period between now and the pilots going live However, the programme is not intended to be a is because there needs to be the usual fair and open punishment; rightly, it is aimed at improving people’s contracting process, as well as abutting the end of the chances of finding sustainable work by providing an first year of the Flexible New Deal. Results from the opportunity to develop work skills and habits. “Work evaluation will be published in stages but with a final for your benefit” is built on existing welfare reforms evaluation report in late 2012. and incorporates the core message of rights and The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about help responsibilities but, more importantly, it represents an with recycling. “Work for your benefit” is designed to excellent chance for long-term unemployed people to help to tackle work recycling, but we will certainly re-engage with the labour market. GC 199 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 200

I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, The Countess of Mar: I have already spoken to this asked whether these were the right economic circumstances amendment but I move it to clarify a point. In his in which to roll out these provisions. We have learnt response to my speech last Tuesday, the noble Lord the lessons of the past. We need to keep people who said: find themselves out of work as close to the labour “I am pleased to say that we already have an extensive programme market as possible, regardless of economic conditions. of published and planned research and analysis covering the That gives them the best chance of capitalising on employment position of people aged 50 and over”. recovery when it occurs. I said in reply: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, all “I was pleased to hear the Minister say that they are doing types of work experience, including voluntary work, if constant research. If he could let me know, in a letter, the type of appropriate, can be incorporated into the arrangements. research being done I would be very grateful”.—[Official Report, 9/6/09; col. GC 53, 55.] The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, expressed concern at the fact that there may be only two pilots. To be The Minister is normally very assiduous in sending a clear, we envisage that there will be 10 to 12 pilots in reply by return. I would be extremely grateful if he respect of the progression-to-work programme, which could let me have a response, bearing in mind the comes under Clause 2. details of subsection (2) in my amendment. I hope that that has dealt with each of the points that have been raised, and I hope that, at long last, we Lord McKenzie of Luton: I shall certainly do that. I will feel able to support Clause 1 and move on to the should explain that it is not me who is assiduous in rest of the Bill. these things; the team of people behind me do all the hard work.

Lord Skelmersdale: Before we do that, I understood the Minister to say that the two pilots that we are Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: It is their fault. talking about in respect of Clause 1 would start in October 2010 and that the final results would be in Lord McKenzie of Luton: We will endeavour to get 2012. Is that correct? a reply to the noble Countess expeditiously.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: Yes. The Countess of Mar: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Lord Skelmersdale: But are we having only a one-year pilot or will it be a two-year pilot? If so, how will there Amendment 27 withdrawn. be time for a proper evaluation before everything is rolled out countrywide? Clause2:Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants Lord McKenzie of Luton: The noble Lord is right; October 2010 is the start date because that is a year Amendment 28 after the first Flexible New Deal kicks in. The pilot would run for two years and we would look to have Moved by Baroness Meacher interim evaluations as well as an evaluation at the end 28: Clause 2, page 4, line 21, at end insert— of the two-year pilot. “( ) This section does not apply in the case of a single parent with a child under seven who is in receipt of any rate or component of disability living allowance.” Clause 1, as amended, agreed.

Baroness Meacher: Under the Bill, a lone parent 5.15 pm who cares for a disabled child with entitlement to the middle or higher rate care component of disability Amendment 27 living allowance will be entitled to income support and will not be affected by the conditionality rules, as Moved by The Countess of Mar I understand it, introduced for lone parents. However, 27: Before Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— those who are entitled only to the lower rate of DLA “Programme of research into employment prospects of people for their child are not exempted. These parents will be over age 50 subject to the preparing for work conditionality that (1) The Secretary of State shall commission a programme of the Bill will introduce. There are very real problems research into the employment prospects of people over age 50. about excluding parents receiving the DLA care (2) The research shall examine— component at the lower rate, and parents in the process (a) the numbers of unemployed people over age 50, of appealing against a negative renewal decision. (b) the experiences of people over age 50 in finding employment, and 5.17 pm (c) the support needed to assist people over age 50 to obtain employment.” Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. GC 201 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 202

5.27 pm Action Group for its helpful briefing on the amendment, and I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Baroness Meacher: In this amendment, I was talking Minister that the amendment is reasonable and deserves about the problem of excluding lone parents on the his careful consideration. I beg to move. lower rate of DLA from the exemptions in the conditionality rules. Renewal applications frequently result in entitlement being cancelled or downgraded to Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the noble Baroness’s a lower amount, only for the decision to be reversed amendment expected to include mobility allowance? after a lengthy appeal process. This has to do with It was not clear from the drafting, or when she talked people being excluded while an appeal process is about the three rates, whether she was confining herself undertaken. The fact is that these things happen quite to the living allowance or including “mob” as well. I a lot. take it that she means to include “mob”, but she may want to clarify that. The chopping and changing resulting from inconsistent renewal assessments will inevitably lead to some parents Baroness Meacher: This is a probing amendment; moving in and out of the group required to undertake we may want to come back to the issue on Report to work-related activity. Research shows that some 7,500 clarify that. I just think that lone parents of children families care for two or more disabled children, involving with disabilities, whether they are entitled to DLA or in total between 17,500 and 20,000 disabled children. mobility allowance—all those sorts of benefits—should Some of these families with multiple disabled children not be included in the conditionality processes. may receive only lower-rate DLA awards. The cumulative nature of caring responsibilities within these families is absolutely enormous, but under the proposed rules, Baroness Thomas of Winchester: We support the as I understand them, parents could still be required amendment. I should declare an interest in that I to attend work-focused interviews, undertake work-related receive disability living allowance. Disability living activity or face sanctions. I should be grateful if the allowance has two components: mobility and care. Minister could correct me if I am wrong about that. There are three rates of each. A lone parent with a child under seven who qualifies for any rate of DLA We are not talking about big numbers in government should not have to participate in the work-related terms, but this could well be the straw that breaks the activity regime in order to receive benefits. Being the camel’s back for each lone parent who is affected. If sole carer of a disabled child is likely to be a full-time for a moment we put ourselves in the position of a activity and not one for which it is easy to find young mother who has probably suffered a painful replacement childcare. Parents of those children are separation from a partner, she has experienced the not exempted from the progression-to-work group, as grief of finding that her child may never develop the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, if their disabled completely normally, and she is on her own, dealing child qualifies only for the lower rate care component with constant uncertainties and pressures from the of DLA. If the rate was the middle or higher rate, the benefits system. Will her housing benefit cover her parents would be exempted. rent? Perhaps not. How will she pay the gas bill? She Having different rules for those parents is problematic cannot. Then what will happen? There will be no because renewal applications often result, as the noble heating for her disabled child or children. It is her Baroness said, in assessments being upgraded or child’s birthday; how can she afford a gift for him? On downgraded and then overturned on appeal. Families it goes. She then finds that her benefits may be threatened with disabled children experience high levels of poverty, if she does not find someone to look after her child with research showing that take-up of DLA is low, while she does some work-related activity. often because of the onerous application process, as To me, this is simply inhuman. For a parent with a well as ignorance of entitlement. Poor decision-making child with an invisible or fluctuating condition such as leads to a high level of appeals, which are often autistic spectrum disorder or ADHD, the problems successful. I feel particularly strongly about this because are even greater. Undertaking assessment for DLA is I had to go through the appeal process, so I know all not an exact science. Mistakes are many, especially for about it. There is evidence to show that there is a such children. Many will be on the lower rate of the growth in disputed decisions of DLA, with it constantly DLA care component, if on any DLA at all. These being downgraded or removed and then reinstated on families move in and out of entitlement to DLA or are appeal. subjected to repeated downratings only to be reversed I urge the Government to think again and to exempt on appeal. All that, despite no change in the diagnosis the lone parent of a child under seven who receives of the child—yet it is these children who are likely to any rate of a DLA care component from the conditionality be excluded from childcare settings. regime. Those lone parents should not come under the For those reasons, we ask the Minister to introduce work activity provisions. amendments at Report to exempt all parents receiving DLA care component at lower, middle or higher rate Baroness Afshar: I would add that minority women from work-related activity and, secondly, to exempt all suffer on two fronts. Among many minorities, any parents who were formerly in receipt of DLA for a kind of disability is understated or made invisible child and are in the process of appealing a negative because it is seen as a failure of the mother. Also, renewal decision. Thirdly, we ask him to retain a many of them simply do not have the time, knowledge voluntary entitlement to access work-related activity or information to deal with an appeal process and are for those who wish to do so. That would be a fair and likely to passively give up. That, of course, is dreadful reasonable approach. I am grateful to the Child Poverty for the child as well as for the mother. GC 203 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 204

Lord Northbourne: The provisions of this amendment about. If the only sanction up to the age of three is for fell within my Amendments 22A to 22D. This is a not turning up for an interview, there is nothing much particular case in point. The issue is whether it is wise to worry about whether or not you have a disabled to enumerate each case or to have a genetic categorisation child. It would certainly shorten our debates if the in the Bill which includes all. The trouble with specifying Minister could give an outline now of what is expected one case is that it is immediately assumed to exclude of a single mother and when, no matter what position others. In effect, this gives an opening for the Government she is in regarding her children. to evade other obligations because you have specified only one. I hope I have made that clear. I, quite Lord McKenzie of Luton: I thank all noble Lords naturally, wholeheartedly support the amendment. who have spoken in this debate. All but the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, look to be supporting the The Countess of Mar: I support the amendment. I position that I am going to take. have had quite a lot to do with mothers of autistic I shall try to deal with the noble Lord’s question children who have a range of problems with them. I about how Clause 2 operates. He will be aware that, so am concerned that the stress that the mother is under far as jobseeker’s allowance and full conditionality are through worrying about their child’s illness in the first concerned, we have already provided through regulations place, and then because autistic children’s sleep patterns that that JSA regime will progressively apply to those are chaotic and the mother gets little sleep—her house where the youngest child is seven, so not for children is often made into a state of total chaos; she cannot go below that age. Work-related activity is not just turning out shopping peacefully or do anything peacefully—means up at work-focused interviews; obviously, embedded that she is not fit to go out to work. There is no within the programme are issues around work-related question of her holding down a job. Even children activity and possible mandation in respect of work-related who are mildly autistic are difficult, as are children activity. Although the framework of the Bill provides with a hyperactivity syndrome. I support the noble for a wider group of lone parents to be brought within Baroness’s amendment. it, we have been clear that the pathfinders we want to run would be focused on lone parents whose youngest Baroness Wilkins: To make it a full house, I also child was not younger than three, so that would cover support the amendment. I declare an interest as having the three-to-six age group. just finished the 40-page renewal of my DLA and I Clause 2 is not only about lone parents; it is about look forward to my appeal. I totally support the partners as well, and there are other provisions within amendment. it. If the noble Lord wishes to press on that, I will sit down. Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid I am going to be the grit in the ointment on the amendment, which will Lord Skelmersdale: Does what the Minister has just dismay many Members of the Committee. During our said mean that there will be no interview of any sort extensive debates on Clause 1 we have, from time to before the child is three? That is what I am really time, strayed into Clause 2, for which I was in part, but trying to get at. by no means entirely, to blame. Of course no one could but sympathise enormously Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am so sorry; I was with those single parents who have disabled children reading a note and missed what the noble Lord said. on disabled living allowance, at whatever rate it is. To that extent, of course I go along with the amendment—at least, I would if I were convinced that it was really Lord Skelmersdale: I was asking whether what he necessary. The Minister has already said that a lone has said means that there will be no interview for parent having a disabled child—I assume this means single parents under this clause before the child is any disabled child, at whatever rate of disability living three years old. It is a fairly simple question. allowance or anything else that he or she might be on—would be just cause for that parent not undertaking Lord McKenzie of Luton: It is a simple question, the various duties envisaged under Clause 2. That is, and the answer is as follows: this is not specifically of course, with the exception of the initial interview dealt with in Clause 2, but, at the moment, parents and those that are repeated every so many months. with the youngest child under the age of one have no That is why I wonder whether the amendment is conditionality— necessary. However, it would help the Committee if the Minister Lord Skelmersdale: No; it has nothing to do with could use the amendment to clarify a point that has conditionality. All that I am interested in is the interview already arisen in our debates: at what point in the process. child’s life does the single mother have her first jobcentre interview? The Minister spoke on Tuesday of progression to work happening with any force only when the child Lord McKenzie of Luton: I was going to go on to reaches three and continues up to seven. Even between say that, because the interview process is part of the these ages I have not identified any compulsion beyond, conditionality, for parents whose youngest child is as I say, being sanctioned for not turning up to interviews. between one and two the requirement is a work-focused I may be wrong in that assumption, but if I am right it interview and action plans, while for parents with a makes me wonder quite what much of Clause 2 is youngest child aged between three and six it is a GC 205 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 206

[LORD MCKENZIE OF LUTON] not preclude parents with younger children, in the work-focused interview plus an action plan, plus work- same circumstance, from undertaking work-related related activity. That is the structure of what we are activity. It is certain that we will mirror these exemptions, seeking to achieve. I assume that the noble Lord is but we need to continue to engage with stakeholders content with that. to consider the full range of customers with special needs. The full exemption provisions would then be Baroness Meacher: Am I right in thinking, therefore, prescribed in regulations. that lone parents with a child between three and six As was mentioned several times, we will ensure that would be required to attend work-related activity in safeguards are in place whereby claimants are not put certain situations if they had DLA only at the lowest in a situation where they are being asked to comply rate, but would be exempt if they had DLA at the with a requirement that is unreasonable or inappropriate medium or higher rate? Would lone parents with children to their individual circumstances. This is especially of seven plus be required to go through the return to important when they have a disabled child. In all employment unless they had the mobility allowance cases, we would ensure that the activities they agreed element of DLA at the medium or higher rate? If so, to were discussed and considered in depth, so that the the amendment is needed in order to exempt those action plan was suitably tailored to the needs not of lone parents simply receiving the lower rate of DLA. only the parent, but the disabled child. Again, I assure noble Lords that it is not our intention to penalise Lord McKenzie of Luton: The answer, from the parents, but to give them the opportunity to undertake noble Baroness’s point of view, is that the amendment activities that would help to improve not only their is needed, because what she says is right. I shall future prospects, but those of children in their households. develop that. I should say that lone parents with children on the I want to make it clear from the outset that any lower rate of DLA at present have to attend work-focused requirement to undertake work-related activity will interviews. always take fully into account the family circumstances I shall deal with some issues around the safeguards and requirements of the parent. We are also discussing that will be in place for parents undertaking work-related specific exemptions from the work-related activity activity. As we discussed earlier, we proposed to adapt provisions with stakeholder groups. When we introduced the flexibilities introduced into jobseeker’s allowance the requirement for most lone parents with older when in 2008 the entitlement conditions for income children—when the youngest child reaches age seven—to support for lone parents changed for those within the move from income support on to jobseeker’s allowance, progression-to-work group. Therefore, we would expect we set a number of precedents for exemptions. Under the same flexibility for parents who could not find those provisions for lone parents on jobseeker’s suitable childcare and are required to undertake work- allowance—the work-ready group—regulations related activities to be available to parents who are specifically excluded lone parents who were in receipt required to actively seek and be available for work. of carer’s allowance or who have a child in receipt of This would also include: allowing parents to refuse or the middle-rate or highest-rate care component of leave work-related activity because there is no appropriate DLA, but not the lower rate. childcare available; allowing parents to be deemed as Parents with children in receipt of the lower-rate undertaking work-related activity for a maximum of care component— eight weeks a year when a bereavement or domestic emergency has occurred; deeming parents as being 5.45 pm treated as undertaking work-related activity if a child has been excluded from school and the action plan Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Can my noble friend cannot be adapted to take this into account; deeming help me? If the lone parent is on income support with parents as being treated as undertaking work-related a carer’s premium—I think, although I stand to be activity if no activity can be found in the area; counting corrected, that that can be applied for a child on the activities within a parenting contract towards work-related lowest-rate DLA—that lone parent is, therefore, exempt, activity; taking into account a parent’s travel time to even if the child is not. an activity, including time required to drop off and pick up their children from school or childcare; and Lord McKenzie of Luton: Yes; I was referring to making at least one attempt to contact the parent by jobseeker’s allowance and income support. For people telephone and sending them a letter on the day to who are in the JSA full conditionality regime, there is advise them of the need urgently to contact their an exclusion for lone parents who are in receipt of adviser within five working days, otherwise benefit carer’s allowance—so the allowance attaches to the sanctions may be applied. lone parent—or who have a child in receipt of the middle-rate or highest-rate care component of DLA. I Perhaps I may mention other groups that we are understand that the carer’s premium is only for middle-rate planning to exempt from work-related activity, such as or higher-rate DLA; so they would be protected. those on the middle and higher-rate components of disability living allowance and those entitled to the Parents with children in receipt of the lower-rate carer’s allowance and parents who are fostering. care component of DLA were not exempt because we considered that such a child, by definition, would not The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, raised an require the amount of care that precluded the parent interesting question about the propensity for appeals from undertaking paid work, in the case of those to be upheld and what that might mean. I think that parents on jobseeker’s allowance and, therefore, should we are right to reflect on that point as we need to GC 207 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 208 understand the thrust of the issue that she is pursuing. expressed. There should not be flexibility for a personal Voluntary activity can be accepted as an activity on adviser to second-guess a doctor or a medical judgment the action plan. It would then become a requirement, for DLA; the lone parent should be given the right to but that could be renegotiated if need be. determine what she does while the child is under the age of seven. It is entirely reasonable to keep the interviews going to see whether her circumstances Baroness Thomas of Winchester: How can voluntary change, but one should not add to the pressures and work possibly be a requirement? strains because, I suggest to my noble friend, that would not hold up in any test of public decency on this Lord McKenzie of Luton: It is what is agreed as part issue. Again, I suggest that he takes the amendment of the action plan. There are obviously processes away. under which someone can be mandated to undertake a specific work-related activity under the provisions of Noble Lords: Hear, hear! the clause. I understand that the noble Baroness is pressing for particular terminology, but that is the context. Clearly, if the work fell outside the action Lord McKenzie of Luton: As ever, we reflect on our plan, a mandatory direction could not apply to it. I debates, but I reiterate that the specific exemptions in hope that that provides a degree of reassurance to the respect of lower and middle-rate DLA do not preclude noble Baroness. I am sure that it does not meet her other circumstances, particularly fluctuating circumstances, requirements fully, but that is the Government’s approach being taken into account. These issues are addressed to this issue. when the action plan is reviewed and work-focused interviews are undertaken. I would also say specifically that, as we have debated extensively, if appropriate Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Would my noble friend childcare is not available at an affordable price, a like to comment further? He has very helpfully described person cannot be mandated to undertake work-related the situation as it is. The noble Baroness who spoke activity which does not reflect that circumstance. about the flimsiness of the line between lower-rate and middle-rate DLA and what happens on appeal is absolutely right, particularly when dealing with fluctuating Baroness Meacher: I thank the Minister for his conditions or things such as HD. On those occasions, response and his willingness to have a look at the it is not always easy to carry out an assessment, appeal situation by recognising that there is some remembering that DLA is not about the medical merit in that argument. However, I am disappointed dimensions of a particular disability or sickness but that he has not agreed to take the other part of the about the implication for care needs. That is what amendment away to consider it further, particularly in determines what rate of DLA one is on. Having said view of the force of the arguments put by the noble that, as my noble friend knows, because it is very Baroness, Lady Hollis, and other noble Lords who difficult to find childcare in that situation, the childcare have spoken in the debate. It seems that the assessment tax credit had to be changed by the Government to is more of an art than a scientific process, and inevitably allow it to take place in the child’s own home, which is people will get it wrong, particularly with ADHD and not what the Government originally planned. other autistic spectrum disorders, because a child might walk into an office and appear to be reasonably okay Frankly, because the line between lower-rate DLA for five minutes. Given that, I really do think that any and the rest is so flimsy and subjective and has no real public scrutiny of this issue would find it wanting. I connection to the degree of stress on the lone parent believe that we will all want to consider bringing this and her capacity to cope, I do not think that it would issue back on Report. For the time being, however, I hold up in what I call the court of public opinion. beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Therefore, I strongly urge my noble friend not to reject the amendment but to take it away. It would be perfectly reasonable—and I would support him on this—for all Amendment 28 withdrawn. lone parents, including those with a disabled child, on whatever rate of DLA to come in for six-monthly Amendment 29 work-focused interviews. That would be absolutely right because—who knows?—as that child matured, Moved by Baroness Thomas of Winchester his disability, if it were a behavioural disorder, might 29: Clause 2, page 4, line 22, leave out from “with” to “of” in reduce and the lone parent might want to re-enter line 24 and insert “providing a person who is entitled to income work and stay attached to the labour market in the support an entitlement to undertake personally tailored work gentlest way possible. I see no problem with that related activity in accordance with regulations as a benefit” continuing, but I suggest that it is not acceptable to make work-related activity for a lone parent with a Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I shall speak also child, even on the lowest rate of DLA, mandatory. to the other amendments in the group. We debated Where that lone parent volunteers and wishes to do this matter under Clause 1, so the groundwork has that work rather than take part under the New Deal, already been done. However, this amendment was that is fine. deliberately not grouped with the earlier one because I urge my noble friend not to reject the amendment we are now talking about a different and more vulnerable at this point but to take it away and reflect on it to see group of claimants—those in the progression-to-work whether he is able to come forward on Report with group who must undertake certain work-related activities. something that addresses the concerns that have been The Minister said last week that this rests on the GC 209 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 210

