Vol. 757 Tuesday No. 58 18 November 2014

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Questions Local Authorities: Funding ...... 367 Strategic Defence and Security Review ...... 369 Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ...... 371 Adoption ...... 374 Childcare Payments Bill First Reading...... 376 Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill Committee...... 377 Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Conversion of Civil Partnership) Regulations 2014 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) and Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2014 Consular Marriages and Marriages under Foreign Law (No. 2) Order 2014 Motions to Approve ...... 430

Grand Committee Deregulation Bill Committee (7th Day)...... GC 107

Written Statements...... WS 11 Written Answers ...... WA 93

£4·00 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. 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/ld201415/ldhansrd/index/141118.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords £4 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords £600 LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £60 (£100 for a two-volume edition). 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. All prices are inclusive of postage.

The first time a Member speaks to a new piece of parliamentary business, the following abbreviations are used to show their party affiliation: Abbreviation Party/Group CB Cross Bench Con Conservative Con Ind Conservative Independent DUP Democratic Unionist Party GP Green Party Ind Lab Independent Labour Ind LD Independent Liberal Democrat Ind SD Independent Social Democrat Lab Labour Lab Ind Labour Independent LD Liberal Democrat LD Ind Liberal Democrat Independent Non-afl Non-affiliated PC Plaid Cymru UKIP UK Independence Party UUP Ulster Unionist Party

No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leave of absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2014, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 367 Local Authorities: Funding[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Local Authorities: Funding 368

public sector as a whole. Does the Minister agree that House of Lords this is a compelling reason to devolve more power to local areas? Tuesday, 18 November 2014. Baroness Williams of Trafford: I certainly do, my 2.30 pm Lords. I want at this point to congratulate councils in Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester. Greater Manchester, where I was formerly one of the leaders, not only on the steps that they have taken during the past 30 years in doing just that but on the Local Authorities: Funding confidence that the Government have placed in them Question in devolving power and funding to them. 2.36 pm Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab): My Lords, Asked by Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton does the Minister accept the implications of local To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment authority cuts for health services? We know from they have made of cuts in funding to local authorities evidence that has come out today, and will continue to in the most deprived and least deprived areas of come out, of the number of local authorities that have England. cut beds in the community, ensuring that older people stay in hospital longer. This is affecting my not only Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con): My Lords, own area of Milton Keynes, where I am chair of the local government accounts for a quarter of all public Milton Keynes foundation trust, but all over the place. spending. It is vital that local authorities help tackle Local authorities are saying outright that this is why the deficit by finding sensible savings and making they cannot cope with having more beds, so they are better use of resources. Local government has risen to closing beds in nursing homes. the challenge well and public satisfaction with council services remains high. Baroness Williams of Trafford: The noble Baroness brings up a very valid point. There needs to be a Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab): My Lords, joined-up approach in both health and social care. It is I accept the Minister’s statement but would add that the to be hoped that in due course a better care funding University of Sheffield’s research shows that areas such package will deliver this so that there is a seamless as my own—Preston, Blackburn with Darwen, Liverpool transition from hospital to intermediate care to care at and Manchester—have suffered disproportionately in home. terms of the reductions they are being asked to make. For example, Public Health England found that The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, the dedicated Manchester, Liverpool, Blackburn with Darwen and funding for local welfare provision has been vital in Preston face some of the toughest challenges. How providing a net for some of the most vulnerable in can the Government justify giving reduced spending society. It is proposed that this will no longer be powers to local authorities in the most deprived areas ring-fenced but will be part of a general grant to local and allowing greater spending in more affluent areas? councils, at a time when their budgets are increasingly pressed—indeed, there may be a move for that money Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, this is to be used for core statutory services in future. If that just not the case. The most deprived councils receive, money is not to be ring-fenced, will the Minister tell us on average, 50% more than the least deprived. I will give how Her Majesty’s Government will monitor the effects examples from either end of the spectrum. Middlesbrough of these changes and whether they will be willing to gets £2,500 per dwelling and Poole gets £1,678 per report back to your Lordships’ House on them, to dwelling. ensure that the most vulnerable are not even further Lord Laming (CB): My Lords, in the light of recent disadvantaged? media reports, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that child protection services are improved, Baroness Williams of Trafford: The right reverend especially in those areas where the need is greatest? Prelate makes a good point. The ring-fenced funding pots were not always used for their intended purposes. Baroness Williams of Trafford: Child protection is It is the Government’s belief that in devolving funds an incredibly important area—certainly in light of straight to local authorities they will make the best use some of the stories we have heard in recent weeks. All of them. I shall follow up the right reverend Prelate’s local authority officials working with children have a question on reporting back—I am sure that we can duty of care to those children. This is something we report back in due course. talked about a few weeks ago in terms of firming up some of those multidisciplinary arrangements. These Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab): Will the Minister are essential in joining together protections for children. ask the Government to consider reviewing council tax and getting a few more bands at the top, so that those Lord Shipley (LD): My Lords, I declare that I am a people who live in large houses—which might perhaps vice-president of the Local Government Association. be described as mansions—could pay a bit more towards In its recent publication Rewiring Public Services, which keeping local council services going? has all-party support, the association estimated that local government could save the public sector £11 billion Baroness Williams of Trafford: Perhaps that is a annually through joining up service delivery across the question for the noble Lord’s own leader. 369 Local Authorities: Funding[LORDS] Strategic Defence and Security Review 370

Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con): Does the Minister Lord Alderdice (LD): I thank my noble friend for that think that it is justified for local authorities that provide information. The last SDSR took place in the context care services to employ firms that are using zero-hours of a Westminster election and the global economic crisis. contracts and paying a minimal amount? I have asked From the point of view of many of us, it was overly this question of local authorities at a meeting here and impacted upon by those things. Since then the situation they have said that they should not do it. Is this the has changed. The Middle East is dissolving into chaos; reason why they do it, with people operating care the European Union is in disarray; cyberaggression facilities for patients simply not being paid an adequate has increased exponentially; and in our relations with amount? Russia, we have not only found difficulties over Syria, Crimea, and Ukraine, but also an increasing statement Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, zero-hours by Mr Putin of the strength of its nuclear weapons. In contracts are not always a bad thing and they suit the light of this, can my noble friend assure me that certain people, but, certainly, anybody who is working during this review, this House will be given an opportunity for a local authority needs to be on the minimum wage. of having a number of serious debates on the question before the completion of the review, not merely a Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab): My Lords, there is post-hoc debate after decisions have been made and a a clear pattern here: just yesterday, we had a report from posture adopted? the LSE and the ISER looking at the effects of direct Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I cannot of course commit tax benefits and pension changes introduced under this the next Government in terms of managing the business, Government. Surprise, surprise: it concluded that the but there is time for this House to have a debate on one poorest half of the income distribution lost out and the or two of these issues before then. Since the 2010 SDSR top half gained, and that these changes were regressive. was published, we published in 2011 a cyber security To add to that, the Government have not only imposed the strategy, in 2012 a climate change risk assessment and biggest funding reductions in the public sector on local in 2013 the Ministry of Defence’s report on global councils—with funding cut by 40% over this Parliament strategic trends. We are keeping pace as far as we can —but they have ensured that those areas with the greatest with all the expected and unexpected developments need are shouldering the largest burdens. The noble that the noble Lord mentions. Baroness cited some figures, but if one looks at what has happened throughout this Parliament, one sees that Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab): Has it occurred to spending power—the Government’s favourite measure— the Government that the cuts by many NATO countries has been cut for Liverpool by 27%, for Hackney by in defence expenditure, in which this Government—our 27%, for Manchester by 26% and for Birmingham by Government—unfortunately led the way, might just 23%. However, lo and behold, for Waverley Borough have had something to do with the much more aggressive Council and Wokingham Borough Council it has policies pursued by Mr Putin over the past couple of increased by 1%. If that is fair, what definition of years? fairness is the Minister using? Lord Wallace of Saltaire: That is a slightly unfair Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I take the question in many ways. Britain remains the second largest noble Lord’s point about ring-fenced grants to councils member of NATO in terms of the amount spent on such as Liverpool and Manchester, which lost a lot of defence. We are currently deterring Russia through the theirs. Councils such as Trafford never actually had use of sanctions at least as much as through defence. many ring-fenced grants so they had little to lose in So when we talk about national security we do not that way. However, that effect has been dampened over only mean defence in strict terms. the years so that it is not a cliff-like reduction. This Government have a different approach, which tries to Lord Trefgarne (Con): My Lords, does my noble rebalance the economy and puts growth at the heart of friend not agree that if by some cruel mischance the everything they do, including funding for local areas. Labour Party wins the next general with the assistance of the Scottish nationalists, it will have to find the money to move Trident, not to mention covering all Strategic Defence and Security Review the unemployment in that part of Scotland? Question Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I find it very interesting 2.45 pm that the noble Lord should describe the possibility of Asked by Lord Alderdice the SNP taking a very large number of seats in Scotland away from the Labour Party as assisting the Labour To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they Party. plan to re-examine the Strategic Defence and Security Review. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab): My Lords, coalition at the end of a fixed-term Parliament is a difficult beast. Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): My Lords, in January I would like to know what the Government’s policy is the Prime Minister informed the Joint Committee on on having a strategic defence review in every Parliament the National Security Strategy that work was beginning as a statutory review. It is very difficult to ask a member on the next strategic defence and security review—SDSR. of the Liberal Democrat Party because that is not, I This work is in its preparatory stages and will intensify think, its policy. I wonder whether the noble Lord after the general election for the post-election SDSR. could answer on behalf of the Government. 371 Strategic Defence and Security Review[18 NOVEMBER 2014] TTIP 372

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The coalition Government Lord Livingston of Parkhead: My noble friend is promised in 2010 that there would be moves towards a entirely correct that investor-state dispute settlement regular SDSR. The noble Baroness will well understand provisions have existed for a long time. There are a that this is because the Labour Government did not great number of them and, to the extent that they are have a strategic review between 1998 and the end of used, they are often used by the EU and not by US their 13 years in office. It is our intention that the next corporations. We are having detailed discussions not Government—however they may be constituted—should just with other member states and the Commission conduct a post-election SDSR as a matter of urgency. but with MEPs. I had the joy of two days in Brussels just last week discussing such matters. We are also Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD): Could the Minister engaging NGOs—I am meeting a number of them give the House the government assessment of the and other interest groups—and we continue to make security risks from terrorism that will be included in the clear case that we will ensure that the UK’s interests the review? and public services are protected in all such discussions.

Baroness Coussins (CB): My Lords, what progress Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, terrorism, just has been made on incorporating into TTIP some of like transborder organised crime, is clearly one of the the features of the investor-state dispute mechanism major threats that we have to consider. There is a that were achieved in the free trade agreement with domestic dimension as well as an international one, Canada, which I understand incorporated provisions and the Government are devoting considerable resources about transparency of proceedings, costs and other to both those overlapping issues. issues that meet some of the concerns that have been expressed? Transatlantic Trade and Investment Lord Livingston of Parkhead: The noble Baroness is Partnership entirely correct. The agreement with Canada is far Question more the state of the art. Although we are waiting to see the results later next month of the consultation on 2.50 pm ISDS, I hope and assume that they will incorporate much of what we have learnt from CETA. From Asked by Baroness Falkner of Margravine speaking to the US representatives, I know that they To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions too are very much for things like transparency in ISDS they have had with other European Union member clauses, thus meeting some of the genuine concerns states about investor-state dispute settlement, in about some of the past ISDS clauses. relation to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Baroness Ludford (LD): My Lords, is it not the case that these trade negotiations are probably the most The Minister of State, Department for Business, transparent ever? Quite rightly, the negotiating mandate Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth has been published, which is good, and it confirms Office (Lord Livingston of Parkhead) (Con): My Lords, that EU member states will agree to the inclusion of the Government have ongoing discussions on investor-state investor protection and ISDS mechanisms only if they dispute settlement provisions in the Transatlantic Trade allow EU member states to pursue legitimate public and Investment Partnership, TTIP, with EU member policy objectives, including the regulation of public states, the European Commission, MEPs and other health. This is a great improvement on the past and stakeholders. We want investment protection provisions gives a guarantee that what matters is the substance. that guarantee the right of Governments to legislate in the public interest while ensuring access to justice for Lord Livingston of Parkhead: My Lords, my noble investors who are discriminated against or treated unfairly. friend is entirely right. The substance of the ISDS clauses is nowhere near as fearful as some of the Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD): My Lords, I claims. Although we can improve the transparency of belatedly welcome my noble friend to the Dispatch the discussions, and the UK is certainly seeking to do Box. I think that this is my first interaction with him. that, the EU should at least be commended on the He will know that in the past 15 years 1,400 investor degree of public consultation that has taken place on protection agreements have been agreed by EU member these discussions. states. In 2012, 60% of them were brought by the EU states alone and only 7.7% by the US. Therefore, it is Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab): My Lords, we very depressing to see that it looks like there may be a share the aspirations for TTIP, as long as the benefits real backlash against ISDS. What discussions is my flow to consumers and employees. We welcome the noble friend having with the Commission, which has Minister’s mention of discussing the ISDS, which has now split the responsibility for this between the vice- become a lightning conductor for general discontent president and the commissioner. Indeed, what are the about the TTIP treaty. Given that we are talking about UK Government doing to assure the public that state mature democracies with strong and robust legal regulation for the public good will be exempted from structures, why does he not learn from the great example this safeguard and that it will be a very good thing for of Canute, drop the problematic ISDS and get on with the UK as part of TTIP? selling the rest of the treaty to the country? 373 TTIP[LORDS] Adoption 374