[BARONESS THOMAS OF WINCHESTER] Do the drafters mean time, amount or something else nature of the support offered, in that it is personally by the word “extent”? The drafting does not seem to tailored to an individual, not on the principle of the be clear. programme. I agree, but I wonder whether it is written down anywhere. Of crucial concern is whether enough investment will be made in each claimant to ensure Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: I support the amendment. that support is genuinely tailored to individual need My noble friend Lady Thomas is right that her “personally and is of high quality. How this aspect of the Bill tailored” and subsequent amendments might sound works will determine whether it will work as it should. the same in the context of the earlier debate, but they In general, we on these Benches are in favour of are fundamentally different. Clause 2 is a different carrots rather than sticks, not least because of the place altogether from Clause 1. powerful evidence base that supports the efficacy of a I said on the first day of Committee that it is conditionality regime for this group of claimants. By difficult from looking at the Bill to get hold of the carrots, I mean real encouragement to engage claimants Government’s strategic policy regarding welfare reform. with the kind of voluntary sector schemes that have a The way it is contrived makes it hard to understand track record of success in this area. We know that the what the big picture is. Clause 2(1) refers to a person use of sanctions is supposed to be a last resort, and I who is entitled to income support. Imposing on them hope the Minister will agree that, if there is an increasing a requirement to undertake work-related activity is a use of sanctions on this group of claimants, it will be a huge change and runs against everything that we have sign that the policy has failed. I beg to move. ever understood about income support, means-tested benefits and issues of that kind. If this is a transitionary measure to a single working-age benefit, as set out in 6pm the Green Paper and again in the report that Professor Lord Skelmersdale: I have tabled several amendments Gregg has produced, then it is important that we in this group and it might be appropriate if I speak to understand that. However, I am not sure that it is; as I them now. The noble Baroness has tabled amendments have said before, the Bill is a mess. I would understand that would change the emphasis of the scheme from it better—I would have a better handle on the journey one of a duty to fulfil obligations to one of entitlement. that is being taken—if we could get a reassurance that This is an area where I have some sympathy with her in the long run we are aiming for a single working-age arguments. It sounds good to “empower” people, if benefit. that is the current buzzword. It would certainly be There are some politics around this. The current satisfactory if everything unfolded as we would like it environment is pretty uncertain: we are facing a general to and if all those people we have in mind when we election and we have had nine Secretaries of State legislate were enthusiastic and motivated enough to leading the department since 1997, and I can list them. take hold of their entitlement and use it to the full. That is my pub trivia quiz question; I know them all in That would be the best outcome that we could possibly the order in which they served because I have watched hope for, but life is not like that. them all come, stay for 15 months and go. I have I wonder whether the noble Baroness’s views will be nothing against the current Secretary of State, but I supported by the reality of people who are willing to will be surprised if she gets more than 15 months. You get into the job market but have no idea how to go need to think about that only for a moment when you about it and even those who are more ambivalent look at the scale of the department and the importance about getting back into employment. Will they be of the services that it provides. I referred earlier to the helped by having all carrot and no stick? These are answers to the staff attitude questions. I agree with the good questions, and I will enjoy sitting down and response to my question to the Minister—that the listening to the Minister explain exactly why impositions, staff are all very high quality—but I find that they feel duties, coercions and threats are necessary—to put they are missing leadership from the department when them in increasing order. I have no doubt that his I go around these Jobcentre Plus offices, which, I department has looked long and hard at this and there agree, are much improved. will therefore be a well reasoned justification for presenting We are dealing with important amendments that us with a scheme drawn up in this way. seek to exempt people from the new system. I understand My amendments in this group are much less weighted. why we are doing that, because it may be necessary, Amendments 39, 40 and 41 are, broadly, drafting but if we were able to have what would be almost a amendments. Amendment 39 would change the wording philosophical discussion about where we are trying to so that benefits were reduced for the prescribed time go with this, some of us would be more reassured. rather than until the prescribed time. I do not suppose That is why the provision of “personalised tailored that much hinges on this, as both versions would have work”sought in the amendment and in the consequential a clear end date and so allow certainty. My suggestions amendments in the group is so important not just to would make it easier to collect and compare lengths of Clause 2 but also to the general direction of travel. time that have been imposed as penalties. The Minister For example, carers should be taken out of the may consider that useful. benefit system altogether. They should be put somewhere Amendment 40 would leave out the words “reference different and financed separately.It is amazingly confusing to” in line 35. I see those words as unnecessary. If they to the welfare-to-work agenda to try to deal with do not add to the meaning of the clause, why are they carers as well. Carers are on income support, but in there? Amendment 41 has been tabled simply to ask Clause 7 we have to deal with abolition, which cannot what is meant by the words “to the prescribed extent”. be done yet because carers are entitled to it. We will GC 211 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 212 come to the Government’s position on carers later, My plea is that the Government need to be much and it is important that we work out where that will clearer. We should remember that this Government leave us in terms of welfare-to-work and other areas of may not implement this legislation; my noble friend the department’s work. It is obviously being led by the Lady Thomas might be the future Secretary of State Department of Health, so we will wait to see what that for Work and Pensions and introduce provisions that brings. Professor Gregg said in Recommendations 53 one might not expect. We have to bear that in mind, I and 54 of his review that carers should be dealt with submit. outside the benefit system. If that were the case, a lot of us would be reassured about the circumstances that Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It would be uncharted some people are facing. waters. I will not rehash the arguments over the question of re-ownership, because we dealt with it in Clause 1. It is Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: It certainly would be an integral part of what claimants should expect as uncharted waters. I should be happy to carry her bags they come into the new system. The so-called “black and work with my noble friend, as I do. However, the box”flexibilities that are now available to great advantage point is that this legislation can be picked up, used, in terms of the contracting-out details for suppliers reused, altered and implemented in different ways by such as the Wise Group mean that these organisations other people in future. We have to bear that in mind. now have much more discretion when dealing with This is a very important part of the Bill. The Government claimants. I have seen it work where people are invited have to think very clearly about what they are trying to to come in and are worked into progression-to-work do. If they do not go for personalised support, a single groups with no job-seeking duties. If people were working age benefit and a much longer, more co-operative dealt with on the basis of where they are and not on way of working, we need to be clear about that before what benefit they are on, the age of their children or we make any further progress on the Bill. what condition they might have, we would have set up a much better system in the long run. The Government Baroness Turner of Camden: I am inclined to support say that there is no tool to do that but I do not believe this amendment. First, I like the idea of undertaking, it. The Dutch have been doing it for some years with great skill, and we have expertise building up in the “personally tailored work related activity”. department that would enable us to do it as well. That is rather similar to what I had in mind when I Distance from the labour market is the only test that moved an amendment relating to skilled workers. Quite matters. If people knew that they had co-ownership of obviously, if you have special skills, a work-related the journey to get back into work, they would be a lot advisory service is appropriate. Moreover, if the Bill is more confident about getting into the system in the unamended, particularly Clause 1, a sanction is implied first place. which involves the loss of income support, as has already been pointed out. On later amendments we That is my general position. The Government are shall discuss the circumstances in which income support missing a trick because of the confusion about whether can be removed. The amendment that we are discussing this is an end in itself or part of a journey to a refers to an “entitlement” rather than a sanction. I am completely different place with a single working-age in favour of this amendment and I hope that the benefit. We need to be clear about that because we are Minister will respond, if not to this wording, at least not clear at the moment. Personalisation is important to the sentiment behind it. It is well worth considering. and so access to personal advisers is important. It should be much more of an on-demand service at Baroness Afshar: I support the suggestion of the some stages of the journey back into work than it is noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. This matter applies now. particularly to minority women who may well be We should stop talking about sanctions because first-time brides, who arrive in this country with very people do not understand what they mean. Professor little information, have children, are later divorced Gregg talks about fines, but what do we mean by that? and find themselves reliant on family support without Are we fining people for not complying? Financial being able to connect with, appeal or go through the penalties are a last resort. They are dire and, when processes. If we recognise that rearing children and applied, can have one of two effects. People wake up doing domestic work is real work, I do not see how we and realise that they are doing something wrong, often can ask them to start training to enter the workplace; because they did not understand that they were doing they are working. so. If they leave work without due cause, they do not realise that it has a benefit penalty attached to it, so we Lord Northbourne: Hear, hear. need to get better at communicating. Alternatively, financial penalties for people who are acting in good faith are disastrous. The Gregg review talks about the Baroness Afshar: For many of them every day is a urgent need for a review of the whole sanctions, financial disaster because they do not know what to do. To penalties and fines apparatus. It is not working at the impose another sanction on them is unfair. moment, and I have no reason to believe that, if it is not doing so now and there are no plans to change it, The Countess of Mar: In the same vein I find it very it is going to get any better. We need to understand odd that we are making mothers go out to work and that in terms of the personalised support being introduced then pay someone else to look after their children. in the Bill. That seems absolutely crazy to me. The noble Lord GC 213 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 214

[THE COUNTESS OF MAR] So far as sanctions are concerned, if someone is has made clear that where the income of the parent is sanctioned the system has not worked for them because not enough, the social security system will have to we want a regime that encourages people to take up support them in that case. This seems absolutely barmy. the opportunities that are there. We are learning from the experiences of our European colleagues—in particular the Dutch, the Danes and the Swedes—and considering Lord Northbourne: I support the speech that the how they can be brought to bear in a UK context. We noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, has just made. The Bill are looking carefully at the position of carers and how seeks to influence the social norms of our society in best to support them. The link between how social relation to work, and particularly to influence the care operates and how people who cannot work because social norms of certain groups in our society who may of carer responsibilities should be supported is a difficult have got out of the habit of working. I am not sure one. We agree that the current system is not satisfactory; whether co-ownership of the Bill’s provisions is the that is why the Government are working on proposals right route but we should debate financial penalties. I which they look to bring forward in due course. shall not start that debate now but a number of the briefings that I have received from various organisations Amendments 29, 30, 32, 33 and 34 seek to remove are profoundly concerned about financial penalties the requirement for lone parents and partners of certain being imposed on people who are already living below benefit recipients to undertake work-related activity as the poverty rate. That is perhaps a separate issue but part of the conditions for full benefit entitlement and let us focus our minds on what is the best way to to allow the parent to choose if they want to participate. transform the social norms of those who are not Those who do would have an entitlement to undertake working so that they feel working is the normal thing personally-tailored, work-related activity. But by doing to do, the thing they ought to be doing and the thing so, the amendment retains the status quo in that everybody is doing. I suspect that carrots are better parents with a youngest child of seven or below would than sticks for that purpose. not be required to undertake work-related activity to help them move closer to the labour market. 6.15 pm We know that the vast majority of those on benefits aspire to work at some point in the future and that Lord McKenzie of Luton: This, again, has been an paid work is good for them and their children in nearly interesting debate which has strayed quite widely. I all circumstances. Paid work for those who can is the shall deal first with the observations of the noble most sustainable route out of poverty. To help more Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about the strategy and where parents to meet their aspirations and do more to we are heading with this. We recognise that, eradicate child poverty, we have continued to invest overwhelmingly, people want to work: work is good heavily in evidence-based policy responses over the for people’s health, it is generally their best route out past 10 years. The changes that we are discussing of poverty and it is good for their self-esteem. Given today are a further step forward along that path. They all the data about the disadvantages that accrue in include the introduction of the voluntary programmes, workless households and pass from generation to such as the New Deal for Lone Parents and the New generation, providing people with the opportunity to Deal for Partners. At the moment, these can be accessed participate in the labour market is a vital strand of voluntarily by parents at any time and they offer government policy. tailored advice by personal advisers. Therefore, they If that is our starting position, how does it work so are already part of the system. far as the benefit system is concerned? We are seeking to implement the Gregg model effectively, which states These programmes can give advice on the types of that there are people who are work ready; people who jobs available in the local labour market and can help need a progression to work to enable them to access in drawing up a personalised action plan to help the labour market; and people who should have the parents to prepare for and access those jobs. They can opportunity to engage in programmes but on whom also provide advice on the availability and range of no requirement should be placed. That is the package formal childcare services in the local area, including of measures and the thrust behind the Bill. details of where to access further information—for example, through a children’s centre or an extended So far as the structure of the benefit system is school. They can signpost parents to advice on debt concerned, I agree that we should be structuring a management or careers advice, and provide information, system whereby the support you get is not dependent if appropriate, on the support available when starting on the nature of the benefit you receive but is personalised work—for example, on tax credits. They provide support and dependent on what most helps you to remove the with the transition into work, such as in work credit barriers which prevent you accessing the labour market. and the in work emergency discretion fund. They can Again, this is what we are doing, in part, with the Bill. arrange work-related training to enable parents to Specifically, it remains an aspiration to end up with a update or develop their skills, as well as providing help single working-age benefit. It will be hugely complex with travel and registered childcare costs while they to move from where we are to that objective but we undertake a course. Therefore, that opportunity is have laid the groundwork in the Bill. It provides the there for people at the moment. prospect of removing income support from the system so that we end up with two working-age benefits, one We know that our personalised support programmes, associated with ill health and disability and one with such as the New Deal for Lone Parents, help individuals the rest. We believe that is the right way to go. So that into employment. We also know that combining is the strategy and the wrap around for this. programmes such as the New Deal for Lone Parents GC 215 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 216 with work-focused interview conditionality increases that sanctions drive the behaviour of jobseekers, and take-up of support and movements into paid work. we would expect this to apply also to the progression- This combination of programme support and to-work group. conditionality works for many people in improving health outcomes, lifestyle and outlook. However, this Government have always endeavoured to ensure that sanctions are a last resort and we have That is all positive. However, as we have taken incorporated significant safeguards to support potentially forward evidence-based policies, we have learnt that vulnerable people. For example, we have good cause there is more to do. We have learnt from the current provisions and appeal rights, an ability to waive and conditionality and support regime that we have in defer any requirements, and reminders to customers place that there is still a significant disparity between when appointments are due. Only clear refusals to the numbers who would like to move into paid work engage with reasonable requirements without good and those who take steps to achieve this. The current reason result in sanctioning activity. To date, the small regime does not work as well for those further from number of sanctions applied through, for example, the labour market, and taking new steps to bridge this Pathways to Work, suggest that we have largely been gap gives us the potential to make a further significant successful. reduction in the number of children who still live in poverty and to improve their life chances. We therefore As part of these pathfinders, we wish to test the want parents in the progression-to-work group to effectiveness of a more progressive regime based on undertake a reasonable and personalised set of the principles recommended by Professor Gregg in his requirements. This should help to ensure that more of independent review. This needs to be clearly understood, them feel that they are supported in realising their use different ways to encourage re-engagement, and aspiration to return to paid work when they are ready always offer speedy and simple routes to customers to to do so. To do this, they will have to follow another end any sanctions imposed. We wish to discuss our clear piece of evidence. We have learnt that regimes plans further with stakeholders before we bring forward work best where the claimant believes that the process regulations. is intended to be supportive and where he has co-ownership of the return-to-work process. However, I thought that it would be helpful to the Committee to set out a broad outline. Our plan is that To deliver on this, we have asked clients to agree any first failure by a customer to take part in a with their adviser the steps that they are willing to take work-focused interview or undertake work-related activity to make progress towards a return to work at the or, as appropriate, take part in a work-focused, health- appropriate time for them. In order to help them to related assessment should not result in a financial achieve this, we will provide a system of highly flexible sanction, as it does now. Rather, we want to issue and personalised support from the outset. Therefore, people with a formal, final written warning so that the model of conditionality and support that we want they definitely understand the need to undertake the to test is based on an expectation that they will actively necessary requirements. This will back up earlier engage with their adviser on an ongoing basis; that explanations by advisers and should serve significantly they will consider, discuss and agree with their adviser to reduce the numbers of people who actually receive an action plan comprising activities that they think a financial sanction in the pathfinder areas. Only will improve their prospects of moving back into where there are further, consecutive failures to complete work; and that they will undertake these agreed activities any of the necessary activities without good cause will as part of their own journey towards employment and financial sanctions be applied. then, if required, follow directions from advisers where strictly necessary, underpinned by an ultimate recourse For both employment and support allowance and to sanctions for those who fail to engage with support income support customers, this will probably mean without good cause. short-term reductions in benefit for two and then four In addition, we will ensure that we adopt a very weeks. Rates of reduction will be as now. In all cases, broad definition of work-related activity that encompasses these can be lifted early where a person starts to both more traditional training skills and job-related re-engage in the progression-to-work process by attending support and wider, socially inclusive measures, such as a work-focused interview. Where even this fails to spur volunteering, undertaking parenting programmes or a customer to re-engage and there are further consecutive visiting a debt adviser. This will ensure that the agreed failures to meet requirements, our advisers will try to work-related activity is personally tailored to the use their powers of direction to kick-start the necessary individual. engagement. The ultimate backstop for repeated non- compliance will be a reduction in benefit levels to I now turn to Amendments 35, 39, 40 and 41. As jobseeker’s allowance hardship payment levels. However, part of these pathfinders, we wish to test the effectiveness where this level of non-engagement has occurred, we of an escalating sanctions regime based on the principles plan to build on earlier contacts and ensure there is a recommended by Professor Gregg in his independent full investigation of circumstances to work out whether review. As noble Lords will understand, it is sometimes there is some fundamental barrier to meeting requirements necessary to use compulsion to encourage people to that has previously been missed. acknowledge their responsibilities, such as undertaking work-related activity that will benefit both their child Overall, the sanctions regime that we plan to test and themselves. In cases where this mandatory requirement should be more visible, rely on a wider range of tools is imposed, ultimately we will need a sanctions regime to engage customers and lead to fewer financial sanctions. for those who do not meet the requirements. We know It will build on the safeguards currently available. In GC 217 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 218