Lord Livingston of Parkhead: Given the scale of be most beneficial to consumers, who will see lower investment by our two countries, it is appropriate that prices, and to small companies which find the barriers companies of all sizes have protections. It is also caused by trade distortions far more difficult to cope important that we create the right sort of clause for with than the global multinationals. This will be the the future. We should not have two classes of country: first agreement to have a small business chapter and I ones with which we have ISDS clauses, because we do welcome that very substantially. not trust their legal systems, and those with which we do not. It is important to establish the right sort of Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab): My Lords, clause with the US, which, as the noble Lord says, is a I have listened extremely carefully to the Minister. He stable democracy, that we can then roll out to the rest said that, provided the Government do not wish our of the world, making sure that we have the rule of law. National Health Service to be privatised, it will be protected. Can he give a guarantee that all parts of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP): My Lords, our current Government do not intend, with or without can the noble Lord assure the House that there will be TTIP, further to privatise our National Health Service, no lowering of current EU standards on things like air because they have already started doing it? quality, water quality, employment standards or animal welfare by virtue of TTIP negotiations? Lord Livingston of Parkhead: Decisions regarding the NHS are made by the commissioning authorities. Lord Livingston of Parkhead: The President of the If I recall correctly, substantial privatisation of the EU, President Barroso, has made it very clear that health service took place under the previous Government. TTIP is not about lowering standards. It was much the It will be a matter for the democratically elected same with the single market which did not, I believe, Government and the commissioning authorities as to create lower standards. EU laws and fundamental what may be done by private services and what may rights are going to be protected as part of these not. discussions and in discussions with the US. The US is not seeking to change that, although it regards some Baroness Brinton (LD): My Lords, there has been a of the EU regulations as being too low and it also great deal of scaremongering about the National Health worries about similar matters. Service and TTIP. Might it be helpful for BIS to highlight the EU directive on NHS procurement which Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab): My Lords, does makes it absolutely clear that the NHS will not be the Minister accept that there is genuine concern that caught by TTIP contracts? if there is private investment from overseas in our health service and then an incoming Labour Government Lord Livingston of Parkhead: That is absolutely want to restore it into public financial control, there correct. In fact, Commissioner de Gucht has been very could be seriously high claims against us which would clear: cause great difficulties? What is being done to ensure “Public services are always exempted ... The argument is that that kind of claim does not cause great difficulties abused in your country for political reasons”. for the NHS in future? That is pretty clear. The US has also made it entirely clear. Its chief negotiator said that it was not seeking Lord Livingston of Parkhead: I can assure the noble for public services to be incorporated. No one on Lord that such claims would not arise because of either side is seeking to have the NHS treated in a TTIP, although there may be contractual claims which different way. The EU is very clear on that and trade are a matter of domestic law. CETA, which was mentioned agreements to date have always protected public services. earlier, states: That will absolutely continue within TTIP. “The EU reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure with regard to the provision of all health services which receive public funding or State support in any form”. Adoption It is quite clear that the decision about how these Question services are provided is a matter for national and, in the case of the UK, commissioning authorities. It is 3pm not going to be decided by TTIP or, indeed, any other trade agreement. Asked by Baroness King of Bow To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment The Countess of Mar (CB): My Lords, can the they have made of the recent drop in referrals of Minister give the House an assurance that the influence children for adoption by local authorities. of major multinational companies will not overcome the rights of individuals and small groups of people? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con): My Lords, since 2010, adoptions Lord Livingston of Parkhead: I can very much give have risen by 63% to a record level of more than 5,000 that assurance. The groups we consult with in the UK last year. However, there has been a significant decrease and the steering group used by the EU are a mixture of in children coming into the system since September large and small companies, consumer groups and NGOs. last year. This appears to be in response to particular That will continue and we are hearing their voices very court judgments. Information collected by the national strongly. It must be understood that TTIP is going to Adoption Leadership Board has led it to conclude 375 Adoption[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Childcare Payments Bill 376 that there has been some misinterpretation of those Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB): My Lords— judgments. Consequently, the board has produced guidance so that everyone who works on adoption can be confident that they are interpreting the judgments Baroness Billingham (Lab): My Lords, every day correctly. delayed in finding a loving home for a child is a day wasted of the life of that child, and I speak as one who Baroness King of Bow (Lab): My Lords, as the mother spent part of my childhood in care; I well remember of three adopted children, I welcome the Government’s the insecurity I felt. The Minister indicated that there attempt to reform adoption. However, according to had been some misunderstandings between various the most senior family court judge in England and organisations and authorities. Can he assure this House Wales, Lord Justice Munby, the Government’s desire to that everything is being done to speed up and remove speed up adoption has clashed with government cuts any obstacles? Adoption is such a crucial part of a to legal aid. Is it not unacceptable that the state can child’s life that it has to be given the highest priority. say to parents, “We will take away your child” and at the same time say, “We will not guarantee you a lawyer”? Apart from adding to delays, does the Minister have Lord Nash: I can assure the noble Baroness. I had a any sympathy for parents facing this situation or, meeting yesterday with Sir Martin Narey and he is indeed, for Lord Justice Munby, who must rule on absolutely passionate about ensuring that all steps are such cases and who says that this approach is in place to speed up adoption. “unprincipled and unconscionable”? Lord Elystan-Morgan: Does the Minister agree that Lord Nash: Sir James Munby, the president of the when a court is deciding on the question of adoption, Family Division, has stated his support of the aims of it should make an adoption order only within the the myth-dispelling document that we published last strict terms of the Adoption Act 1976? An adoption week. He has helpfully clarified the rights of parents order should be made in the best interests of that child in this regard. and most consistent with its welfare. Even though Baroness Walmsley (LD): My Lords, does my noble local authorities may be reluctant to have long-term, friend agree that although it is highly desirable that laborious care orders, those pressures should be resisted children in need should find a loving for-ever family, unless a compelling case is made out strictly in accordance as they have in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady with the wording of the statute. King, it is much better, where it is in the child’s best interests, to keep them at home with their parents? Lord Nash: I agree entirely with my noble friend. Could it be that some of the Government’s prevention Sir James Munby and the courts have been helpful in measures are having an effect here? Could my noble clarifying this recently. friend say something about the success of the family nurse partnership and some of the pilot schemes set up by my right honourable friend Sarah Teather to Lord Lexden (Con): My Lords, what action have the provide further support to parents in different parts of Government taken to improve and strengthen the the country? Will that scheme be rolled out? overall support available to families who adopt children? Lord Nash: I entirely agree that the interests of the child are paramount. As far as the partnerships are Lord Nash: We have just announced a £20 million concerned, I will write to the noble Baroness with adoption support fund to be rolled out nationwide more details. from May, following some very successful pilots across 10 councils. The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, whatever the assessment of these figures, there remains a task to be done concerning Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab): My Lords, negative perceptions about adoption in this country? can the Minister tell the House what the Government Does he agree with the observation of a judge in the are doing to support kinship care? That is overwhelmingly adoption of one of my children that whereas conception the most successful means of looking after children is sometimes a biological accident, adoption is always who are very vulnerable. an act of love? Does he agree that it is a noble task and a noble thing to do? What are the Government doing to promote adoption in that light? Lord Nash: We are doing quite a lot. I believe that the adoption support fund will be available for kinship Lord Nash: As is well known, the Government have carers. I will check and write to the noble Baroness. in place a very active reform programme on adoption which has had quite a substantial effect. I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate’s comments. I was Childcare Payments Bill interested to see recent research by Professor Julie First Reading Selwyn at Bristol which shows that only 3% of adoptions break down. I think there is cross-party consensus that where there is no option of staying with the birth 3.07 pm family, a long-term relationship with loving adoptive parents who have been well scrutinised is clearly in the The Bill was brought from the Commons, endorsed as a best interests of the child. money Bill, and read a first time. 377 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 378

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism I hope that I have taken the House with me so far. Bill How, then, do we turn this into meaningful legislation? These amendments propose a threshold of 15% loss of Committee function or less. Doctors will make better sense of that than I can, but I understand that a similar measure 3.07 pm has been used in New South Wales since 2002. In case it is felt that we have little to learn from our Australian Clause 1: When this Act applies friends either on the sporting field or off it, the DWP also uses a threshold of 14% for payment of industrial Amendment A1 injuries disablement benefit, which is paid only for Moved by Lord Hunt of Wirral lasting conditions. In truth, I am not necessarily wedded to the 15% figure as long as there is a clear dividing A1: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “determining” insert “— line between minor road traffic injuries not deserving (a) ” of compensation if treatment can be and is made available at insurers’ expense, and more significant Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con): My Lords, I declare the injuries where compensation can be properly targeted. interests set out in the register, including in particular Aviva estimates that if the simple measure in this my partnership within the global legal firm, DAC amendment was adopted, with insurers still covering Beachcroft, as well as my other entries. The amendments the cost of treatment for those who genuinely need it, in my name are designed to promote responsible behaviour that could save £32 on everybody’s premiums. by motor insurers in order to focus on getting people I have spoken before about the other cause for better rather than by paying them cash which is not concern behind this approach. As the Association of then used for treatment. British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ In putting these amendments together, and in this Association, which I have the honour to chair, put it, speech in particular, I have borrowed substantially from we have become the “whiplash capital of Europe”. a very good report published last July by the insurers, Fraudsters know it and they are exploiting the ease of Aviva, called Road to Reform, which I commend to the our current compensation system. There has been a House. As your Lordships know, for many years I have growing rise in the frequency of whiplash claims and a urged that we should adopt a rehabilitation system of significant increase in the number of so-called “crash this kind for minor injury claims. It chimes very well with for cash” scams faced by insurers. Particularly troubling the Government’s agenda of people taking responsibility is the increase in the number of induced accidents for themselves, so we should embrace the concept of where fraudsters deliberately target innocent motorists providing treatment for those who need it rather than to cause an accident. According to Aviva, these increased compensation and legal costs for what has now become by 51% last year, and that has to be a cause of major hundreds of thousands of claimants every year, many concern. of whom do not need treatment at all. That is what lay I am not sure that I have yet persuaded the noble behind the amendment that I successfully moved during Lord opposite but I am told by my noble friend Lord the passage of the Compensation Act 2006, which is Henley that to persuade him I just have to quote from now Section 2 of that Act: Dickens. I am not sure whether that is right— “An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty”. 3.15 pm In these amendments I seek to go one stage further by Lord Beecham (Lab): IhavetosaythatIhaveno substituting treatment for payment in low-value cases. great expectations in that regard. We are not talking about serious injuries here, but about temporary distress or discomfort which leaves no lasting effect. According to Aviva’s research, 98% of Lord Hunt of Wirral: I should stop now. However, I drivers want further costs taken out of the system to want to stress here that we are not talking about keep motor insurance premiums affordable. We should Fagin-type organised crime or Bill Sikes’s opportunist therefore encourage people with genuine minor injuries crime, but about the inflation of otherwise genuine simply to make a claim to repair their body rather claims. It has become a huge industry and insurers are than for cash. After all, we get the car repaired—why now being forced to spend millions of pounds to not the genuine minor injury as well? By doing that, tackle it. Organised gangs are at the heart of the we will effectively look after those who need treatment increase in the number of these induced accidents. and at the same time will tackle those who seek to “Crash for cash” not only threatens motorists’ safety abuse the system. but also their pockets. It is estimated that it adds about UK motorists do not have the weakest necks in £400 million to the annual cost of car insurance. Europe; we have a whiplash culture because as a society It has become an unfortunate fact that as a society we have not taken the same stance as other European we are faced with so many whiplash claims. It would countries to avoid these claims in the first place. In be easy just to blame the claims farmers, and the other countries you have to prove a level or percentage House has heard my views on them before. However, of disability before you can even make a claim. Aviva’s despite a series of measures, often encouraged in this data shows, for instance, that 94% of all personal injury House, they continue to proliferate. They plague us claims for a UK motor accident are for minor whiplash with nuisance calls and texts about injury claims from injuries, while in France it is estimated that whiplash accidents in which we have never been involved and accounts for just 3% of personal injury claims. that we have never heard of. 379 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 380