[LORD MCKENZIE OF LUTON] However, we have spent some time on the amendment. this way we hope that it will support the positive and I will study what the Minister said. In the mean time, I helpful progression-to-work regime that we are looking beg leave to withdraw the amendment. to build. Amendment 35 removes new subsection 2D(4)(e) Amendment 29 withdrawn. which deals with polygamous marriages recognised by the law of the countries in which they were conducted. Amendments 30 to 35 not moved. This regulation-making power will ensure that each member of a polygamous relationship will be subject to the appropriate conditionality regime. Without this Amendment 36 power we may not be able to achieve that aim, and Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach some people would then not get the help and assistance they need to return to work. 36: Clause 2, page 5, leave out lines 12 to 15 With that reassurance and explanation, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I move Amendment 36 and shall speak to Amendment 77. My noble friend Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I thank all noble Lord Skelmersdale and I have tabled Amendment 36 Lords who supported the amendment. Our debate has as a simple probing amendment on what may or may ranged widely from practical points to the philosophical not be a simple issue. There are, in truth, elements that ones raised by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood. The present us with a conundrum. The Minister referred to Grand Committee is very concerned about this part of those in his closing contribution to the debate on the the Bill and I thank the Minister for giving such a long previous group. explanation of it. His speech will repay a great deal of The amendment would leave out paragraph (e) in study. This part of the Bill begs the question of what is new Section 2D, which is to be inserted into the Social the strategic direction—the big picture, as my noble Security Administration Act. Once more, we are asking friend said. the Minister to give us a run through how the regulations Returning to the amendment, at least a personally will work. Paragraph (e) needs to be read quite carefully tailored work-related activity sounds like a helpful for it to mean very much. Earlier subsections tell us carrot rather than a punitive stick. If I were Secretary that we have two members of a couple—P and C—who of State for Work and Pensions, the first thing I would are getting the current rate of benefits. In that couple, do would be to review this provision, because I do not C is getting benefits at a higher rate, and P has to think that the evidence base is at all strong for that undertake work-related activity as a condition of C group of people. We need a much stronger evidence continuing to get his or her benefit at that rate. So far, base on which to introduce such a punitive regime. so straightforward. However, paragraph (e) is obviously there because someone in the department realised that there may be 6.30 pm some rather tricky domestic situations. The Bill’s draftsmen Lord McKenzie of Luton: If the noble Baroness will have wisely left the details to the hapless official who forgive me, perhaps I may stress a point that perhaps I will have to come up with the regulations. To challenge did not emphasise sufficiently fully in my response. the Minister, and trusting that he is willing to do so, is The opportunities she seeks to make available through he prepared to give us an illustration of the style that her amendment are essentially already there in the the regulations will take? system. Individuals have the opportunity to take up a Paragraph (e) clearly envisages a situation where C range of support, whether it relates to pathways or to is a member of more than one couple. I assume that New Deal regimes. We have learnt from that that, this means, or at least includes, polygamous marriages. notwithstanding those opportunities—our understanding Will the Minister confirm that that is the case and, if is that people overwhelmingly want to get to work—they that is not exclusively the case, perhaps provide examples are not producing that progression for enough people. of other possible situations? What criteria will be That is why we believe that an element of conditionality applied to determine which person can or should not and sanctions to support that is important. What I be? What will happen in cases where the claimant think that the noble Baroness would call the carrot might be married to one person but living with another? approach is already, in large measure, the system that Does there need to be a mechanism in place for more we have. complicated family situations, where different members of different couples are each supporting dependants? Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I thank the Minister I am curious to know how this will be policed. I for that further elucidation. I think that we are back to would like to hear a suggestion for how the Government Dr Pangloss, the Jobcentre Plus advisers, because their will set criteria for rating the work-readiness of couples role will be very important in this field and the work-related who share a member. There may well be more questions activity that is found for people. All Jobcentre Plus to ask once the Minister has set out his plans, but the advisers must make themselves clear to claimants. I wording of the Bill as it is now is tantalisingly embellished. dare say that an awful lot of claimants, particularly Amendment 77 is grouped with Amendment 36 those from ethnic minorities, simply do not understand because it is also probing and also refers to claiming what is happening to them. Very poor people will be couples. Clause 4(2) makes an insertion to the Welfare penalised even further and have their benefits reduced. Reform Act 2007. Plainly, the Act was not reformed GC 219 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 220 enough; welfare reform seems to be a bit like the Forth marriage would know of each other’s existence; I road bridge, with the Minister busy, paintbrush in imagine that sometimes they would, but presumably hand. My purpose, though, is to justify Amendment 77, sometimes they would not. which is to ask what this change does. I looked at the wording of the new condition—the claimant, Baroness Afshar: What happens in the cases of “is not a member of a couple the other member of which does not strictly observant Muslims where it is impossible to have limited capability for work”— get to the household to find out what is going on and and I asked myself, “What on earth does that mean?”. it is impossible for the women to get anywhere to state I would be grateful if the Minister could give an their aims? That seems to be discrimination on the explanation that did not use a double negative and grounds of their faith. Is that addressed? therefore made more sense. I beg to move. Lord McKenzie of Luton: There are issues about The Countess of Mar: I can see the poor Benefits which benefit people are seeking to access and the Agency staff having quite a problem. What happens if process to access it. Presumably, if a man seeks to the chap has two wives and they do not know about apply for jobseeker’s allowance or ESA and states in each other? How tactful does the Benefits Agency his claim that he has two wives in a polygamous person have to be? marriage, that will start the process of information being collected and he will have to provide that information Baroness Afshar: What it does it do to the relationship for the claim to be successful. There are other issues in households where the man makes all the decisions about when conditionality kicks in and the sort of and the woman is in this country as a dependant? How support that is available to individuals before you get can there be “negotiations” in that sense, when they to the sanctions process, but at the start of a claim the will be told what to do? What happens to freedom of individual making it would be required to provide full choice for those women? information. If full information is not provided, that could affect the claim; it could certainly affect the amount because the level of personal allowance is Lord McKenzie of Luton: The noble Lord, Lord driven by the composition of the household. Taylor, has set me a challenge: no double negatives. I If the amendment were to be accepted, it would not will see if I can deal with the important points that he be clear how the DWP could decide which partners to has raised. select for work-related activities and, indeed, whether New Section 2D(2) of the Social Security it would be possible for all the partners to be required Administration Act 1992 makes provision for regulations to take part in such activities. New Section 2D(4)(e) is to place on a partner of a benefit claimant a requirement therefore necessary in order to provide the mechanism to undertake work-related activities. Subsection 2D(4)(e) whereby an appropriate level of conditionality could deals with the issue of polygamous marriages; that is be applied to different partners in such relationships in its focus. In some countries such marriages are recognised a consistent manner. under the law. The legitimacy of such relationships is We do not know how many people in receipt of recognised by the statutes that govern the UK welfare benefits are in polygamous marriages, but we believe benefits system, but it is often necessary to make that the numbers are extremely small. Anecdotal evidence specific provision so that it is clear which rights and indicates that there are fewer than 1,000 polygamous responsibilities attach to each party to the relationship. marriages in the UK, and the number is decreasing. It is our aim that each member of a polygamous Only a very small proportion of these are receiving relationship should be subject to the conditionality benefits. The Committee may be aware that since the regime appropriate to their individual circumstances. Immigration Act 1988 came into force, people have We will allocate each person to one of the three been unable to form polygamous households in the conditionality groups recommended by Professor Gregg, UK. Under that Act the law ceased to recognise and expect each person to undertake the appropriate virtually all marriages celebrated under systems recognising actions. polygamy. For example, a man claiming employment and support I turn to the second of the amendments. Clause 4 allowance has two wives. With one of these wives he makes provisions with regard to couples where one has a child aged six months, and with the other, a three member is capable of work. Along with Clause 2, this year-old. Wife number one is in the “no conditionality” forms part of the legislative changes needed to introduce group and so will not be mandated to any work-related the recommendations set out in Professor Paul Gregg’s activities. However, wife number two is in the progression- review. Clause 4 introduces provisions that will deny to-work group, and we wish the provisions of this access to income support and income-related ESA to clause to apply to her. Regulations under new couples where one member is capable of work. Such Section 2D(4)(e) will make clear what obligations are couples will still be able to access help via income-based to be placed on which individual in these complex JSA, but the work-ready member will be required to arrangements. look for work. Only the person who is work-ready will The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, asked what would have to look for work and we do not intend this happen if they did not know about each other’s existence. provision to apply to couples with a child under the That is an interesting point but it does not obviate that age of seven. approach. These are issues around the circumstances Clause 4(2) inserts two new sub-paragraphs into of each individual. I do not know whether in normal paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Welfare Reform Act circumstances two or more partners of a polygamous 2007. We spent many happy hours debating that provision, GC 221 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 222

[LORD MCKENZIE OF LUTON] Lord Taylor of Holbeach: That makes sense. It had and who knows whether next year another one will occurred to me that it might well be the case that there come along? The new provisions will enable regulations would not be an incentive when claiming as a couple to be made to define classes of couples who are not and that a single-member household would be more entitled to receive income-related ESA. likely to be affected. However, these are complex matters, so if the Minister has something to add, it would be 6.45 pm useful to hear. It is currently possible for the partner of a claimant on ESA to remain in indirect receipt of benefit with no Lord McKenzie of Luton: I have another point to requirement for them to do anything to find employment. add. It would obviously be fraudulent if someone put This is despite the fact that they may be perfectly in a claim for two households. capable of working. Indeed, they may want to find work but are not sure how to go about it. They may lack the necessary skills required or simply be low in Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Ihavetosaythatthe confidence if they have been out of the labour market complexity of the issue is profound and it is useful that for some time. the Minister has been able to address it. The verification We intend to move couples in this situation from of a claim will also be difficult in certain households, ESA to jobseeker’s allowance. This will ensure that as we have learnt. It would be useful if the Minister those who are capable of work receive the appropriate could come back to us in writing with further explanations benefit-and-conditionality regime to enable them to on this issue. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the find employment. However, it is necessary to protect amendment. certain vulnerable groups such as partners who have limited capability for work, those who are eligible for Amendment 36 withdrawn. carer’s allowance, or couples who have a member in the support group. Regulations under new sub-paragraph Amendment 37 2A(1)(da) will make clear which groups will be exempted and remain entitled to claim ESA in their current Moved by Baroness Thomas of Winchester circumstances. The amendment seeks to remove couples 37: Clause 2, page 5, line 18, after “requirement,” insert— claiming ESA from Clause 4 entirely. There is no “( ) it has been shown that all reasonable attempts have justification for excluding one group over another. been made to contact the person,” The key to the provisions in Clause 4 is that one member of the couple is capable of work. It is right Baroness Thomas of Winchester: This amendment that a person who receives benefits, even indirectly, and the ones grouped with it are about the importance and who is otherwise capable of work, should be of Jobcentre Plus staff making sure that they have required to look for work in return for support in taken enough steps to ensure that claimants under this doing so. part of the Bill—that is, lone parents in the progression- I hope that those explanations have satisfied the to-work group and the partners of certain claimants noble Lord, but I should be happy to answer any who are on JSA or ESA and in the progression-to-work supplementary questions. group—are contacted before any sanctions can be applied following a claimant’s failure to attend work- Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for related activity. his comments. This has been a useful debate. Obviously, these are probing amendments and we are not seeking What are “reasonable attempts”? In my view, necessarily to remove these clauses. They will be interesting reasonable attempts to contact a person should not to study in the light of the Minister’s contribution just be by automated letter which could easily not be because this is an extremely complex issue. I made understood to be specifically about a claimant’s case, light of the complexity but I am well aware that, from or it could be delayed or lost where, for example, the the department’s point of view, this area is extremely post for various flats is not sorted out properly. It complex because the traditional patterns of relationships should be followed up with at least one telephone call. do not apply nowadays. Even polygamy may well be The Minister may say that this is done now, but are we considered to be a fairly rigid form of relationship sure that it happens in every case? Is it written down which may not fit in with other couple-type arrangements anywhere in guidance as a requirement? This would which I expect would be covered by the regulations, also ensure that the recipient properly understands which the Minister has not really addressed in his what is happening—something that I have been concerned response. I hope that I am right to say that relationships about for some time, given the relatively large number where a man, for example, is the head of household in of sanctions that are imposed and on which my noble two entirely different families without one family knowing friend gave a rather alarming figure last week. I wonder about the other, will be covered by this clause. I hope what language Jobcentre Plus staff use. I hope that that the Minister can confirm that that is the case. they use words other than “sanction”and “conditionality”, and that they manage to communicate that if claimants Lord McKenzie of Luton: If you look to the situation do not take certain steps, their benefit will be reduced. of a household involving polygamous marriages, the The grouped amendment states that the prescribed level of a claim that that household would make is period before a sanction is applied should be 10 and actually less than would arise if, say, one of the wives not five days. Five days is a very short time. For a start, were not treated as being part of that household and it does not take into account the vagaries of the postal she claimed separately. I think that that is the situation. system. Could the five-day period straddle a weekend? GC 223 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 224

That is the practical side of the issue, but even more involvement in work-related activities and all sorts of important is the psychological side. For anyone suffering other provisions. We know that this group is keen to from, for example, an episode of clinical depression or get back into work if at all possible, but for many it is a a flare-up of another mental problem, it is a hopelessly rather distant hope. Conditionality provisions are not short time in which to respond. A huge number of necessary for this group. People feel excluded and people in all benefit groups suffer from mild or moderate deprived in many ways and they want to get back into mental illness and they simply cannot open letters for what they see as normal society. days on end. In the wake of some tragic suicides in the That is my basic position, but if it is not possible, past, I gather that Jobcentre Plus ensures that vulnerable surely we have to be realistic and provide a decent people with mental health problems on incapacity amount of time for these people to get themselves benefit are spoken to face to face before ultimate together sufficiently at least to be able to pick up the sanctions are imposed. Will that be the case with the phone. Frankly, five or 10 days are not sufficient. new and tougher regime for those in the progression- People coming into in-patient units are likely to be to-work group? After all, some of them will be on in-patients for an average of eight weeks and probably ESA, albeit the employment side of ESA. Giving more. It takes weeks for them to evolve from that claimants at least an additional week, combined with situation to a position where they can handle the reasonable but persistent attempts by Jobcentre Plus stresses and strains of the benefit system. Twenty days staff to make contact, would be an important safeguard are just about acceptable, but none of this makes sense against the very serious risk of a vulnerable and poor for those with moderate or severe mental health problems. person, perhaps with a child, receiving a sanction unfairly. I beg to move. Lord Rix: I hope that these requirements do not Baroness Meacher: I support Amendment 37 and rely on the postal service, of which I can give an wish to speak to Amendment 86. I should be grateful example, although admittedly it is rather old now. if the Minister would confirm that on the second day When I was offered my knighthood, a letter came in Committee he gave a commitment that people with from No. 10 Downing Street addressed with the wrong mental health problems would not have benefit sanctions postal code. It was 12 days before I received the letter, imposed unless a home visit had been made. I take it which said that I had to reply by return. Obviously I from the noble Lord’s nod that he agrees. thought that I had missed my knighthood. I wrote an acceptance and rushed to the post in my dressing-gown, and it was clear that the neighbours thought I had Baroness Meacher: I would be grateful if the Minister reverted to type because once again I was without my could clarify that it applies not only to ESA claimants trousers. with mental health problems but also to those who might be claiming other benefits. I am not entirely clear about it, although perhaps I should be. I am 7pm concerned that anyone with a mental health problem, Lord Skelmersdale: Cap that. I support the rationale for exactly the reasons the noble Baroness indicated, behind the noble Baroness’s amendments; indeed, as needs to be seen face to face. Indeed, I am grateful to the Committee will note, I have added my name to the Minister for making that commitment; we now Amendment 42. They would ensure that the participant need to clarify the breadth of it. was given a fair and reasonable chance to prove himself I was going to raise a further point in relation to to have good cause for failing to uphold his duties this: does the Minister think it would be helpful if, under the scheme. If he failed to turn up to the under the Bill but not on its face, he could make a work-related activity, the amendments would make commitment that attempts would be made to work certain that all reasonable attempts were made to with workers who are in any way involved with those get in touch with him, and in any case he would have who have mental health problems? A lot of these 10 working days, rather than the customary five, to people have social workers, CPNs and others working respond. with them, so if the DWP personal adviser cannot The noble Baroness mentioned evidence from a make contact, it is likely that one of these other group that has lobbied on this point. I add for my part workers could do so. They could agree to phone that I was impressed by the arguments put forward by someone and have a conversation. Although I understand the Mental Health Coalition that those suffering from that it would not be reasonable to put this kind of acute mental health problems might not have the detail in the Bill, a commitment from the Minister for wherewithal to pull themselves back into the state of guidance along these lines could ensure that this aspect mind where they can make a fully justified response—a of the legislation would operate far more effectively point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. than in the absence of such a provision. We discussed The amendments would stretch the period to a full these issues on our second day in Committee and I do two weeks, which is not a huge amount of time. Given not want to prolong the debate except to seek clarity that the penalty for not responding within the stated on these two particular issues. time frame is the closure of a person’s claim, there are Amendment 86 would amend Amendment 85. I set just grounds for extending the period to prevent a out my reasoning when the Minister and I met with person being unfairly penalised for their health condition. the Bill team. I was saying that people with severe or It does not really matter whether it is the health even moderate mental health problems should probably condition itself, the postal service or being unable to be in a special employment support allowance group get through on the telephone to the jobcentre or the where there is no conditionality but there is voluntary contractor that is to blame. GC 225 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 226

[LORD SKELMERSDALE] The Countess of Mar: Not everyone who is unemployed Rethink, the mental health charity, circulated to will have a telephone. They may not even have a noble Lords the views of one of its members, David, mobile phone. How will they be contacted then? which I shall recount for purposes of illustration: “Mental illness isn’t like being in a wheelchair or having a bad Lord McKenzie of Luton: Probably by post in those back—it can take from you the capacity to manage your own circumstances. affairs. It can mean that you can’t summon the mental strength to drag yourself out of bed, let alone open and read a letter, digest the implications and then do the sensible thing and pick up the Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps I may open up that phone and take the action required. I’ve got bipolar and by issue. Has not a personal visit been considered in these definition it’s a fluctuating condition—you have ups and downs. In my case the downs last at least 10 days or two weeks. It’s quite cases? That would seem to be the obvious answer. possible when things are at their worst when I’m down that I just would not have the wherewithal to respond in time to a deadline Lord McKenzie of Luton: I need to check volumes from a job advisor. It might be five days later—but that would be five days too late”. and practicalities on this. I shall do that and revert to noble Lords specifically on that point. I am not sure I realise that the time set in the Welfare Reform Act about the percentage of people, unemployed or otherwise, 2007 is five days, and that the noble Baroness’s who have access to a telephone. Perhaps I can get Amendments 85 and 86 seek to change that too. some data on that as well. Perhaps this is an occasion where the refusal to take no for an answer is to be commended. Why have the As I said, two days before the work-focused interview Government chosen five working days? I presume that is due, Jobcentre Plus will contact the customer by they have been pressed on this matter by mental health telephone to remind them about the interview and campaigners, if not others. If that is the case, why has again remind them of their responsibilities. At this the Minister decided to ignore that advice and press stage, an interview can be re-booked if the customer ahead with five days? Are there any convincing and has a valid reason for not attending at the time originally persuasive statistics—it is very unlike me to ask for agreed. During the initial work-focused interview the that; it is normally the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas— personal adviser will, before starting the interview, with which he can blind us which would help us to explain the progression-to-work model and what will support the Government’s position on this? be expected of the customer. This will include the work-related activity requirement and the power that the adviser has to direct the claimant to a specific work-related activity in limited circumstances. Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am delighted that postal If the personal adviser establishes that the customer delays did not prevent the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has a mental health condition, learning disability or receiving his just deserts. I thank noble Lords for these other condition affecting cognition, such as a stroke or amendments, the sentiment of which I agree with autistic spectrum disorder, they will make an additional entirely. It is right that we make all reasonable efforts explanation of the conditionality to ensure that the to contact vulnerable customers before we sanction customer understands the requirements. If a customer their benefit and that we give our customers a reasonable fails to carry out the work-related activity, the adviser amount of time to show good cause for not complying will discuss this non-compliance with the customer at with the work-related activity requirements. However, the work-focused interview. This provides the first I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. opportunity for the customer to show the adviser that I shall deal first with Amendment 37 and the first they had good cause for not complying with the part of Amendment 85. Under these amendments a work-related activity requirement. claimant could be sanctioned for failure to comply If the customer fails to show good cause for non- with the regulations on work-related activity only compliance at the interview, we envisage that the personal where the Secretary of State could show that all reasonable adviser will hand the customer a letter explaining that attempts to contact the claimant had been made. I they now have five days to show good cause for assure noble Lords that Jobcentre Plus advisers already non-compliance. If there is attendance at the interview, make every effort to contact vulnerable customers the letter would be handed to someone. If a customer before a sanction is imposed. It may be helpful if I does not turn up for a work-focused interview, and outline in detail how Jobcentre Plus will inform ESA therefore does not show good cause for not carrying customers and parents of their new responsibilities out the work-related activity, the customer will be and the steps that advisers will take in the event that a posted a letter outlining the consequences of their customer fails to undertake work-related activity. The non-compliance and will then have five working days process will be very similar to the existing process in to show good cause. ESA if a customer fails to engage in a work-focused interview. Baroness Thomas of Winchester: If the claimant First, Jobcentre Plus will contact all customers to cannot speak English well enough to understand what explain what is required of them and book the first is being said, would it be possible at that point to have work-focused interview. It will also write to the customer some kind of interpretation. confirming the appointment and reiterating these conditions. In addition, two days before the work-focused interview is due, Jobcentre Plus will contact the customer Lord McKenzie of Luton: This touches upon the by telephone to remind them about the interview and issue generally of someone who has a carer, an advocate remind them again of their responsibilities. or someone supporting them and the question of the GC 227 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 228 noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about whether they They would follow on from that. A degree of engagement could be contacted for help and support. The answer with Jobcentre Plus would already have taken place. is yes. If the customer has given the adviser details of Indeed, some of the work-related activity might well support workers, the adviser would normally then be focused on language classes and support for people contact them. However, we need to be mindful of data with literacy needs. protection issues and they could not do so without the customer’s consent. I am aware that women from Lord Northbourne: It is the initial contact which is ethnic minorities who do not have English as a first troubling me: the first contact when the jobcentre tries language often rely on daughters to go with them. I to make contact. know that there are great issues around absences from schools and daughters missing out, but certainly there would be that opportunity for support, subject to data Lord McKenzie of Luton: The initial contact is protection issues. effectively brought about the other way around. It I am advised that we have no information on access happens when someone calls a contact centre or presents to telephones but, if someone has no number, the themselves to Jobcentre Plus seeking to make a claim. reminder is dealt with through the post. At that point it should be obvious if someone has difficulty with the English language, although it would I have dealt with the point that if a customer does be less obvious that they had a literacy problem. The not turn up to a work-focused interview, a letter will role of the adviser should be to try to identify what be posted to them. If a customer has a mental health barriers to work and employment someone has and condition, learning difficulties, a condition affecting therefore we would expect these issues to be identified cognition or autistic spectrum disorder, the personal along the way. Once it is established that there has adviser will arrange for a home visit to take place. This been a failure to undertake work-related activity and will ensure that the customer fully understands the the sanctions regime is involved, Jobcentre Plus should requirements upon them and the consequences of not be well aware of the individual circumstances. complying. The adviser will always attempt to meet the customer before any reduction of benefit is imposed. One cannot guarantee that this will work perfectly The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked if this in all cases, but protections are in place. Again, I have would apply to non-ESA claimants or whether the a letter ready to go to the noble Baroness, Lady assurance that I gave the other day would run more Afshar, who is not with us at the moment. It picks up generally. The answer is that if we know that if someone on a point she raised on the first day in Committee on JSA has a mental health condition, the same process about the support available to those from ethnic minorities would follow. However, I am mindful that we would who do not have English as a first language and the not always know. If someone comes through the ESA ability for people to have advocates with them at their work-focused, health-related assessment, it is much interview. I can say specifically that Jobcentre Plus has more likely that there will be an awareness of their experience of providing jobseekers with interpretation condition. services. We can extend the experience so that that which operates for JSA could be built on for progression- to-work. Lord Northbourne: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but this is an important point. What if the person cannot read? A significant number of children 7.15 pm leave school functionally illiterate, and we have immigrants Under the new sanctions model that we are proposing, and the wives of immigrants who do not speak English the first time that a customer fails to comply with their at all, and indeed many who cannot read. What happens conditionality requirements they will receive a formal then? The Minister is outlining a most threatening warning letter rather than a financial sanction. This situation for those sorts of people. will provide an additional opportunity to ensure that the customer understands the consequences of non- Lord McKenzie of Luton: The fact that someone compliance. In the event that the customer is then may not be able to read should be clear to Jobcentre sanctioned for a further episode of non-compliance Plus because we are dealing here with processes where without good cause, they will be able to appeal the someone has accessed the system. decision. Taken together, these steps represent a good opportunity to show good cause and significant safeguards to protect vulnerable claimants. Lord Northbourne: I am talking about the initial Amendment 42 and the second part of Amendment 85 approach when the letter arrives. People look at the would impose a limit of 10 days in which the claimant thing and have to be given time at least to go to the could provide evidence of good cause for failure to citizens’ advice bureau to find out what it is about. comply with their work-related activity requirement. Amendment 86 would impose a limit of 20 days for Lord McKenzie of Luton: The fact that someone that purpose. As described above, our intention is to has a reading difficulty or cannot read and speak mirror the current period of five days that claimants English should be known to Jobcentre Plus because have to show good cause for failure to attend a work- people come in for an interview with their adviser. It is focused interview. I believe that this is a reasonable only down the track that we are talking about sanctions. approach. Research shows that an effective sanction We consider sanctions if someone accessed the system should be a swift, clear and obvious response to a in the first place but did not turn up for a work-focused particular failure, otherwise customers do not understand interview or undertake a mandatory work-related activity. why they are being sanctioned and so do not rectify GC 229 Welfare Reform Bill[LORDS] Welfare Reform Bill GC 230

[LORD MCKENZIE OF LUTON] could undermine the sanctions regime and confuse their behaviour. By extending the time allowed to claimants. However, I hope that I have been able to show good cause to 10 or even 20 days and thus demonstrate that there is a genuine raft of protections delaying the sanction, there is much greater potential and that this is not about penalising people but genuinely to confuse the customer about the purpose of the about supporting people in moving them further towards sanction. That would defeat the purpose of the sanction the labour market. as a deterrent. I appreciate noble Lords’ concerns that vulnerable Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I thank all noble customers, particularly those with severe mental health Lords who have supported the amendment. I was conditions or chaotic lifestyles, may find this difficult particularly taken with the idea put forward by the to comply with. However, we need to strike a balance noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that Jobcentre Plus so that people cannot abuse the system by deliberately could perhaps make contact with a social worker, or not providing us with reasons for their non-compliance someone who might be helpful, to explain what is for four whole weeks. I do not believe that the customers going on to a person who is undergoing some kind of we are discussing here would fall into this category but trauma in their lives. there would be some, if only a tiny minority, who I am disappointed that the Minister is not going to sought to take advantage. It is right that time limits for move on the issue of the five days. However, he gave us showing good cause should be in regulations and not a very full reply as to what the steps would be. I was in the Bill as that gives us flexibility to change the very interested in the story of the noble Lord, Lord period in the future should we gain clear evidence that Rix, concerning the postcode. I find that if someone five days is not appropriate for our vulnerable customers. gets the postcode wrong, a letter takes a month to We also need to bear in mind that other safeguards reach me, but if they do not put a postcode on at all, will be built into specific work-related activity. The the letter is there within a day or two. That is quite clause states that a direction, important. In London, if someone puts SW12 instead “must be reasonable, having regard to the person’s circumstances”. of putting SW1—I have had this happen—a letter Regulations will make clear that a claimant’s medical could take a whole month to arrive. If someone says to circumstances will always be considered when requiring Jobcentre Plus staff, “I didn’t receive this letter”, the a claimant to undertake a specific activity, and guidance response will probably be, “That’s a good try-on”. will set out what the adviser should have regard to Therefore, there are some concerns because five days is when considering what is “reasonable” in the person’s such a short time. circumstances. As we have discussed, this would include I shall study what the Minister said with great care. disproportionate travel, harm to health or excessive In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. physical or mental stress, restrictions on availability of the activity, caring responsibilities, sincere religious or Amendment 37 withdrawn. conscientious objections and excessive expense. There are also opportunities, if a claimant feels that the Amendments 38 to 42 not moved. requirement placed on them is unreasonable, for them to request that it be reconsidered under the provisions for the reconsideration of an action plan in the Welfare Amendment 43 Reform Act 2007. I hope that I have covered the points Moved by that have been raised. Lord Skelmersdale 43: Clause 2, page 5, line 48, leave out “or remain in” Baroness Thomas of Winchester: Will the Minister address the language question—not whether the claimants Lord Skelmersdale: I hope that we can complete speak English but whether the English in their this in seven and a half minutes, but we shall see. communications, particularly the letter, is clear and Judging by our rate of progress so far, perhaps I am does not use words such as “sanction”, “conditionality” being optimistic, but I hope not. and “direction”? Amendment 43 seeks to remove the words “or Lord McKenzie of Luton: The noble Baroness raises remain in” from the list of definitions in subsection a good point. Generally, the department seeks to ensure (8). The definition of “work-related activity” includes that these things are dealt with as straightforwardly as that which apparently allows a claimant to remain in possible. We have a Crystal Mark process for all our work. I expect that I will be told by the Minister that communications, which I am sure is highly meaningful this means equipping the claimant with the necessary to the noble Baroness; I think it comes from the Plain skills to hold down a particular job. That, of course, is English Society. Notwithstanding that accolade, we to be praised, but how will it be measured? How can need to be perpetually vigilant on these issues. you anticipate it? It seems to me that the likelihood of holding down a job depends on a number of factors, Lord Skelmersdale: If memory serves me right, the including the attitude of the claimant, how he applies Plain English society has annual awards. From what himself to his work and also outside factors such as year is the award that the Minister is referring to? market conditions. How can any of us guarantee that someone is likely to remain in work? How can the Lord McKenzie of Luton: Perhaps I can write to the Minister, after 1 June, guarantee that prospect? If the noble Lord, in English, on that matter. I understand Government’s recession had turned into a depression, why these amendments have been tabled but I do not as some had feared, it would perhaps have been likely believe that they are necessary. In some cases they that not everyone could remain in a job. GC 231 Welfare Reform Bill[15 JUNE 2009] Welfare Reform Bill GC 232

Does the wording of the Bill not open up the risk of action plan should include measures that will help instilling unrealistic expectations? If a claimant has them with the transition into paid work and provide been deemed likely to remain in work and subsequently them with the tools to remain there. finds himself out of work, will he have some recourse In response to the points made by the noble Lord, by using the words of the Bill as his proof? How, in Lord Skelmersdale, no one is guaranteeing that this practical terms, will a person be deemed to be likely to process will enable someone to remain in work. The remain in work? Will it depend on the personal adviser’s test ultimately will be whether someone does remain in opinion? Will it depend on the claimant’s enthusiasm, work. This is about focusing on work-related activity as I said, or perhaps on appraisals or even paper and the barriers that people face, not only when getting qualifications to show that he has ticked all the into work but remaining and progressing in work. right boxes which make him likely to remain in Identification of those issues could make a difference work? and, if they can be addressed, it will help people to get I do not wish to seem nitpicking but I want to see, into and remain in work. This is not about the contracting as I am sure all noble Lords do, that the measures in arrangements and the providers but about the agreement the Bill have been carefully thought through to their that is reached in co-operation between the adviser conclusion. I beg to move. and the claimant in relation to what activity will help move them closer to the labour market. This is not only about the activity which will help them get through Lord McKenzie of Luton: Preparing for work is the door and into a job, but about the barriers and the only the first step. Once a person has entered work we other matters that need to be addressed in order to want to ensure that they remain in work. That is why help them make progress. That is why the Bill is we have introduced tax credits, the national minimum drafted in the way that it is; that is the purpose of this wage and, more recently, rolled-out in-work credits expression. It is not meant to imply that people will be and the in-work emergency discretionary fund nationally guaranteed a job for life or progression in a job. to ensure that work pays. It is not only financial support that will help people Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful for that information. remain and progress in work but access to the right I had occasion, I think on Thursday, to comment support at the right time to help them identify, update when I saw two Clerks sitting at the table here. There is and develop the skills that they need to succeed in a training technique, which is operated very often by work. That is why we have invested heavily in the employers, that is known as “sitting next to Nellie”—in Learning and Skills Council and Train to Gain, as other words, training by example. My noble friend well as working towards introducing a new integrated might or might not illustrate the point that I am employment and skills service that puts the individual making. at the core. That is why we recognised that we need to However, a person remaining in a job is less a adopt a broad definition of work-related activity, one feature of the Bill—although I would not disagree for that encompasses both more traditional training a second that it is desirable—and more a feature of the skills and job-related support, and wider socially new employee’s relationship within the organisation in inclusive measures such as volunteering, undertaking which they are employed. Sometimes the employer parenting programmes or visiting a debt adviser. All can help significantly in keeping that person in a job. of these will help a person make the transition to However, it is difficult to see what the outside adviser, work. whether a contractor or someone from Jobcentre Plus, However, once they have made that transition, we can do to add to this process. But now is not the time also want them to stay in work and not rapidly return to develop that thought and I beg leave to withdraw to benefits, so it is important that we take the opportunity, the amendment. while preparing people for work in the progression-to-work pathfinders, to try to ensure that they have the skills Amendment 43 withdrawn. and ability to remain in work. That is why we think it is important that the actions included in an individual’s Committee adjourned at 7.29 pm.