On the subject of nuisance calls, although I welcome Lord Beecham: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the recent consultation by the Department for Culture, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on his recent appointment, Media and Sport, I believe that the current threshold or on its announcement, as an honorary bencher of an of substantial damage or distress is just too high and inn of court—I am not quite sure which one. He is to that the Information Commissioner’s Office needs to be complimented on that award, whichever one it is. lower the test to ensure that it can tackle more effectively Having said that, I cannot extend that degree of praise those who are abusing the system and bombarding the to the noble Lord’s amendment. I respectfully adopt British public. I beg to move. much of what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said in that regard. Lord Pannick (CB): My Lords, this Bill has a The amendments seem to elevate insurance companies purpose—a futile and anodyne purpose in the view of to the pantheon of heroes—and there may be a degree many of us who spoke at Second Reading, but a of heroism involved in that. Alternatively, it characterises purpose none the less. Its purpose is to encourage them as pillars of social action and responsibility. heroism, volunteering and action taken for the benefit That is not a view generally taken of insurance companies, of the community. I respectfully suggest to the noble for pretty good reasons. We now have a SARAH Bill; Lord, Lord Hunt, that his amendments are a long, the noble Lord seems to want a RIP Bill—a “reduce long way away from the purpose of this Bill. insurance premiums Bill”. While many of us would want to see insurance premiums being reduced, there may be better ways of achieving that, one of which Lord Hunt of Wirral: It may assist the noble Lord if might be to look at the profits that the insurance I explain that I was motivated by the speech of the companies make. noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in In any event, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has particular, to think of amendments that would add already demonstrated, there are a number of queries substance to the Bill. about the provision. One point that he may not have made is that it is open to the NHS when it offers treatment Lord Pannick: I am delighted to hear that because to recover that from the other driver or his insurers. I when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, comes am not sure what the Bill adds to that provision. While to move his proposal that Clause 2 should not stand I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it part of the Bill, the noble Lord will no doubt express is entirely necessary to deal with the abuses of the his wholehearted support for that proposition. present system, this amendment will achieve very little These amendments have no place in this Bill. They in that respect. The criticisms made by the noble Lord, would fundamentally alter the scope and effect of the Lord Pannick, seem to me over- whelmingly persuasive. Bill, very much to its detriment. They would prohibit In particular, the amendments do not lend any substance the courts from awarding damages in respect of personal to an already thin Bill, and I agree with the noble Lord injury in defined circumstances. The existing provisions that they are basically out of scope. of the Bill simply identify factors for the court to take I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on his into account in deciding whether there has been a ingenuity in trying to achieve the objectives that he breach of the duty of care. sets out—and he is, of course, entitled to achieve those I am also troubled by the detail of the amendments, objectives—but surely this is not the Bill in which to and I am not reassured at all by what the noble Lord do that. I hope that, when he has heard what the has just said. The amendments beg a large number of Minister has to say, he will not press the amendment questions as to what it means for the defendant to either today or at a later stage, because we will certainly “fund treatment”. At what level of care would that not support it from these Benches. happen, and who is to assess the adequacy of such treatment? If the defendant’s insurer pays for my Lord Walton of Detchant (CB): My Lords, I had no treatment as the victim of a car accident, would these intention of speaking on this matter when I came to amendments prevent me recovering compensation for listen to the debate this afternoon but, as a neurologist—a pain and suffering as a result of the accident? That doctor concerned with damage to the nervous system—I presumably amounts to damages, have over the years seen a considerable number of “in respect of any personal injury”, patients who were referred to me for an opinion either by a firm of solicitors or by an insurance company. but the amendments seem to prohibit that. They sought evidence as to whether there was a case to I confess that I am puzzled by the amendments. If be made out suggesting that the so-called syndrome the defendant or their insurer has already funded resulting from whiplash—the sudden flexing and extension adequate treatment, surely the claimant is going to of head and neck following a car accident—represented have to give credit for that in seeking damages. I also a genuine disability. do not understand why, if the noble Lord thinks that I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, his amendments are such a good idea, they apply only Lord Hunt, had to say as there is clear evidence in in respect of, some cases that a whiplash has caused significant “loss of function of 15% or less”. damage to the spinal cord or to the ligaments of the For the Committee to give the amendments any neck. This evidence can be identified by a number of encouragement would in my view, to quote Clause 3 of medical methods. However, there is also clear evidence this curious Bill, not be, that a very large number of individuals referred with “a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety that type of injury are not suffering from a significant or other interests of others”. disability. As the noble Lord said, the “crash for cash” 381 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 382

[LORD WALTON OF DETCHANT] 3.30 pm issue has arisen in a considerable number of cases over Amendments A1 and A2 would widen the scope of the last year or two, where it is perfectly clear that the the Bill so that in addition to applying when the court symptoms are feigned and are not generally physically is considering claims in negligence or for breaches of realistic. These attempts to obtain compensation are relevant statutory duty, it would also apply when the scams. I am persuaded by what my noble friend Lord court is determining whether to pay damages to the Pannick and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, have said. claimant in respect of injuries suffered in a road traffic Frankly, I do not believe that this significant issue is accident. Amendment 7A would make it clear that the properly dealt with by the Bill. Therefore, despite my court may decide not to award damages in circumstances sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, where the injury entails a loss of function of 15% or I feel that I cannot support the amendment. less, or where the defendant has funded, or agreed to fund, treatment for the claimant’s injuries. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) The focus of the Bill is on factors a court must (Con): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble consider when assessing whether a defendant was friend Lord Hunt for bringing these amendments before negligent, rather than the things it must take into account the Committee and for his explanation of some of the in determining an award of damages—in other words, problems that have beset our legal system and our as we lawyers put it, liability rather than quantum. I society more generally. They are problems of which know, as does the Committee, that my noble friend has the Government are extremely aware and on which a long-standing interest in controlling the costs of they have taken, and are taking, various steps to try to litigation and avoiding unnecessary claims. I do not improve the situation. For example, the compensation share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that culture, such as it is, was certainly fed by the cost it is somehow a doubtful advantage to seek to reduce incentives identified by Sir Rupert Jackson in his insurance premiums: it is in all our interests. This is report. The reforms have made the costs of litigation certainly one way of doing that. The market, too, will much more controlled and your Lordships approved often mean that lower insurance premiums have to be Part 2 of the LASPO Bill, which has resulted in a reflected in other insurance companies’lowered premiums, much more moderate personal injury claims litigation notwithstanding what he said about insurance companies’ scene. profits. Noble Lords will be well aware of the dishonesty I am sure, furthermore, that all noble Lords share that sometimes besets personal injury claims. The the desire to encourage appropriate and early settlement Government are bringing forward provisions in the of claims. There are of course important issues about the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill whereby, if a claimant nature and purpose of damages and the place for non- is fundamentally dishonest, even if some element of monetary offers of treatment or rehabilitation that may the claim is genuine, he or she will not be able to merit further consideration, particularly in relation to recover any damages at all. We are also acutely aware minor injuries suffered in road traffic accidents. My noble of the problems with claims management, referral fees friend said he was not particularly wedded to 15% but and the like. I am glad to say that claims management was indicating some form of de minimis provision. firms are reducing in number very considerably as We have dealt, as I told the Committee, with fraudulent they find this a less profitable field in which to plough and grossly exaggerated claims which have in the past their furrow. They are now much better regulated and increased insurance premiums. They also eat up the fines of a considerable order are imposed on them if valuable resources of local and public authorities and they act in a way which contravenes the law, so all employers, which could otherwise be used for the these measures are going in the right direction. benefit of business and providing services to the public. Furthermore, the Government are setting up a regime My noble friend supported the provisions in the Criminal to deal with whiplash claims. The noble Lord, Lord Justice and Courts Bill and I fully understand why he Walton, identified the difficulty of diagnosis in whiplash sees these amendments as an important piece of the cases, which I think is well acknowledged in the medical jigsaw in lowering insurance premiums. However, I am profession. Although some people undoubtedly genuinely sure that he will appreciate that the Government need suffer the consequences of whiplash injuries, these injuries to consider these issues in much more detail than is are not easily detectable objectively through scans or possible in the context of this Bill for all their implications the like. Thus there is the temptation for claimants to to be fully assessed. Therefore, while I well understand bring claims, often egged on by third parties. It is often what lies behind these amendments, we very respectfully easier for insurance companies to pay out sums of money, do not think that they should form part of the Bill. I even though they know that these claims may well be hope that on that basis my noble friend will be persuaded false, because the cost of fighting them is prohibitive. to withdraw his amendment. All of this is a most unattractive landscape. My noble friend Lord Hunt is quite right to bring all those Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am very grateful issues to the attention of the Committee. Before I to all those who have spoken in this debate. I am only move on to the amendments I should also say that it comforted by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord was as a result of my noble friend’s contribution to the Pannick, had rather made up his mind before he heard Compensation Act 2006—to which he referred—regarding my speech, because I referred to a number of issues the provision on apologies not being an admission of which—I hope—cause him considerable concern. I liability that has helpfully altered the conduct of some commend the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton litigation. Indeed, I can declare an interest, having of Detchant, because there is a serious problem here relied on that section in one case. and we cannot ignore it. 383 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 384