WS 51 Written Statements[15 JUNE 2009] Written Statements WS 52

crime. It is presented in a co-ordinated and easily Written Statements accessible way, including links to useful non-governmental websites. Monday 15 June 2009 OSIB will complement the information and advice already made available through the FCO travel advice to British nationals who travel or reside overseas. British Coal Compensation Also, it will draw on, and complement, information Statement provided by our embassies and high commissions, which in many cases already have arrangements in place to exchange information on security issues with The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry locally based British companies and to provide information of Justice (Lord Bach): On 19 May 2009 (Official Report, on request to business visitors. col. WA 283), I responded to a Written Parliamentary Question from Lord Lofthouse (HL 3425) in which he In setting up this new product the Government asked the Government how many solicitors have yet to have worked closely with business in order that the appear before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) product can best meet business needs and reflect business to answer allegations of professional misconduct in advice. UKTI intends to establish shortly a joint advisory the handling of cases under the British Coal respiratory group, to be chaired by a business representative, disease litigation and British Coal vibration white comprising a cross-section of business and officials finger litigation. from the government departments most closely involved in the initiative. We anticipate that the joint advisory The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) kindly group will meet three times per year. It will provide supplied the necessary information, detailing 68 solicitors direction to OSIB and facilitate collaboration with key from 14 solicitors firms yet to appear before the SDT international business security associations. in relation to coal health compensation claims. This included Michael Foxford, John Didsbury, Conal OSIB supersedes the previous Security Information Gallagher, Carlos Lopez, Jamie Patton, Paul Pickering, Service for Business Overseas (SISBO), a joint business/ William Robbins, Moira Boyce, Judith Bell, Christine FCO venture which closed on 30 April. The FCO and Harris, Susan Liver, Catherine MacCracken, Adele UKTI have worked closely with the SISBO board to Gallagher, Gail Peterson and Rhonda Rosenfield of achieve a successful transition from SISBO to OSIB. Birchall Blackburn LLP in Preston. We have since been notified by the SRA that, Correction to Commons Written Answer unfortunately, the information supplied had not been Statement updated to reflect the fact that the decision to refer a number of solicitors of Birchall Blackburn LLP had been rescinded in January 2009. As such, only Michael The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foxford and Moira Boyce of Birchall Blackburn LLP Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): My face allegations relating to the handling of coal health honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary claims. of State, Department of Health (Ann Keen) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. I regret that the information given in my Written Business: Overseas Security Answer to the honourable Member for South Statement Cambridgeshire (Andrew Lansley) on 11 May 2009 (Official Report, col. 627) was incorrect. Details of consultant-led and midwife-led maternity The Minister for Trade and Investment (Lord Davies units have been placed in the Library. of Abersoch): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is committed to providing British companies with information on a range of security related issues Devolution: Commission on Scottish they might face when operating or investing overseas. Devolution On 1 May the Government launched a new product, Statement titled Overseas Security Information for Business (OSIB), which will provide this information free of charge The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Davidson through the website of UK Trade and Investment. of Glen Clova): My right honourable friend the Secretary The intention is to give useful support to British of State for Scotland has made the following Written businesses in order that they can successfully meet the Ministerial Statement. key security related challenges of doing business overseas and to improve their competitiveness. On behalf of the Government I welcome the publication today of the final report from the Commission The information provided will be both generic and on Scottish Devolution. country specific. While OSIB is an FCO/UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) initiative, a great deal of its The commission was set up by the Scottish Parliament added value is the result of bringing together systematically and supported by the UK Government. The commission’s a range of sources of information from across government. remit was: The new product will cover issues such as political “to review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 security risks, bribery and corruption, physical and in the light of experience and to recommend any personnel security, the terrorist threat and organised changes to the present constitutional arrangements WS 53 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 54

that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve I am grateful for its careful consideration of this the people of Scotland better, improve the financial important area. Its work highlights the range and accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and depth of responsibilities which the Scottish Parliament continue to secure the position of Scotland within already has. It broadly endorses the existing settlement the United Kingdom”. but recommends adjustments. The Government are The commission, under the chairmanship of Professor willing to adjust the devolution settlement, where there Sir Kenneth Calman, has produced a detailed report, is benefit to the people of Scotland and where it will based on sound analysis, a robust evidence base and strengthen Scotland’s place within the Union. extensive engagement with people in Scotland. I welcome A steering group comprising parties involved in the in particular the efforts the commission made to engage Calman commission process, chaired by myself, will as widely as possible, through public events across the help the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament country, through oral and written evidence, a public plan how to take forward the Calman recommendations questionnaire and through its website. and deliver stronger devolution within a stronger United I welcome its conclusion that the devolution settlement Kingdom. in Scotland has been a remarkable and substantial The Government warmly welcome this report, copies success. We are approaching the 10th anniversary of of which have been placed in the Libraries of both the Scottish Parliament receiving full legislative Houses and the Vote Office. I am grateful to Sir competence, and there is broad support in Scotland Kenneth and the members of his commission for their and across the UK for the devolution settlement. The work. I look forward to working with colleagues, Scottish Parliament has established itself firmly in partners and stakeholders here and in Scotland to take public life, bringing greater accountability to the people forward the report. of Scotland, and innovation in both policy and working methods. The Government agree with the commission’s conclusion that, in order to serve the people of Scotland EU: Employment, Social Policy, Health better, and to secure the position of Scotland within and Consumer Affairs Council the United Kingdom, the institutions of the United Kingdom and Scotland must be able to work together Statement effectively. The Government have already taken steps to reinvigorate the Joint Ministerial Committee and to ensure close working with the Scottish Government, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in particular in the face of the global economic downturn. Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of We will consider the commission’s recommendations Luton): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under- in this area carefully. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jonathan Ten years on, the Scottish Parliament needs to have Shaw) has made the following Written Ministerial the financial responsibilities to match its ambitions for Statement. Scotland. We asked the commission to examine the The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer options for improving financial accountability. The Affairs Council was held on 8 June 2009 in Luxembourg. commission outlines a new financial model that would I represented the United Kingdom. give significantly more responsibility to the Scottish The main agenda item at the council was the Parliament for decisions on tax and spending in Scotland. preparation of the social and employment aspects The commission’s model empowers and requires the of the June European Council to be held on 18 and Scottish Parliament to make a decision on the balance 19 June. There was also a ministerial exchange of between taxes and public spending. Its recommendations views on the Lisbon agenda post-2010. draw from the work of Professor Anton Muscatelli’s In introducing the main policy debate, the Czech group of independent financial experts. presidency emphasised the contribution of the 7 May The Government agree that financial accountability employment summit held in Prague and the Commission’s could be achieved by moving to a system where a 3 June jobs communication. Member states, including greater proportion of the Scottish Parliament’s budget the UK, welcomed the Commission communication comes from its own decisions. We welcome the and its emphasis on skills and the reform agenda. A commission’s model which provides a promising and number of member states, including the UK, highlighted well-evidenced basis on which we can work with the budgetary concerns about the European Social Fund Scottish Parliament and others to bring forward practical proposals. proposals. The suggested changes are complex and The council adopted without comment the council require detailed and careful consideration. The decision on the guidelines for employment policies of Government will assess and explore how to implement the member states and endorsed the Employment these proposals. We agree with the commission’s Committee opinion on skills and mobility. The council recommendation that any change should be introduced adopted conclusions on flexicurity in times of crisis, in a phased way to manage the risks of instability in social services as a tool for active inclusion and on public finances and of windfall gains or shocks and equality for women and men in active and dignified will take this into account in developing proposals. ageing. The council also adopted conclusions on the The commission proposes further changes to the inclusion of the Roma. There was also a discussion of powers and functions of the Scottish Parliament, based the Commission proposal to extend social security on the work of a task group led by Sir David Edward. rights to third country nationals. The UK is not WS 55 Written Statements[15 JUNE 2009] Written Statements WS 56 opted-in to this proposal. The presidency concluded The agenda items are as follows: that further preparatory work on the proposal was General Affairs needed. Preparation of the 18 and 19 June European Council The council noted progress reports on revision of the directive on pregnant workers and on the directive The GAERC will discuss the presidency’s agenda on equal treatment of the self-employed. The council for the June European Council. The European Council also noted a presidency progress report on the anti- will focus on EU institutional issues, including Ireland’s discrimination directive. The incoming Swedish presidency guarantees on the Lisbon treaty and Commission underlined its hopes of continuing work and reaching President Barroso’s reappointment. political agreement in November. The council will also discuss the economic, financial Under any other business, the council took note of and social situation, taking first decisions on financial information from the Commission on the status of regulation based on the Commission’s proposals on implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights the de Larosière report as well as examining the progress of Persons with Disabilities. The council noted reports of the G20 summit outcomes. There will also be a from the presidency of conferences it had hosted. discussion of climate change funding mechanisms in At the Ministers only lunch, there was a discussion order to help develop an EU position ahead of the on post-2010 successor to the Lisbon strategy. For the Copenhagen climate change conference in December. UK, I stressed the importance of the skills agenda and Illegal migration in the Mediterranean is likely to be the importance of undertaking reforms to improve discussed, as is the Ukraine/Russia gas dispute. productivity and employment potential. Finally, on external issues, we expect coverage of EU: Energy Council the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan, the Middle East and Burma. Statement The Government support these discussions at the The Minister of State, Department of Energy and June European Council. In particular, we welcome the Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food continued co-ordinated EU response to the economic and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My and financial situation. honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Enlargement of State for Energy and Climate Change (David Kidney) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. The council is likely to take stock of the progress of I am pleased to outline the agenda items for the accession negotiations with Croatia, delayed due to forthcoming Energy Council in Luxembourg on 12 June Slovenia blocking the nine chapters ready for opening where Andy Lebrecht, Deputy Permanent Representative or closing. The Government believe that bilateral to the EU, will represent the UK. disputes should not delay the accession negotiations. We continue to urge both countries to find a mutually The first item on the agenda will be a discussion of acceptable solution to their territorial dispute and the Commission’s proposal for a council directive support the efforts of Commissioner Rehn to facilitate imposing an obligation on member states to maintain this. minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products. I also expect the Commission to give a progress External Relations report on its proposals for directives of the European Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) Parliament and Council on the labelling of energy-related The GAERC is likely to reiterate EU support for a products, the energy performance of buildings, and two-state solution in accordance with previous agreements the labelling of tyres. These were part of the second between the parties; access to Gaza and a comprehensive, strategic European energy review which the Commission regional approach. We also expect Ministers to express produced in November 2008. their support for the US commitment to the MEPP, Over lunch, I expect that representatives will discuss and reaffirm the EU’s readiness to work in close informally the location of the Association of Energy co-operation with the US and other international Regulators. The candidate cities are Ljubljana, Bratislava partners towards achieving a lasting peace. The EU-Israel and Bucharest. Association Council will take place in the margins of Finally, there will be short items of information on the GAERC. international relations in the field of energy. Cuba EU: General Affairs and External Ministers may discuss Cuba on the occasion of the Relations Council annual review of the EU’s common position and the Statement parallel review of the recently re-instated EU-Cuba political dialogue. The council is likely to adopt conclusions The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth which: renew the EU’s commitment to the common Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): My honourable friend position and dual track engagement with government the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and civil society; confirm the continuation of the and Commonwealth Affairs (Chris Bryant) has made political dialogue; and express concern at the lack of the following Written Ministerial Statement. concrete progress on our human rights concerns. The The General Affairs and External Relations Council Government remain concerned about the human rights (GAERC) will be held on 15 June in Luxembourg. My situation in Cuba, but continue to support a policy of right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the engagement. Continuation of the political dialogue Minister of State for Europe will represent the UK. will allow more time for it to achieve results. WS 57 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 58

Burma Budget 2009 announced an additional investment On Burma, we expect the council to discuss of £655 million over the next two years to ensure that developments in the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, and in every young person aged 16 and 17 who wants to particular the need for a robust EU response in the study or take up a training place will have their place event of a guilty verdict. It is not yet clear whether a guaranteed by the Government under the September verdict will come before the GAERC. Were Aung San guarantee. £251 million of this investment is being Suu Kyi to be subjected to a further period of house used to fund 54,500 places and additional support for arrest, or worse, imprisoned, this would remove the young people from this September, bringing our total last shred of credibility from elections planned for investment in the education and training of young 2010. In such circumstances we would expect the people to £6.8 billion in 2009-10. council to issue strong conclusions outlining the steps In March, schools, colleges and other training providers the EU planned to take in response. told us that the allocations they had received would Western Balkans not meet the increase in local demand they were On the western Balkans, Ministers will agree already experiencing or were expecting from September conclusions on visa liberalisation, regional co-operation, 2009. Budget 2009 now allows us to provide funding and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The UK is not a for the additional 32,000 learner places schools and party to the Schengen agreement and so does not colleges notified us of earlier in the spring, and to participate in decisions on visa liberalisation. On BiH, the make provision for a further 22,500 learners who we EU will underline the importance of further reform, expect will want a place in learning later this year. This and reaffirm its commitment to the five objectives and is necessary for us to meet the September guarantee. two conditions that need to be completed before transition I am today announcing the regional breakdown of from the Office of the High Representative to a solely the £77 million investment which is funding the further EU special representative-led mission can occur. 22,500 places. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) Ministers may also discuss co-operation by the countries has recently notified schools, colleges and training in the region with the International Criminal Tribunal providers of these allocations, which are focused on for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). supporting young people who would otherwise be at AOB risk of becoming NEET (not in employment, education Moldova or training). Ministers may discuss the EU’s relationship Our investment means we have increased the number with Moldova and the current political uncertainty of places available this September and next by 54,500 following the failure to elect a new president and the to an all time high of more than 1.55 million. Together requirement for new parliamentary elections. They with the 17,500 apprenticeships places for young people will emphasise the importance of holding free and fair announced by the Prime Minister, that is 72,000 young elections. people more than were first set out in the LSC’s annual statement of priorities in November 2008. This Illegal Migration funding means that we can make sure that young There will be a short discussion of illegal migration people who are especially vulnerable have a suitable in the Mediterranean region, at the request of Greece. offer of a place by expanding the entry to employment We expect Ministers to focus on increasing and programme by 13,000 places in 2009-10. strengthening co-operation in Europe to tackle the increasing flows of illegal migration. The UK supports This is a huge investment in the skills of our young this and recognises the particular challenges that are people to ensure that they can gain the skills and faced by Greece and other Mediterranean countries. confidence to put them on the path to economic We are also keen to further the UK’s bilateral relationship prosperity and to prepare the country so it is well with Greece on migration through the provision of placed for economic recovery with young people having technical advice and assistance. the skills base it needs. We must make sure that every young person knows the wide range of education and Georgia training options open to them under the September Ministers’ discussions are likely to focus on the guarantee. We expect the Connexions Service, schools, continued role of the EU monitoring mission (EUMM), colleges and other providers to work with the local whose mandate is due for renewal in September. Ministers authorities to deliver the guarantee. are also likely to take into account the outcome of discussions in New York on the renewal of the UN We know that the recession will continue to have an mission’s mandate and the possibilities for increased impact on the choices being made by young people co-operation between international missions on the over the summer and may increase demand further for ground. learning and training places. I have therefore asked the Association of School and College Leadership, the Association of Colleges and the LSC to monitor Higher Education: 16-19 Funding the situation and to report to me after the bulk of the Statement recruitment for the 2009-10 academic year has taken place this September. This will also inform our plans The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, for the 2010-11 academic year and will be crucial as we Department for Children, Schools and Families (Baroness make the transition from the LSC to local authority Morgan of Drefelin): My right honourable friend the led commissioning. I will then make a further assessment Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families of the situation, with my Cabinet colleagues, to ensure (Ed Balls) has made the following Written Ministerial that all young people who want one can have a suitable Statement. place at school, college or training provider. WS 59 Written Statements[15 JUNE 2009] Written Statements WS 60

Regional analysis of 16-18 allocation to schools, Consider the detailed arrangements for an apprentice colleges and other providers—excluding apprenticeships minimum wage under the NMW framework (as set and entry to employment provision, 2009-10 out in the NMW Act 1998), and to recommend the rate and arrangements that should replace the existing Post Budget exemptions, together with the timing for its introduction. 09 Allocation (excludes Allocation of Allocation of The commission is asked to do this with reference E2E and extra extra to: Region apprenticeships) 22,540 places 22,540 places the issues and groups to which they have particular East of £313.9m £9.3m 2,766 regard when reviewing the established rates, as laid England out above; East £204.3m £4.9m 1,464 the need to ensure that sufficient volume, quality Midlands and sectoral variety of apprentice places are London £1,479.5m £6.8m ,841 available to meet government targets, in particular North East £572.7m £5.4m 1,780 when the education participation age is raised in North West £914.0m £13.8m 4,199 England in 2013 and 2015; and South East £762.0m £11.3m 3,144 the effective functioning of the education market South West £365.5m £7.8m 2,281 and young people’s choices with reference to the West £462.1m £5.8m 1,532 Midlands level of financial payment available on other Yorkshire and £529.6m £8.2m 2,570 education and training routes. the Humber Report to the Prime Minister and Secretary of Other £17.2m £3.7m 963 State for Business, Innovation and Skills by the end of SEN £193.0m n/a February 2010. TPG £74.0m n/a The new terms of reference for the Low Pay Academies £112.0m n/a Commission follow the Government’s acceptance of Grand Total £5,999.7m £77m 22,540 the commission’s recommendations in its 2009 report on introducing a minimum wage for apprentices. Notes to table: Copies of the remit have been placed in the Libraries 1. The matching to local authority and hence to region is done on best fit and derived from post code of the head office of of both Houses. the providers to whom the allocation is made. It is possible for these providers to operate across more than one authority area, although there is no double counting of the funding allocations. Ministry of Justice: Annual Report 2. The figures by region do not include allocations for entry to employment provision or apprenticeships. Statement 3. The figures by region do not include any allocations for academies, SEN, or teacher pay grant. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry 4. The total figures shown for SEN and teachers pay grant are for the 2009-10 financial year as this is how this funding is of Justice (Lord Bach): My right honourable friend the allocated. As such they are not directly comparable to the other Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice funding figures which are all 2009-10 academic year based. (Jack Straw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. I have today published, and laid before Parliament, Minimum Wage the Ministry of Justice annual report for 2008-09 (Cm 7600). Statement The report sets out the good progress we have made this year in meeting our mission of creating a just, safe The First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for and democratic society. It provides the first full year Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of reporting of progress against our 2007 public service the Council (Lord Mandelson): I am pleased to announce agreement (deliver a more effective, transparent and that the Government have today written to the Low responsive criminal justice system for victims and the Pay Commission setting out the remit for its 2010 public) and our departmental strategic objectives, and report. reports against targets set in the 2004 Spending Review The commission is asked to: that are still current. The report also includes our Monitor, evaluate and review the national minimum progress on implementing outstanding Public Accounts wage (NMW) and its impact, with particular reference Committee recommendations. to the effect on pay, employment and competitiveness in the low paying sectors and small firms; the effect on different groups of workers, including different age Police: Northern Ireland groups, ethnic minorities, women and people with Statement disabilities and migrant workers and the effect on pay structures. Review the levels of each of the different minimum Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My right honourable wage rates and make recommendations for October friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 2010. The commission is also asked to make provisional (Shaun Woodward) has made the following Ministerial rate recommendations as appropriate for October 2011. Statement. WS 61 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 62

I have received the annual report for 2008-09 of the The recommendation made in the report was to chief constable of the Police Service of Northern add the disease osteoarthritis of the knee to the schedule Ireland which is being laid before Parliament today as of prescribed diseases. These regulations implement a Command Paper. that recommendation. Copies of the report are available from the Library This means that all coal miners who worked of the House. underground in coal mines for an aggregate of 10 years or more before 1986 can claim industrial injuries disablement benefit if they suffer from osteoarthritis Race Relations Act 1976 of the knee. Work from 1986 onwards as a coal face worker at a non-mechanised coal face, and for certain Statement other categories of work, can be included in the 10 years qualifying period. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My honourable friend the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration Terrorism: Control Order Powers (Phil Woolas) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement Statement. I have made an authorisation under Section 19D of The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended, to enable Office (Lord West of Spithead): My right honourable the Secretary of State to request that asylum applicants friend the Minister of State for Policing, Crime and claiming to be nationals of Palestine or Kuwait submit Security (David Hanson) has made the following Written to language analysis. Ministerial Statement. Language analysis carried out for some Somali Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act asylum applicants demonstrates that significant 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to proportions of those tested have claimed to be of a report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable nationality, or from a region or grouping, that is not after the end of every relevant three-month period on their own in order to try to gain residence in this the exercise of control order powers during that period. country. We are aware that a significant proportion of Palestinian and Kuwaiti claims also are from other The level of information provided will always be nationalities. This new authorisation will assist the subject to slight variations based on operational advice. Secretary of State to make decisions in individual Control orders continue to be an essential tool to Palestinian and Kuwaiti cases, and to ascertain the protect the public from terrorism, particularly where it extent of abuse within these nationalities. is not possible to prosecute individuals for terrorism-related The Secretary of State may take a refusal to submit activity and, in the case of foreign nationals, where to testing into account when determining whether an they cannot be removed from the UK. applicant has assisted in establishing the facts of his As stated in previous quarterly statements on control case or her case. orders, control order obligations are tailored to the The authorisation will remain in place for 11 months individual concerned and are based on the terrorism- (until April 2010), at which point we will review whether related risk that each individual poses. Each control it is still necessary and appropriate. order is kept under regular review to ensure that obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The I am placing a copy of the authorisation in the Home Office continues to hold control order review Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under Social Security (Industrial Injuries) regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of (Prescribed Diseases) appropriate exit strategies. During this reporting period, Statement three CORGs were held in relation to the orders currently in force. In addition, further meetings were held on an ad-hoc basis as specific issues arose. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, During the period 11 March 2009 to 10 June 2009, Department for Work and Pensions & Department for five non-derogating control orders were made and Communities and Local Government (Lord McKenzie served. Six control orders have been renewed in accordance of Luton): My honourable friend the Parliamentary with Section 2(6) of the 2005 Act. One control order Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Helen against an individual was revoked prior to being quashed Goodman) has made the following Written Ministerial by the court. One further control order has been Statement. revoked on direction from the court. Two non-derogating The Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed control orders made but not served in the previous Diseases) Amendment Regulations 2009 have today quarter have also been revoked and one control order been laid before Parliament. The regulations implement, made but not served in a previous quarter has expired. from 13 July 2009, the recommendation set out in the In total, 20 control orders are currently in force, Industrial Injuries Advisory Council’s report— 10 of which are in respect of British citizens. Six osteoarthritis of the knee in coal miners. The Command individuals subject to a control order live in the Paper Cm 7440 was published in August 2008. Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals WS 63 Written Statements[15 JUNE 2009] Written Statements WS 64 live in other police force areas. All of these control One judgment was handed down by the High Court orders are non-derogating. No prosecutions for breaching during this reporting period in relation to a modification a control order were completed during this reporting appeal under Section 10(3) of the 2005 Act. In Secretary period. of State for the Home Department v AM, judgment During this reporting period, 108 modifications of was handed down on 23 March 2009. The court control order obligations were made. Twenty-four requests dismissed the appeal and upheld all obligations as to modify control order obligations were refused. A necessary and proportionate. right of appeal is provided for by Section 10(1) of the One judgment was handed down by the High Court 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State during this reporting period in relation to an application to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify for interim relief pursuant to an application for judicial an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control review, the purpose of which was to prevent the Secretary order without consent. Six appeals have been lodged of State from acting on a modification to a control with the High Court by controlled persons in relation order. In Secretary of State for the Home Department to the renewal of control orders during this reporting v BM, the judgment handed down on 22 May 2009 period. Three appeals have been lodged against decisions refused injunctive relief and gave directions for the by the Secretary of State to modify obligations imposed Section 10(1) appeal against the modification. by non-derogating control orders without consent. A right of appeal is also provided for by Section 10(3) of Two controlled persons have applied for, and been the 2005 Act against decisions by the Secretary of granted permission, to appeal to the Court of Appeal State to refuse a request by a controlled person to against High Court judgments in this reporting period. revoke their order and/or to modify any obligation The Secretary of State has also applied for, and been under the order. Two appeals have been lodged with granted permission, to appeal to the Court of Appeal the High Court by controlled persons relating to refusal in relation to two control order cases. to modify a control order. As reported in the last Written Ministerial Statement, Two judgments have been handed down by the the House of Lords heard the appeals in the cases of High Court in control order cases during this reporting AE, AF and AN between 3 and 9 March 2009. The period in relation to substantive reviews of the individual judgments, handed down on 10 June 2009, held that control orders under Section 3(10) of the 2005 Act. In for control order proceedings to be compatible with Secretary of State for the Home Department v AT and Article 6 of the ECHR, a controlled person must be AW a judgment was handed down on 20 March 2009. given sufficient information about the allegations against The court ruled that the control order imposed on AT him to allow him to give effective instructions in remains necessary and proportionate but quashed one relation to those allegations. Provided that this requirement obligation and directed the Secretary of State to amend is satisfied there can be a fair trial notwithstanding another. In the case of AW, the court quashed the that the controlled person is not provided with the control order on the grounds that the decision to make detail or the sources of the evidence forming the basis the control order was made on a materially erroneous of the allegations. Where, however, the open material basis. A judgment was handed down in the case of consists purely of general assertions and the case Secretary of State for the Home Department v AV on against the individual is based solely or to a decisive 30 April 2009. The court directed the Secretary of degree on closed materials, the requirements of a fair State to revoke the order on the basis that recent trial will not be satisfied, however cogent the case events pertinent to the case meant the order was no based on the closed materials may be. All three appeals longer necessary, although the High Court was satisfied were allowed and the cases will now be remitted to the that that the decisions to make the original control High Court for this disclosure test to be applied. order and the renewed control order were necessary and not flawed. Full judgments are available at www.bailii.org/.

WA 167 Written Answers[15 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 168 Written Answers Ambulances Question Monday 15 June 2009 Asked by Lord Trimble To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Airports: Heathrow regard ambulances operated by the Red Cross or St John Ambulance and other voluntary ambulances Questions as ambulances within the meaning of the Road Asked by Baroness Hanham Traffic Acts. [HL4066] To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): Written Answer by Lord West of Spithead on The Department for Transport cannot interpret the 1 June (WA 1), what action they propose to take to law authoritatively: that is a matter for the courts. meet the concerns of the Independent Monitoring However, road traffic law in respect of ambulances Board for Heathrow Airport about meeting reasonable generally relates to the vehicle itself, for example its welfare needs and treating detainees with humanity. medical equipment, and how the vehicle is used, rather [HL4093] than to the organisation (whether voluntary or otherwise) operating it. Vehicle excise is an exception to this, as To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to exemption depends on the specific organisation using the Written Answer by Lord West of Spithead on the vehicle or keeping it on the road. 1 June (WA 1), what action they propose to take to meet concerns of the Independent Monitoring Board for Heathrow Airport on escorting patterns when Civil Service: Performance Pay men, women and child detainees are brought to the Question airport. [HL4094] Asked by Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Lord West of Spithead on To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the 1 June (WA 1), what action they propose to take to Written Statement by the Lord President (Baroness meet concerns of the Independent Monitoring Board Royall of Blaisdon) on 31 March (WS 83–84), what for Heathrow Airport on the facilities for personal was the estimated size of the Ministry of Defence’s non-consolidated performance-related pay pot for hygiene in five of the six detention areas. [HL4095] the Senior Civil Service in each of the past five years for which information is available. [HL2903] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): The UK Border Agency The Minister for International Defence and Security produced an action plan in response to the recommendations (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): The Ministry of Defence of the Independent Monitoring Board’s annual report Senior Civil Service paybill figures for each year since into the holding rooms at Heathrow Airport. The plan 2005 and the size of the non-consolidated pay pot as a was sent to the IMB on 29 May 2009 and a copy has proportion of the paybill is: been placed in the House Library. 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

£18.3m £18.1m £17.5m £18.4m £18.9m Alcohol 5.0% 6.5% 7.6% 8.6% 8.6% Question Crime: DNA Database Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno Question To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there Asked by Lord Warner has been a significant reduction in disturbances on the London Underground and London Buses since To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many the alcohol ban was introduced. [HL4062] offences of (a) murder, (b) rape, (c) other sexual offences, and (d) other violent offences were committed in (1) 1976–77, (2) 1986–87, (3) 1996–97, and The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): (4) 2006–07; and in how many of those cases British Transport Police have reported that public (a) convictions were achieved, and (b) DNA was disorder offences on the London Underground and used in securing those convictions. [HL3874] Docklands Light Rail Network fell by 4.5 per cent from 2007-08 to 2008-09. A similar indicator for London The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Buses does not exist, as the majority of bus incidents Office (Lord West of Spithead): Information is not are reported directly to Transport for London Bus available in the form requested as it is not possible to Control Room which has seen a reduction in the track individual offences through to their court outcome. number of reports of alcohol-related disturbances The police-recorded crime data are based on the number over the last six months. Reductions flow from a range of offences recorded by the police. Convictions data of initiatives, including more visible policing, in addition are provided by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform to the alcohol ban. and are based on the number of offenders. These data WA 169 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 170 are counts of persons classified by their principal 1. Violent offences includes: violence against the person, sexual offence. For these reasons the two datasets are not offences, and robbery. directly comparable. 2. The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a Table one provides data on the number of offences defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the recorded by the police. Financial-year data are only principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is available from 1997-98 so calendar-year data have imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more been provided for 1977, 1987 and 1997. Data for offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the homicide offences have been provided as at the time statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. the police record an offence it are not necessarily 3. Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are known whether the offence was a murder or manslaughter. accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data Table two gives the number of defendants found systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a guilty at all courts for violent offences in England and consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection Wales for the years 1977, 1987, 1997 and 2007. Court processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account data are only available on a calendar-year basis. when those data are used. No data are collected centrally on the number of Source: Ministry of Justice. convictions resulting from DNA. Table 1: Number of selected offences recorded by the police, for Crime: London selected years, England and Wales1 Offence Question group/ Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno offence 19772 19872 19972 2006-073, 5 To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Violence 82,190 141,042 250,822 1,046,168 criminal offences are recorded as having been against the committed in underpasses in London in (a) 1995, person (b) 2000, (c) 2005, (d) 2006, (e) 2007, and (f) 2008. of which: [HL4125] Homicide 482 688 739 759 Sexual 21,313 25,154 33,090 57,522 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Offences4 Office (Lord West of Spithead): The information requested of which: is not available centrally. It is not possible to identify Rape 1,015 2,471 6,628 13,774 offences occurring in underpasses from the recorded Robbery 13,730 32,633 63,072 101,376 crime statistics collected by the Home Office. Subtotal of 117,233 198,829 346,984 1,205,066 offences Crime: Strict Liability 1. Recorded crime statistics were published on a calendar-year Question basis up until 1997 and thereafter on a financial year basis. 2. These data are prior to the introduction of the National Crime Asked by Lord Hylton Recording Standard. These figures are therefore not directly To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether since comparable with those for later years. 16 April they have published evidence concerning 3. These data takes account of the introduction of the National the creation of a new strict liability offence, as Crime Recording Standard in April 2002. These figures are provided for by Clause 13 of the Policing and therefore not directly comparable with those for earlier years. Crime Bill; if not, why there has been delay; and 4. The Sexual Offences Act 2003, introduced in May 2004, when they will publish such evidence, in view of the altered the definition and coverage of sexual offences. recommendations made by the Joint Committee on 5. Includes data for British Transport Police from 2002-03. Human Rights. [HL4035] Source: Home Office. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): The decision to introduce Table 2: Number of defendants found guilty at all courts for violent offences1 and selected offences, England and Wales 1977, 1987, 1997 a criminal offence was taken on the basis of all the and 20072.1 evidence considered following a public consultation— Offence Paying the Price, during the development of the group/ Co-ordinated Prostitution Strategy and Tackling the offence 1977 1987 1997 2007 Demand for Prostitution: A Review. Consideration of Violence 38,700 47,868 34,562 41,951 the merits of taking a criminal justice approach to the against the demand for prostitution is set out in these published person documents. The decision to make the offence one of of which: strict liability was taken following consultation with Murder 115 166 275 369 the police and Crown Prosecution Service. Sexual 6,204 6,231 4,523 5,075 Offences Cycling of which: Question Rape 313 425 618 873 Robbery 3,229 4,439 5,589 8,829 Asked by Lord Berkeley Total 48,133 58,538 44,674 55,855 To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the violent Foreign and Commonwealth Office is implementing offences the Government’s cycle-to-work-scheme. [HL4114] WA 171 Written Answers[15 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 172