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for difference to the law, save in respect of Clause 3, his kind remarks at the outset of his speech. I readily to which we will come in due course, the amendment accept his acknowledgement that there is a problem seeks to address an issue that has hitherto gone here. He may or may not recall—but I know that the unremarked, except for the reference I made to it at noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, behind him, will—that Second Reading. That issue is whether it is reasonable the previous Government attempted to introduce a for an employer or other person to escape liability to scheme of rehabilitation rather than cash in employers’ pay compensation for damage inflicted by another for liability claims. It was Jane Kennedy, the Minister, who whom he has responsibility in the event—the unlikely proposed that. Sadly, although I supported it strongly, event—of the Bill availing a defence to the person who it did not succeed at the time. The pilot scheme was has caused the injury. After all, why should the injured rejected but I hope that this House will return to the person not recover against such an employer or, more issue of rehabilitation because we have to make sure realistically, from the employer’s insurers under the that people get the treatment they need. I was taught doctrine of vicarious liability, which makes an employer that at the outset, when I had the honour to become liable for the negligence of his employee? solicitor for the Transport and General Workers’ Union. I became one of the legendary Mr Albert Blyghton’s I raised the issue at Second Reading but answer solicitors, and we constantly strived to get employers came there none from the government Benches. The to introduce a better system of rehabilitation. I am not amendment would not affect the position of an individual sure that we have reached that stage yet. whose actions caused injury or loss but would merely ensure that his employer did not escape liability by the back door. It is entirely consistent with the declared Lord Beecham: I was also one Mr Albert Blyghton’s objectives of the Bill, which, in the words of the solicitors. Explanatory Notes,

Lord Kinnock (Lab): Everybody was. “forms part of the Coalition Government’s wider programme to encourage participation in civil society and the Coalition Agreement contained a specific commitment to ‘take a range of measures to Lord Beecham: That is about right. I am sure that encourage volunteering and involvement in social action’”. the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I, when representing members of that trade union in their claims, would The Explanatory Notes and the muted fanfare given have sought rehabilitation but we would also have by the Government to the Bill make no reference to sought proper compensation for the injuries that they what appears to amount, by accident or design, to a suffered. The two things are not necessarily in conflict covert intention to shield not just those volunteers but but I would not like to see rehabilitation to the exclusion their employers and public authorities from legitimate of proper compensation in the appropriate case. claims by the innocent victims of negligence. This morning I met some people who were much Lord Hunt of Wirral: In the appropriate case. I hope engaged with the problems of military personnel on that the noble Lord will not mind if I look for agreement active service now or who have returned to civilian life. in his disagreement. However, there is a general view They expressed concern that the Bill and in particular that we cannot go on like this, and I am pleased in Clause 3, to which we will come, could offer an escape particular with the words of my noble friend the route for the Ministry of Defence from being required Minister. I will go away and ponder carefully the to compensate those sustaining injury as a result of a various ideas he put forward on tackling a menace to breach in the duty to take reasonable care, or indeed a society. It is harassing a substantial number of people, breach of statutory duty. In their view, which I share, which is why I want to return to this subject at a later that would be another breach of the military covenant, stage but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the to stand alongside the Ministry of Defence’s refusal to amendment. augment the staffing required to operate the veterans’ compensation scheme, despite the recently disclosed Amendment A1 withdrawn. substantial backlog in dealing with claims under that scheme. Amendment A2 not moved. I accept that the Minister will not be able to do this today, but I invite him to confirm whether the Ministry Clause 1: When this Act applies of Defence will be entitled by the provisions of this Bill to avoid paying compensation to members of the Armed Forces or to others that hitherto it might be Amendment 1 obliged to pay, not under the voluntary scheme, but Moved by Lord Beecham under the normal rules of personal injury claims. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether there is 1: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert— any rationale, which I failed to detect, in what appears “( ) Nothing in this Act shall serve to exempt from vicarious to be an exclusion of employers’ liability or other liability an employer or other person for any act or omission vicarious liability as a means ultimately of reducing referred to in sections 1 to 4 of this Act.” the number of claims that might otherwise be validly brought. It that is the case—it is not a declared purpose Lord Beecham: My Lords, assuming for the moment of the Bill although it may well be achieving that—we and for the purposes of this debate and the scrutiny need to address this and ensure that it does not occur. role of Committee that the Bill makes any significant I beg to move. 385 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 386

Lord Pannick: My Lords, I hope that the Minister Rights Act. But all those issues, difficult though they will be able to reassure the Committee that the amendment are, are nothing to the point in relation to the conventional is unnecessary. Nothing in the Bill exempts an employer rules on vicarious liability. For the reasons that the noble or other person from vicarious liability. I doubt that Lord, Lord Pannick, gave in his analysis of the Bill, the Bill as drafted would have any effect on vicarious I can assure the noble Lord—I understand why there liability. That is because the scope of the Bill is confined is anxiety and I wish to allay that anxiety—that there by Clause 1 to claims that “a person” has been negligent is no need for anxiety and vicarious liability is not intended or in breach of statutory duty. Clause 1 states that the to nor will be altered in any way by the provisions of Bill addresses the steps that the person was required to the Bill. take to meet a standard of care. In those circumstances, we respectfully suggest that Clauses 2 to 4 are concerned with that person the provision suggested by the noble Lord is unnecessary, acting for the benefit of society, acting responsibly or and I hope that I have reassured him sufficiently to feel acting heroically. I understand that to be concerned with able to withdraw his amendment. the alleged negligence of the primary defendant. I do not understand it to have any application to a person 3.45 pm who has not themselves acted for the benefit of society, Lord Beecham: I am extremely grateful to the noble responsibly or heroically, but is said to be vicariously Lord for his clarification of his position, and he is now liable for someone who has so acted. I hope that the on the record. Obviously, it will be read as the correct Minister can confirm that my understanding is correct. interpretation of the Bill if the Bill ends up being enacted in one form or another. I therefore beg leave Lord Faulks: My Lords, in short, I can confirm to withdraw the amendment. what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. Amendment 1 would insert a new subsection at the end of Clause 1, Amendment 1 withdrawn. stating that nothing in the Act provides an exemption Clause 1 agreed. from vicarious liability to an employer or other person. The Government do not believe that this is necessary. As I endeavoured to explain in my recent letter dealing Amendment 2 with points raised by the noble Lord and other Members Moved by Lord Pannick of the House at Second Reading, while the Bill requires the courts to consider certain factors before reaching a 2: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— decision about liability, it does not tell the court what “Deterrent effect of potential liability conclusion it should reach or prevent a person being In section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 (deterrent effect found negligent if all the circumstances of the case of potential liability), for the word “may”substitute “must”.” warrant it. It will not therefore give anyone licence to take unnecessary risks with people’s safety or leave the Lord Pannick: My Lords, Amendment 2 seeks to injured party without a remedy when the defendant give the Bill some coherent purpose and effect—not has failed to meet the applicable standard of care in all an easy task, as we debated at Second Reading. the circumstances of the case. Amendment 2 draws attention to an important If the actions of an employer, for example, were legislative fact, which, surprisingly, is entirely ignored risky or careless and they led to an injury, it would be by the content of the Bill; that is, we already have on open to the courts to conclude that the factors in the the statute book a provision which expressly addresses Bill did not outweigh other pertinent factors, such as the very issues with which the Bill is concerned. The the size and foreseeability of the risk, the adequacy of legislative provision is Section 1 of the Compensation training and the extent of the injury, and, as a result, Act 2006. It is a far more tightly and appropriately to reach a finding of negligence if appropriate. This worded provision than the Bill, which, as we discussed will equally be the case where a claim is brought against at Second Reading, reads like an edition of the Valiant the employer in respect of the allegedly negligent act comic that I used to buy as a schoolboy. or omissions of an employee under the law on vicarious Section 1 of the 2006 Act does the job. It has the liability. It is important to stress that the Bill is not title, “Deterrent effect of potential liability”, and states: intended to have any bearing on the rules governing “A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of the imposition of vicarious liability, which are well statutory duty may, in determining whether the defendant should established in law. In the light of this, I can reassure have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise), have regard to the noble Lord that any suggestion that the Bill would whether a requirement to take those steps might … prevent a leave injured Armed Forces personnel without a remedy desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent in the civil courts, whether under the law on vicarious or in a particular way, or … discourage persons from undertaking liability or otherwise, is misleading. There is nothing functions in connection with a desirable activity”. in the Bill to prevent a claim being brought against an Amendment 2 recognises that there is a distinction employer by an injured employee, whether in the Armed between Section 1 of the 2006 Act and this Bill. The Forces, the emergency services or more generally. 2006 Act sets out factors that the judge may take into Of course, the liability of the Ministry of Defence account. This Bill sets out factors that the judge must has recently been the subject of a great deal of litigation, consider. If the Government are determined to change not least in the case of Smith v Ministry of Defence. the law, all that is needed, even on their arguments, is The noble Lord and the Committee may be aware of to amend Section 1 of the 2006 Act so that “may” is the difficult arguments about the scope of so-called replaced by “must”. That is what Amendment 2 would battlefield immunity and the relevance of the Human secure. 387 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 388