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Embryology Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is introducing a Questions salary sacrifice scheme to enable staff to purchase Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool bicycles as part of a cycle-to-work-scheme. We hope to implement the scheme by September 2009. To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 1 June (HL 3769), whether all aspects of the clinical Diplomatic Relations and research roles are separated so that neither the Question person responsible for a research licence granted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Asked by Lord Grocott nor the nominal licensee would be permitted to give medication or collect eggs from patients undergoing To ask Her Majesty’s Government which are the fertility treatment at the same centre. [HL3967] member states of the United Nations where the United Kingdom shares diplomatic relations with To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to another state. [HL3995] the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 1 June (HL 3769), whether inspectors employed by Lord Brett: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has missions in over 200 countries and, in some of check patient case-notes or the patient administration these countries, represents the interests of other nations. system records at a licensed centre to confirm that the clinician seen on each attendance is not directly The overall number of countries where this is the engaged in separately licensed research at the same case will vary according to a number of different centre with the patient’s gametes or embryos. factors, such as if a country holds the presidency of a [HL3968] particular organisation, and requests that the UK represents its interests during the course of its presidency. To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to However, this information is not held centrally, and the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on to provide a comprehensive list of countries where we 1 June (HL 3769), how the Human Fertilisation represent the interests of other nations, or where other and Embryology Authority ensures that personnel nations represent the interests of the UK, would incur responsible for laboratory services as part of a disproportionate cost. patient’s fertility treatment are not also directly engaged in research with the same patient’s gametes or embryos, in so far as that does not constitute Disabled People: Mobility Scooters routine clinical tests. [HL3969] Question Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): The To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) they have made of the impact on the outdoor has advised that where donated gametes are used for mobility and living standards of disabled ex-service the purpose of research, the authority’s code of practice men and women, and other severely disabled people, requires the treatment centre to ensure that aspects of of reclassifying mobility scooters as vehicles for the the clinical and research roles are separated. When transport of persons, rather than carriages for disabled eggs are being donated to research through an egg-sharing people, and what further action they are taking to agreement, the centre must ensure that the eggs are have the scooters reclassified. [HL4015] divided between the egg donor and the recipient, in this case the research project, by someone not directly involved in that project. The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): The Ministry of Defence is not aware of any assessment The HFEA also advises that it is up to individual that has been carried out into the impact on the centres to decide exactly how they meet these requirements outdoor mobility living standards of disabled ex-service and to ensure that personnel giving medication and men and women, and other severely disabled people, carrying out egg collection are qualified and competent of reclassifying mobility scooters as vehicles for the to perform such tasks. When centres licensed to carry transport of persons, rather than carriages for disabled out research and treatment are inspected, patient records people. The use of mobility scooters and powered are reviewed to ensure compliance with the Human wheelchairs are defined by the Use of Invalid Carriages Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, licence conditions on Highways Regulations 1988 (Statutory Instrument and the guidance in the HFEA’s code of practice. No 2268) and there are currently no plans for Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool reclassification. The Department for Transport is reviewing how best to balance the needs of mobility scooter To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the users with those of other pedestrians and road users. Written Answers by Lord Darzi of Denham on This includes a review of how to improve advice and 23 March (WA 92) and by Lord Drayson on 19 May information, the issues of insurance and fitness to (WA 290), what is their assessment of the comments drive, and registration issues. In the light of the reported attributed to Professor Sir Ian Wilmut regarding growth in their usage, the department will continue to the relative merits of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) review its policies in these areas. cells compared to attempts at getting human embryonic WA 173 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 174

stem cells by cloning, as described in an interview Equal Pay: Government Departments by the French website Gènéthique on 18 May; and which non-reproductive applications would benefit Questions from nuclear transfer that could not be addressed Asked by Baroness Warsi by the use of iPS cells. [HL3970] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what pay Lord Darzi of Denham The Government believe gaps there are in respect of gender, race and disability that it would be premature to conclude that the advent among employees of the Department of Energy of induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) cells has superseded and Climate Change. [HL3382] the need for research into deriving embryonic stem cells via cell nuclear replacement. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Whilst iPS cells undoubtedly represent an exciting Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Since its scientific advance, there are still numerous technical creation in October 2008 DECC has continued to use issues around both the derivation and biological properties the pay provisions of its parent departments, namely of iPS cells that must be resolved before proceeding to BERR and Defra. For that reason no separate DECC clinical application. Therefore, it is impossible to predict information is available and the information could what the relative contributions of nuclear transfer and only be obtained at disproportionate cost. iPS cell technology might be to medical need, and so, For information on pay in BERR and Defra please the Government continue to support all forms of stem see the published Civil Service Statistics. The details cell research. available are: Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool table 25—median earnings by ethnicity; table 26—- median earnings by disability; and To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Triesman on 29 October table 27—median earnings by gender. 2007 (WA 144) regarding Medical Research Council The published tables are available at www.statistics. expenditure, what assessment they have made of gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/CivilService_tables comments attributed to Dr Miodrag Stojkovic _2008.xls. regarding cheaper treatment for patients who give Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill eggs or embryos to researchers in Newcastle (as reported by the Guardian on 29 October 2004); and To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there what assessment they have made of the subsequent is a gender pay gap in HM Treasury; if so, what is experiences of fertility patients. [HL3971] the percentage difference; and what are the reasons for the difference. [HL3512] Lord Darzi of Denham: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) advises that it The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury has not assessed the comments attributed to Dr Miodrag (Lord Myners): The Treasury does not have a significant Stojkovic as reported in the Guardian on 29 October gender pay gap when the salaries of men and women 2004. doing a similar role are compared. Following a public consultation in 2006 the HFEA Mean Salaries as at 1 April 2009 date of the most recent a review decided that egg donation, either as non-patient donation Female salary or through egg-sharing arrangements, to HFEA-licensed as of male research should be permitted, if considered to be Range/Grade Women Salary Men Salary salary appropriate by a licence committee. Where it is possible to donate through egg-sharing arrangements to either B (AO) 19,907 18,997 105 research or treatment, there should be parity in the C (EO) 24,117 23,113 104 benefit-in-kind offered so that it is not advantageous D (HEO/SEO) 30,286 30,448 99 to donate to either one or the other. E (Grades 7 and 47,106 48,687 97 &6) SCS1 (Grade 5) 63,601 63,748 99 Energy: Renewables SCS2 (Grade 3) 101,669 94,605 107 SCS3 (Grade 2 140,737 Question and above) Asked by Lord Taylor of Holbeach Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will respond to the report published in January by To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they the National Grid, The Potential for Renewable Gas will answer Question HL3512 tabled on 7 May in the United Kingdom. [HL3163] about whether there is a gender pay gap in HM Treasury, and, if so, what are the percentage difference The Minister of State, Department of Energy and and the reasons for the difference; and what is the Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The reason for the delay in answering it. [HL4196] Government have discussed the report with National Grid, and officials continue to work with National Grid to refine their analysis. We shall not therefore be Lord Myners: I have today responded to the noble issuing a formal response. Lord and apologise for the delay in answering. WA 175 Written Answers[15 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 176

EU: Discrimination UN, Lord Malloch-Brown, stated in his previous Answer, the Commission does not routinely publish minutes of Question meetings attended by its officials. However, all official Asked by Lord Laird meetings of the European Commission (the College) are minuted. These records are available to the public To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action by searching for the document type “minutes”in language they have taken against European Union member “EN” on the Commission’s document register at http:// states who have allowed discrimination in favour of ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/ their nationals in employment. [HL4141] recherche.cfm?CL=en. The Commission’s provisions for document Lord Davies of Oldham: None—responsibility for management, and which records it keeps (including enforcing implementation of the EU treaties lies with minutes), are clearly spelt out on its website at http:// the Commission. europa.eu/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/1_021/ 1_02120020124en00230027.pdf. EU: Historical Analysis As stated in the previous Answer, any document held by the Commission is subject to Regulation 1049/01 Question on access to documents of the EU institutions. Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the European Parliament: Members’ Written Answer by Lord Malloch-Brown on 2 June Allowances (WA 73), whether he or those who advise him have Question read The Great Deception by Christopher Booker and Richard North; and, if not, whether they will Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon undertake to do so. [HL4087] To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the daily allowance of ¤298 available to United Kingdom The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Members of the European Parliament for attending Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham): the European Parliament is taxable; and, if so, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials are conversant whether United Kingdom tax rates are levied. with The Great Deception by Christopher Booker and [HL4136] Richard North. The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury Euro (Lord Myners): Following the judgment in the 1981 European Court of Justice judgment in the case of Question Lord Bruce of Donington v Eric Gordon Aspden, the Asked by Lord Tebbit daily subsistence allowance for Members of European Parliament (MEPs) is payable without deduction of To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to tax at source. UK MEPs are not required to declare the Written Answer by Lord Myners on 11 May payment of the allowance on their UK tax returns. (WA 160), what was the net cost to public funds of the intervention by the Bank of England, acting as agent for HM Treasury, to support the euro in Food: Supplements September 2000. [HL3946] Questions Asked by Earl Howe The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Myners): The euros purchased in the intervention To ask Her Majesty’s Government why no were subsequently sold back to the market. There was discussions have taken place between officials of no cost to public funds associated with this intervention. the Department of Health and the Directorate General for Enterprise and Industries of the European Commission in relation to the potential impact European Commission: Minutes of upon small- and medium-sized enterprises of setting Meetings maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals Question in food supplements; and whether they plan to hold such discussions in future. [HL3954] Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch To ask Her Majesty’s Government why no To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the discussions have taken place between Ministers at Written Answer by Lord Malloch-Brown on 20 May the Department of Health and the European (WA 321–2), whether the European Commission Commissioner for Health relating to the setting of keeps minutes of all its meetings. [HL3940] maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements. [HL3955] The Minister of State, Department for Environment, To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham): As intend to take further action to encourage the European my noble friend the Minister for Africa, Asia and the Commission to ensure that any recommendations it WA 177 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 178

makes for maximum permitted levels for vitamins subject of harmonisation measures at Community and minerals in food supplements take into account level and so are not subject to the requirements of the impact upon small- and medium-sized retailers Mutual Recognition Regulation (EC) No 764/2008. and manufacturers; and what is the likely timetable The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory for the process of establishing such levels for nutrients Agency does not therefore expect the regulation to in supplements. [HL3956] have a significant impact on the trade in herbal remedies. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the The FSA has advised that measures taken by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency authorities of member states pursuant to provisions of and the Food Standards Agency have reviewed the food law of general application are explicitly exempted implications for free trade in food supplements and from the requirements of the Mutual Recognition herbal remedies of the coming into force of the Regulation. These exemptions relate to measures taken Mutual Recognition Regulation ((EC) 764/2008). under Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (General Food [HL3957] Law) in relation to risks to health arising from food, and measures taken under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (official feed and food controls) in ensuring that food The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, business operators remedy non-compliance with food Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): No law. discussions have taken place between Department of The European Commission is producing guidance Health officials and the European Commission on the application of the Mutual Recognition Regulation Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, or to different foodstuffs, including food supplements. Health Ministers and the European Commissioner for Health, on the impact of setting maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements because no specific levels have yet been proposed by Gurkhas the European Commission, or discussed in Commission- Question led working group meetings with member states. Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool Officials of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Reform and the Department for Environment, Food Gurkha soldiers left the Army upon completion of and Rural Affairs met the Health Food Manufacturers’ their service in each year between 1975 and 1997. Association (HFMA) on 25 March 2009 to discuss [HL4108] possible approaches to assessing the potential impact on small- and medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) of The Minister for International Defence and Security the setting of maximum permitted levels for vitamins (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): The information for the and minerals in food supplements. The HFMA is time period requested is not held centrally and could currently working with industry colleagues to assess only be provided at disproportionate cost. the potential impact on SMEs against a number of hypothetical scenarios to inform discussions with the European Commission. Health: Bisphenol Exposure A European Commission-sponsored analysis of the economic, social and environmental impact of the Questions policy options for the establishment of maximum Asked by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements was undertaken in summer 2008. Seven member states To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment were used as case studies, including the United Kingdom. they have made of the health impact of bisphenol The UK food supplements industry, including A in the manufacturing of plastic bottles. [HL3963] organisations representing SMEs, engaged fully in this To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they work and provided relevant data. The European will consider banning the use of bisphenol A in the Commission has indicated that this assessment will manufacturing of (a) babies’ feeding bottles, and accompany its proposals on maximum levels when (b) all plastic bottles containing food or drink. they are issued. [HL3964] The timing for finalising the proposals on maximum levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements is To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment uncertain due to European Parliamentary elections they have made of the effect of increased levels of during June and European Commission college changes bisphenol A in the growth of children; and what in October. At the last working group meeting with all assessment they have made of the potential health member states on 4 December 2008, the European dangers that chemical is likely to induce. [HL3965] Commission advised that draft proposals outlining maximum levels for vitamins and minerals would be The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, discussed at the next full working group meeting, a Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): The date for which has not been set. Food Standards Agency (FSA) works closely with Regarding Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 on mutual the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the recognition, decisions on whether products should be European Commission to ensure the safety of food classified as herbal medicinal products, and on the contact products containing bisphenol A (BPA), and authorisation of herbal medicinal products, are the to ensure it is kept under review. WA 179 Written Answers[15 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 180

The health impact of BPA was assessed by EFSA in The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, 2006 and after a comprehensive review of the scientific Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): The data, a tolerable daily intake of 0.05 milligrams per Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (CJD) incidents panel, at its kilogram of body weight was established. This is the meeting on 20 May 2009, reviewed all available amount that can be eaten every day, over a whole information in relation to the postmortem finding of lifetime, without causing appreciable harm. abnormal prion protein associated with variant CID In July and October 2008 EFSA confirmed that (vCJD) in a sample from the spleen of a haemophiliac. this evaluation would also apply to infants and pregnant The panel concluded that there is no evidence to women. Dietary exposures of age groups from three change the current advice to those patients who used months to adults have been found to be less than United Kingdom sourced pooled plasma products 30 per cent of the tolerable daily intake. between 1980 and 2001 already notified as being at The Government’s policy is to maintain the stricter risk of vCJD for public health purposes, or to notify level for BPA that currently applies in the law governing any new groups of patients. food contact materials, including baby feeding bottles, Letters confirming this conclusion will be sent to which is based on an earlier precautionary tolerable UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors with information daily intake of 0.01 milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight to pass on to their patients. per day. I am advised that the FSA sees no basis, on The panel meeting was attended by: the evidence we have, to press for tighter controls on the use of BPA, or for a ban on its use. Limits in Chairman place throughout the European Union, which the Mr David Pryer Lay Chairman FSA has played a full part in establishing and maintaining, Deputy Chairman provide a precautionary margin of safety beyond expert Professor Don Jeffries Virology assessment of the scientific evidence. Members Dr Miles Allison Gastroenterology Dr Gerry Bryant Public Health Medicine Health: Contaminated Blood Products Professor Geoff Craig Dental Surgery Dr Pat Hewitt Blood Safety Question Professor James Ironside TSE Infectivity, Neuropathology Asked by Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Mrs Diana Kloss Law Professor John Lumley General Surgery To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they Mrs Caroline Ness Lay Member will respond to the recommendation of the Independent Dr Derek Norfolk Haematology Inquiry on NHS Supplied Contaminated Blood Mr Ian Pearce Ophthalmology and Blood Products that the Government should Dr Patrick Radford Anaesthesiology review the conditions under which the widow of a Dr Geoff Ridgway Microbiology patient infected by blood products now becomes Professor John Saunders Medical Ethics eligible for financial assistance. [HL3972] Ms Gillian Turner Patient Support Dr Hester Ward Epidemiology Professor Bob Will Neurology The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ms Kate Woodhead Theatre Nursing Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): The Dr Tim Wyatt Microbiology Government responded to the recommendations of Observers Lord Archer’s report on 20 May 2009. We have committed Dr Peter Bennett HPIH&SD Analytical Team, to review the Skipton Fund, for those infected with Department of Health hepatitis C, in 2014. Mr Stephen Dobra HPIH&SD Analytical Team, Payments to widows of those infected with HIV are Department of Health made at the discretion of the trustees of the MacFarlane Dr Sara Hayes (from fpm) National Assembly of Wales and Eileen Trusts. Miss Charlotte Mirrielees Scientific Secretary, ACDP TSE Working Group Mr Mark Noterman Department of Health Visitors Health: Haemophilia Prof Frank Hill UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors’ Organisation Questions Dr Peter Rudge Neurology Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester Secretariat Dr Nicky Connor Health Protection Agency Centre for To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to Infections the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on Ms Dominique Brookes Health Protection Agency Centre for 14 May (WA 229–30) on the implications for Infections haemophilia patients of a post-mortem having found Ms Helen Janecek Health Protection Agency Centre for vCJD in the spleen of one such patient, what was Infections the outcome of the CJD Incidents Panel’s consideration Dr Elizabeth Rudd Health Protection Agency Centre for of the case and its implications on 20 May; who Infections attended the panel’s meeting; and why it was not Dr Akram Zaman Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections held nearer to the date of the postmortem. [HL3959] WA 181 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 182

The meeting was held after all the evidence in this Asked by Lord Hylton case, including multiple sets of case notes, hospital records and records of blood product usage, had been To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they collected and reviewed and a full risk assessment will ask the police to delete images, photographic or prepared. Papers about this case are being prepared other, of Members of both Houses of Parliament for publication and the risk assessment will be published who visited recent demonstrations in Parliament on the department’s website at dh.gov.uk on 9 June Square and the surrounding area. [HL4022] 2009. Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester Lord West of Spithead: It is a matter for the To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to decide the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on whether images of individuals taken at demonstrations 14 May (WA 229–30), whether it remains the view in the force area are retained or deleted. of the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of I understand that Metropolitan Police policy is to Health that any risk to haemophilia patients of manually review photographs of individuals taken at contracting vCJD from blood given from donors public-order events and they will now retain or dispose who subsequently died of vCJD is hypothetical. of them in accordance with the recent judgment of the [HL3960] Court of Appeal in Woods v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] EWCA Civ 414. Lord Darzi of Denham: There have been no clinical cases of vCJD amongst people with haemophilia who Human Rights have been treated with United Kingdom-derived pooled plasma products or UK-derived coagulation factors. Questions The view of the department, the chief medical officer Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill and the Health Protection Agency remains that first set out in 2004, that patients who have been treated To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the with UK-sourced pooled factor concentrates and registrar and other registry staff working at the antithrombin between 1980 and 2001 are at increased European Court of Human Rights are accountable risk of vCJD for public health purposes. to the judges of the Court or to the secretary general of the Council of Europe for the management Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester of pending cases. [HL4097] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the statement by Lord Thomas of Lord Brett: In accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules Gresford on 23 April (Official Report, House of of Court, in carrying out his responsibilities which Lords, col. 1613) in the debate on the use of NHS include assisting the court in the exercise of its judicial blood products contaminated with HIV and hepatitis functions, the registrar of the European Court of C in the treatment of haemophilia patients that if Human Rights acts under the authority of the president Ministers chose to back-date as necessary the waiving of the court. Staff members of the registry are staff of Crown immunity it would still be possible for members of the Council of Europe, the court’s parent actions to be brought by those afflicted or bereaved organisation, and are subject to the Council of Europe’s by the contamination. [HL3961] staff regulations. Asked by Lord Laird Lord Darzi of Denham: Crown immunity did not protect from civil suit, but only from prosecution To ask Her Majesty’s Government by what under the Medicines Act. Some affected persons did standards they decide whether to monitor a country’s bring an action in 1990, which was settled out of human right abuses; and how often those standards court. Affected persons did and do therefore have are reconsidered. [HL4140] rights of redress in civil law. Lord Davies of Oldham: Our diplomatic missions overseas report events, activities and other information Houses of Parliament: Demonstrations relevant to our policy goals back to the Foreign and Questions Commonwealth Office (FCO) and to other government departments. This includes information on the human Asked by Lord Hylton rights and democracy situation in countries. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they An important factor in deciding how to deploy our approved the charging with public-order offences finite resources is the state’s own capacity to address of recent demonstrators in Parliament Square, who human rights concerns, as well as access to regional sat down in the road, thus causing traffic disruptions mechanisms, for example the European Court of Human and impeding access to Parliament. [HL4021] Rights. The level of monitoring or reporting also depends on the seriousness of the human rights situation The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home as assessed by our diplomats on the ground, FCO and Office (Lord West of Spithead): The decision to charge other relevant officials, and their relevance to the individuals with public-order offences or any offences Government’s policy goals. is an operational matter for the police and Crown Human rights are essential to the delivery of our Prosecution Service who are responsible for investigating strategic goals whether in combating the global scourge and prosecuting alleged criminal offences. of terrorism and its causes; preventing conflict and WA 183 Written Answers[15 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 184 fostering its resolution; promoting a high-growth, low- on 13 May (WA 207), what are the numbers of carbon global economy; or strengthening institutions commissioners on the Northern Ireland Human such as the UN, EU and the Commonwealth. We do Rights Commission who are Protestants or Catholics; not therefore have discrete criteria for monitoring which commissioners have a nationalist or unionist human rights abuses as we do not see human rights background; with which political parties commissioners and democracy issues as separated from our broader had associations before their appointment; whether international interests. the figures reflect the community balance in Northern Ireland; and what that balance is estimated to be. [HL3866] Maryam Kallis Question Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: All candidates for Asked by Lord Hylton membership of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission are required to declare community To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether background and political activity. Mrs Maryam Kallis, a British citizen arrested in Five commissioners have declared their background Damascus on 15 March, and another British citizen as that of the Catholic community, four have declared who was being held on 8 April, have been charged their background as that of the Protestant community or released; and, if not, what steps they will take. and one has declared that they do not have a Protestant [HL4121] or Catholic community background. Seven commissioners have declared political activity Lord Brett: Mrs Maryam Kallis and another British on behalf of the Alliance Party, DUP, SDLP, UUP national were released from Syrian custody on Sunday and Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition. 7 June 2009. Under Section 68(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Secretary of State is obliged, when making appointments to the Northern Ireland Human Rights NHS: Fertility Treatment Commission, to secure as far as practicable, that the Question commissioners as a group are representative of the community in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool State is satisfied that this statutory obligation has To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to been, and continues to be, met. the Written Answers by Lord Darzi of Denham on The most recent official statistics on community 28 February 2008 (WA 135), 3 July 2008 (WA 49) background in Northern Ireland can be found in the and 20 May (WA 332–3), how they have responded 2001 Census. These figures show the community balance to online petitions by Janine Macallister and Richard to be 45.57 per cent Protestant, 40.26 per cent Catholic, Mackenzie regarding geographical variations in 0.3 per cent others and 13.88 per cent non-stated. provision of fertility treatment for NHS patients; and how they have quantified progress in implementing the February 2004 National Institute for Health Nuclear Plans: Security and Clinical Excellence guidelines in relation to Question figures cited in 2008 regarding treatment provision by primary care trusts. [HL3966] Asked by Baroness Harris of Richmond To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, determining factors that contribute to defining site Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): The security at any licensed nuclear facility. [HL3772] Government have not responded specifically to these online petitions, but we are aware that primary care trusts are making progress in moving towards full The Minister of State, Department of Energy and implementation of the National Institute for Health Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The and Clinical Excellence fertility guidelines. determining factors that contribute to defining security The provision of in vitro fertilisation treatment on at a licensed civil nuclear site are: the threat, the the National Health Service has been monitored by a consequences of the loss or dispersal of nuclear material, series of surveys. The most recent survey, undertaken and the UK’s international obligations. by the department earlier this year, is currently being Security in the civil nuclear industry is subject to analysed. regulation which reflects the international obligations and best practice. The Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) regulates the civil nuclear industry by means Northern Ireland Human Rights of the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003 Commission (NISR). The NISR requires nuclear licensed sites to have approved site security plans (SSPs). SSPs are Question protectively marked and they detail the standards, Asked by Lord Laird procedures and specific arrangements that must be kept in place to ensure the security of the nuclear To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to premises, nuclear material in whatever category, form the Written Answer by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon or quantity and sensitive nuclear information against WA 185 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 186 the malicious capabilities posed by the Nuclear Industries Number of appeals allowed against conviction by the Court of Appeal Malicious Capabilities Planning Assumptions. This (Criminal Division) since 1988 document allows a judgment to be made with regard Appeals Allowed1 to the malicious capabilities that could be deployed 1990 256 against a licensed site or transporters, and against 1991 269 which security measures should provide protection. It 1992 299 draws on intelligence provided by the national intelligence 1993 402 agencies particularly the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre 1994 351 of which OCNS is a member. 1995 253 Operators submit their SSPs to OCNS for approval 1996 250 before they are adopted and thereafter, they become 1997 236 the basis against which they are judged to be compliant 1998 290 with the regulations. Once approved SSPs are regarded 1999 171 as live documents and subject to constant review, 2000 150 scrutiny and amendment as necessary by the operator 2001 135 concerned and by OCNS through regulatory activity. 2002 166 Security measures in the civil nuclear industry are 2003 178 applied in a graduated manner in accordance with the 2004 240 severity of the threat and the level of consequence of a 2005 228 successful attack in a manner that provides defence in 2006 181 depth. They include physical, electronic, information 2007 196 and personnel security measures. 2008 188 1 The number of appeals allowed includes those where re-trials Older People: Services were ordered. Question 2 Statistics were not collated centrally prior to 1988. Asked by Lord Ashley of Stoke To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will establish a directory of organisations which Pensions offer services and help to older people. [HL3979] Question The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Asked by Lord Laird Work and Pensions and Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord McKenzie of Luton): To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many, There are currently no plans to establish such a directory. and what percentage, of civil servants pay 1.5 per However, we recognise that the information on services cent of their pensionable earnings towards their and help available for older people needs to be improved. pensions; and how many 3.5 per cent. [HL4069] This will be one of the key issues we are addressing in the forthcoming ageing strategy. Baroness Crawley: Details of the percentage employee Parole contributions payable and the approximate split of active membership between the classic, classic plus, Question premium and nuvos sections of the Principal Civil Asked by Lord Monson Service Pension Scheme are contained in Cabinet Office: To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Civil Superannuation Resource Accounts. Copies of Written Answer by Lord Bach on 1 June (WA 52), the resource accounts for the years up to and including how many prisoners who consistently maintained 2007-08 can be found in the Library. their innocence of the crimes for which they were convicted were subsequently released on appeal, in each of the past 25 years. [HL4058] Public Sector: Contracts The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry Question of Justice (Lord Bach): Information is not collected Asked by Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope centrally on the number of appellants who have consistently maintained their innocence. The number To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they of appeals against conviction allowed by the Court of scrutinise contracted-out public services to ensure Appeal (Criminal Division) in each year since 1988 is that contracts are honoured by successful contractors. shown in the table below. These are not exclusively [HL4104] custodial cases. Number of appeals allowed against conviction by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) since 1988 The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury Appeals Allowed1 (Lord Myners): Departments are required to put in 19882 223 place effective arrangements for the management of 1989 211 contracts to help ensure compliance, value for money and the achievement of required benefits. WA 187 Written Answers[15 JUNE 2009] Written Answers WA 188

Railways: Eurostar The Minister for International Defence and Security (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): Consultation with the Question trades unions on which posts are likely to be removed Asked by Lord Berkeley as a consequence of the strategic review of reserves and the planning round measures began on 1 June. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria Formal staff notification of unit closures will be made they are using to determine how Eurostar UK will on 30 September 2009 and no posts will be removed be sold; and whether the sale will be conducted before that date. under the standard public sector competitive tendering Asked by Lord Astor of Hever process. [HL4111] To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): Territorial Army soldiers claim to have been dismissed The Government are not engaged in a sale of Eurostar by their civilian employers, in each year since 2003. UK Ltd. [HL4090] The Government continue to examine ways to best further the development of Eurostar in conjunction Baroness Taylor of Bolton: There is no requirement with our international partners. for any member of the Reserve Forces or their employers Our objectives in doing so are to facilitate the to inform the Ministry of Defence if they have been development of international rail passenger services, dismissed by their civilian employers. Therefore the and to secure the best long-term value of the UK’s department does not hold records relating to this. share in Eurostar in the interests of taxpayer. Asked by Lord Astor of Hever To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what circumstances legal and financial support will be Safety Standards made available to Territorial Army soldiers who are Question involved in litigation over unfair dismissal from civilian employment. [HL4091] Asked by Lord Pendry To ask Her Majesty’s Government what initiatives The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry are in place to promote higher safety standards in of Justice (Lord Bach): Generally civil legal aid funding the United Kingdom consistent with the rest of is available if the case is within the scope of the scheme Europe. [HL3977] and the statutory tests of means and merits are met. Legal aid for representation is not normally available for employment tribunals, although it can be authorised The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for by the Lord Chancellor in exceptional circumstances. Work and Pensions and Department for Communities This is because employment tribunal procedures have and Local Government (Lord McKenzie of Luton): The been designed to allow people to prepare and present United Kingdom already has one of the best occupational their own cases. Legal help (the advice and assistance safety and health records in the European Union, level of legal aid) is available, subject to the means test. evidenced by our having the lowest rate of work-related This provides advice to clients on tribunal procedures fatal injury amongst member states. The UK implements and assists them to prepare case papers and obtain EU health and safety legislation to ensure workers are counsel’s opinion if appropriate. Legal aid for properly protected and plays an active role in EU representation is available for the employment appeal standards setting. tribunal. The Government are committed to building on this progress and on the 3 June, the Health and Safety Executive launched a new health and safety strategy Transport: Free Passes for Great Britain, setting out the core principles and Questions sensible approach to health and safety which is needed to maintain safe and healthy workplaces. Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno To ask Her Majesty’s Government which border areas of Wales and England have reciprocal public Territorial Army transport free pass arrangements. [HL4059] Questions Asked by Lord Astor of Hever The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): The Department for Transport does not keep To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the comprehensive records of enhancements offered by statement by Lord Tunnicliffe on 28 April (Official local authorities beyond the statutory minimum of Report, House of Lords, cols. 120–23) concerning free off-peak bus travel throughout England for older Territorial Army soldiers whose posts are removed, and eligible disabled people. However, the department how many soldiers have successfully been reassigned; is aware of the following local authorities in England and how many have ceased serving with the Territorial and Wales which offer free cross-border travel on Army. [HL4089] selected services: WA 189 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 190

Authority Cross-border concession offered Authority Cross-border concession offered

Shropshire The Shropshire Travel Concession Wrexham County Welsh concessionary bus passes will be Authorities have a reciprocal agreement Borough Council valid for cross-border journeys into with neighbouring Welsh Authorities to England provided that the journey is allow travel cross-border but only on unbroken and starts or finishes in Wales. journeys starting or finishing in the respective areas and to the first major Wrexham County Borough Council has conurbation. This is to enable those living partnered with the Welsh Assembly in border areas access to their nearest local Government to introduce free travel on the services which could be in the neighbouring Welsh section of the Borderlands line, country. between Wrexham Central, Wrexham General, Gwersyllt and all stations to Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno Hawarden Bridge. To ask Her Majesty’s Government which border Torfaen County Welsh concessionary bus passes will be areas of Scotland and England have reciprocal Borough Council valid for cross-border journeys into public transport free pass arrangements. [HL4060] England provided that the journey is unbroken and starts or finishes in Wales. Lord Adonis: The Department for Transport does not keep comprehensive records of enhancements offered Cheshire County English bus passes issued by Cheshire Council County Council are valid for travel on bus by local authorities beyond the statutory minimum of services going into Wales provided the free off-peak bus travel throughout England for older journey starts or finishes in Cheshire; for and eligible disabled people. However, the department example concessionaires can travel from is aware of the following local authorities in England Runcorn or Widnes to Wrexham and return. However, if they then continued and Scotland which offer free cross-border travel on their journey within Wales they would have selected services: to pay full fare. Authority Cross-border concession offered Herefordshire English bus passes issued by Herefordshire Council Council are valid for free local bus travel Cumbria border districts between Herefordshire and places in Wales, —Allerdale—Copeland Free travel on local bus journeys provided that each bus journey starts or starting or ending in Cumbria finishes in Herefordshire, or is between (may include cross-border Presteigne and Knighton in Powys. journeys) —Carlisle Free travel on local bus journeys Forest of Dean English bus passes issued by Forest of starting or ending in Carlisle District Council Dean District Council can be used to travel across the border if the bus caught is a Northumberland County Council For journeys across the border service that takes the concessionaire out of into Scotland, the bus operators England. However, concessionaires will not may charge a fare for the part of be able to make any connecting journeys the route outside England but once in Wales using their English pass. the neighbouring Scottish authority may offer a concession for the whole It has been agreed that concessionaires will journey. be able to make a return journey into England from Chepstow and Monmouth. Transport Scotland Scottish National Entitlement Card may be used on services to and from Carlisle and on South English bus passes issued by South services to and from Berwick- Gloucestershire Gloucestershire Council can be used for upon-Tweed from anywhere in Council journeys into Wales, from South Scotland. Scottish pass holders Gloucestershire, on the X11 and X14 direct are not entitled to free bus travel services to Newport and Chepstow. within Carlisle or Berwick- However the bus pass cannot be used for upon-Tweed. other services once in Wales. Monday 15 June 2009

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No. Col. No. British Coal Compensation...... 51 Higher Education: 16-19 Funding ...... 57

Business: Overseas Security ...... 51 Minimum Wage ...... 59

Correction to Commons Written Answer ...... 52 Ministry of Justice: Annual Report ...... 60

Devolution: Commission on Scottish Devolution...... 52 Police: Northern Ireland ...... 60

EU: Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Race Relations Act 1976 ...... 61 Affairs Council ...... 54 Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed EU: Energy Council ...... 55 Diseases)...... 61 EU: General Affairs and External Relations Council ...... 55 Terrorism: Control Order Powers...... 62

Monday 15 June 2009

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. Airports: Heathrow ...... 167 Health: Contaminated Blood Products...... 179

Alcohol...... 167 Health: Haemophilia ...... 179 Ambulances ...... 168 Houses of Parliament: Demonstrations ...... 181 Civil Service: Performance Pay ...... 168

Crime: DNA Database ...... 168 Human Rights ...... 182

Crime: London ...... 170 Maryam Kallis...... 183 Crime: Strict Liability ...... 170 NHS: Fertility Treatment...... 183 Cycling...... 170

Diplomatic Relations ...... 171 Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission...... 183

Disabled People: Mobility Scooters ...... 171 Nuclear Plans: Security...... 184 Embryology ...... 172 Older People: Services...... 185 Energy: Renewables ...... 173

Equal Pay: Government Departments ...... 174 Parole...... 185

EU: Discrimination ...... 175 Pensions...... 186 EU: Historical Analysis ...... 175 Public Sector: Contracts ...... 186 Euro...... 175

European Commission: Minutes of Meetings...... 175 Railways: Eurostar...... 187

European Parliament: Members’ Allowances ...... 176 Safety Standards...... 187 Food: Supplements ...... 176 Territorial Army ...... 187 Gurkhas...... 178

Health: Bisphenol Exposure ...... 178 Transport: Free Passes ...... 188 NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. [HL2903] ...... 168 [HL3995] ...... 171

[HL3163] ...... 173 [HL4015] ...... 171

[HL3382] ...... 174 [HL4021] ...... 181

[HL3512] ...... 174 [HL4022] ...... 182

[HL3772] ...... 184 [HL4035] ...... 170

[HL3866] ...... 184 [HL4058] ...... 185

[HL3874] ...... 168 [HL4059] ...... 188

[HL3940] ...... 175 [HL4060] ...... 190

[HL3946] ...... 175 [HL4062] ...... 167

[HL3954] ...... 176 [HL4066] ...... 168

[HL3955] ...... 176 [HL4069] ...... 186

[HL3956] ...... 177 [HL4087] ...... 175

[HL3957] ...... 177 [HL4089] ...... 187 [HL4090] ...... 188 [HL3959] ...... 179 [HL4091] ...... 188 [HL3960] ...... 181 [HL4093] ...... 167 [HL3961] ...... 181 [HL4094] ...... 167 [HL3963] ...... 178 [HL4095] ...... 167 [HL3964] ...... 178 [HL4097] ...... 182 [HL3965] ...... 178 [HL4104] ...... 186 [HL3966] ...... 183 [HL4108] ...... 178 [HL3967] ...... 172 [HL4111] ...... 187 [HL3968] ...... 172 [HL4114] ...... 170 [HL3969] ...... 172 [HL4121] ...... 183

[HL3970] ...... 173 [HL4125] ...... 170

[HL3971] ...... 173 [HL4136] ...... 176

[HL3972] ...... 179 [HL4140] ...... 182

[HL3977] ...... 187 [HL4141] ...... 175

[HL3979] ...... 185 [HL4196] ...... 174 Volume 711 Monday No. 89 15 June 2009

CONTENTS

Monday 15 June 2009 Questions Finance: Balance of Payments ...... 835 Armed Forces: Human Rights Act...... 837 EU: Transport of Horses...... 839 Public Transport: Alcohol ...... 841 Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Bill First Reading ...... 844 Political Parties and Elections Bill Report (1st Day) ...... 844 Iraq Statement...... 853 Political Parties and Elections Bill Report (1st Day) (Continued)...... 867 Legislative Reform (Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates) Order 2009 Motion to Approve ...... 923 Political Parties and Elections Bill Report (1st Day) (Continued)...... 935 Grand Committee Welfare Reform Bill Committee (3rd Day) ...... GC 175 Written Statements...... WS 51 Written Answers...... WA 167