If Amendment 2 were accepted, we could and The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, from whose company should remove Clauses 2 to 4 from the Bill. One of the I must unusually and regretfully depart on this occasion, many puzzling features of the Bill is that it entirely ignores seeks to replace the Compensation Act’s provision of Section 1 of the 2006 Act. It does not repeal Section 1 “may” with this Bill’s “must”, presumably therefore of the 2006 Act. It does not amend Section 1 of reflecting the view of the noble and learned Lord, that Act. If, therefore, the Bill were to be enacted in its Lord Brown. The view that the two are the same, current form, the law would then state that under however, is not the Government’s view, as the Minister Section 1 of the 2006 Act judges “may” take account made clear at Second Reading, when he reminded the of the social benefit of the activity, and that under this House that, legislation judges “must” take account of the social “the difference between ‘may’ and ‘must’ … caused the House to benefit of the activity, defined in different language. be divided on more than one occasion”.—[Official Report, 4/11/14; According to the Lord Chancellor in the other col. 1576.] place, the Bill is designed to send a message to potential He also reminded us that there is a difference between volunteers and heroes. If Parliament were, through this the provisions in this Bill and the provisions in the Bill, to enact the legislative equivalent of a text message, Compensation Act. the only message likely to be received is one of pure To the extent that the obliteration of that difference confusion. The man or woman thinking of volunteering could represent yet another and in this case, given its or thinking of jumping into the lake to save the drowning source, inadvertent legislative attempt to fetter judicial victim is not—as the Lord Chancellor apparently believes discretion—one of many such attempts made by this —going to be comforted by their recollection of the Government, some, alas, successfully—the Committee contents of Halsbury’s Statutes of England. Once the Bill should resist that proposition. The JCHR in one of its is enacted, the potential hero will pause while he or she more damning and dismissive, albeit characteristically consults leading counsel for advice on the implications elegantly phrased, reports published in recent years of the fact that the statute book now contains both echoed its concerns about similar provisions in relation Section 1 of the 2006 Act and this new legislation. to judicial review in the Criminal Justice and Courts Amendment 2 provides a simple and obvious solution Bill. We have seen a succession of measures designed to this problem, which I commend to the Committee. I to fetter judicial discretion. I fear that, for all the normally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, intentions to the contrary, the noble Lord’s amendment but I cannot share his concern about Parliament in might encourage that process. I therefore hope that, this context telling judges that they must take something on this occasion, he will not object to my taking a into account. I do not share his concern because it will different path, but it will be interesting to hear whether remain a matter for the judges what weight, if any, to the Minister has changed his view since that expressed give to the social benefit context in the circumstances at Second Reading. of the particular case. Amendment 2 provides that the social benefit must be taken into account. It would do Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB): My so in the very sensible context of the 2006 Act, which Lords, I shall deal briefly with the suggested distinction has worked very well since it was brought into force. between “may” in the 2006 Act and “must” in the Clauses 2 to 4 can then be removed, as the noble and present Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will be proposing. has said, I touched on at Second Reading. The Minister I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to submitted then that this was a significant distinction this amendment, which is designed to be constructive. and he compared it to the critical difference between That is very difficult in the context of the Bill. If he is those same two words, “may” and “must”, on which not able to accept this amendment, will he explain to the Government the previous week had been defeated the Committee whether it is really the Government’s three times when the House divided on three clauses in intention to have on the statute book two differently Part 4 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, all about worded sets of provisions that will be addressing precisely judicial review. With respect to the Minister, for whom the same issue? I beg to move. I have the highest regard, this was an uncharacteristically and thoroughly bad point and an inept comparison, Lord Beecham: My Lords, I shall speak to because of course there was all the difference in the Amendment 2, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, world between saying in the original Clause 70 of the and to my Amendments 3, 5 and 9, which deal with Criminal Justice and Courts Bill that the High Court the issue of judicial discretion in applying to any claim “must” refuse in certain specified circumstances to within the province of the Bill the provisions that the grant judicial review relief and saying, as on amendment Bill sets out. to that Bill Clause 70 now does, that the court “may” At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, refuse to grant relief. It is a completely different position Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, averred that in a Bill like the one now before us where the provision the change the Bill seeks to make in the provision of is simply about the court having regard to a particular the Compensation Act 2006 that the court “may” take consideration. into account the factors that the Act spells out, to one It is notable that when the noble Baroness, Lady which declares it now “must” take such matters into Ashton, who promoted the 2006 Bill in Committee, account will, in his words, resisted what was then a proposed amendment from “actually make no difference whatever”.—[Official Report, 4/11/14; “may” to “shall”—which is much the same as “must”— col. 1559.] she said: Perhaps that is a suitable epitaph for the whole of the “The reason why we said “may” rather than “shall” is that Bill, it might be thought. when a court looks at a negligence claim it takes into account all 389 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 390

[LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD] when determining whether a defendant has taken the circumstances of an individual case; those circumstances, of reasonable care, consider whether a finding of negligence course, vary dramatically from one case to another, as all those could prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken who are members of the legal profession will know far better than or discourage others from undertaking functions in I. It would not be appropriate to require the courts to take the factor in Clause 1 into account in all cases, which would be the connection with such an activity. It does not require effect of changing “may” to “shall”. In some cases, it will just not the court to enter into such consideration. be relevant, so by making that change we would be trying to make However, Clause 2 of SARAH takes a different and the courts do something that in the normal course of their activities we would not expect them to do—which is, to take into firmer approach than the Compensation Act by requiring account factors that have no relevance at all. So we have said that the courts to consider in every case whether a person they may take them into account, but we are not requiring them was acting for the benefit of society or any of its to, because of the range and variety of cases”.—[Official Report, members. It focuses more firmly on the actions of the 15/12/05; col. GC200.] defendant in a particular case than on the effect that a A little later she contrasted a negligence claim against finding of negligence might have on others participating an accountant, where the concept of a “desirable in similar activities. For these reasons we consider that activity” would of course be irrelevant, with an injury Clause 2 of our Bill will provide greater reassurance suffered at Girl Guides or on a school trip, where a than the 2006 Act has done to those in the voluntary “desirable activity” becomes a highly relevant concept. sector and elsewhere who are still deterred from getting Frankly, it would have mattered little, even in the cases involved in socially valuable activities by worries about where it was quite irrelevant, if the courts had in fact liability. I do not suppose that they will have Halsbury’s been bound to have regard to this irrelevant consideration Laws of England to hand when making these difficult before then summarily discarding it. So too here: it decisions, but their general approach will be affected can make no material difference to the outcome of any by the climate and the context in which we live and the case whether the word used is “may” or “must”. That way the law reflects that. is the central point, as I made plain at Second Reading. There is no real difference between this Bill, the 2006 The noble Lord says that if we want to compel the Act, and indeed the common law as it was already courts to consider the type of factors set out in Clauses 2 developing without the need for any statutory intervention to 4 of the current Bill, we could have achieved that at all. Accordingly, for my part I am quite indifferent simply by requiring the courts to consider the points to both of these competing Amendments 2 and 3. in Section 1 of the Compensation Act. His Amendment 2 Rather, in common with the noble and learned Lord, would therefore replace the word “may” in that Act with Lord Lloyd, I object to the Bill as a whole. If the the word “must”. I am not convinced that changing House eventually divides on Report, I shall vote that one word in the Compensation Act would have the same none of these provisions should stand part. impact as our standalone Bill, which has been deliberately designed to be comprehensible to non-lawyers. Indeed, 4pm the National Council for Voluntary Organisations mentioned in oral evidence that if the Bill is passed, it Lord Faulks: My Lords, I am grateful for the debate could help to publicise that via its volunteering network. and the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord As I have said, Clause 2 has a different and clearer Beecham and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned focus than Section 1 of the 2006 Act, and I believe that Lord, Lord Brown. They seem to agree about the Bill, it better addresses the genuine concerns of volunteers but not about the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord and others. Beecham, is not enthusiastic about the Compensation Act. I think it is fair to say that he said that in fact he I turn now to Amendments 3, 5 and 9 tabled by the thought the previous Labour Government had nodded, noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy of as did Homer, when they brought it in. Therefore the Southwark. They would remove the requirement for words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, relied upon the courts to consider the factors in the Bill in any case by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would have less to in which they were determined, whether someone was commend them in his view. The noble Lord, Lord negligent or in breach of a relevant statutory duty. Pannick, on the other hand, says that the Compensation Instead, it would be purely a matter of discretion as to Act has been working well. whether they took account of the factors in the Bill. The view of the Government is that the Labour This would revert to the terminology of the Compensation Party was quite right to indentify the issue and to Act, which, as I have said, provides that the courts endeavour to reflect the problems that were identified “may” consider whether a finding of negligence might by the committee which eventually decided to report. prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken or There followed the Compensation Bill, but it failed to discourage people from undertaking functions in go far enough. A number of other steps have followed, connection with such an activity. the common law has of course developed as I entirely In our view, that could unacceptably weaken the accept, and here we have a Bill that endeavours to deal Bill. The main point of the Bill is to provide people with what I have frankly said is a very difficult target who are deterred from getting involved with greater to hit. I know that noble Lords feel that it is a target reassurance that the courts will always look at the that can be hit by the common law without any context of their actions before reaching a conclusion statutory intervention. on liability. It is our view that the Compensation Act However, the amendments put forward here come has not done enough to address people’s worries about into different categories. I accept that there are similarities liability, as recent polls carried out by the National between Section 1 of the Compensation Act and Clause 2 Council for Voluntary Organisations, St John Ambulance of this Bill. The 2006 Act provides that the court may, and the British Heart Foundation have demonstrated. 391 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 392

We are hopeful that the Bill will do more than the (a) the resources available to the volunteer, voluntary organisation Compensation Act did to increase public confidence or charitable organisation and the competing demands in the law and increase participation in socially valuable on those resources; activities. We fear that reverting to the terminology (b) the level of training and qualification which volunteers used in the 2006 Act, which as I have indicated the noble should be expected to undertake; and Lord, Lord Beecham, has reservations about, would not (c) the provision of similar services by other voluntary be helpful in this regard. In many cases it may not make organisations and charitable organisations. much difference whether the word is “must” or “may”, (3) When assessing whether a state-funded organisation has been negligent or in breach of statutory duty, the court shall have and all will depend on the particular facts of the case. regard to— I accept the strictures about transposing arguments (a) the funding available to the organisation and the from one Bill to another made by the noble and competing demands on that funding; learned Lord, Lord Brown. Enthusiasm probably overtook (b) the reasons for the allocation of resource by the me in making that analogy, having recently suffered organisation; and several defeats on the part of the Government in that (c) the level of provision of services by other similar state-funded context. My point, however, remains that there is a organisations taking into account the prevailing conditions difference between the words “must” and “may”, but and funding constraints.” that difference will depend very much on the context. Judges are well used to having to fight their way Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I say at the outset through the undergrowth of statutory terminology; that I strongly support the Bill, as long as the Minister sometimes they must do something and sometimes is prepared to accept that it must do something to they may do it. They will of course be approaching change the law. For many years, scientists have said these cases very much on the facts. We think that in that even the act of observation can be enough to this difficult area the Bill does its best to fulfil the change the object being observed. That is true with social objective that lies behind it and, with great this Bill, just as it was with Section 1 of the Compensation respect, we do not think that it would be improved by Act 2006 when that was introduced. I am sad that no any of these amendments. It is in those circumstances one has paid tribute to the noble and learned Lord, that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. Lord Scott of Foscote, who has been sitting patiently listening to this debate, because, in the words of the Lord Pannick: I am very grateful to the Minister. Minister, Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 was He said that it is a difficult target to hit, but I suggest originally based on his brilliant judgment. I would not that the problem is that you are certainly going to find expect the noble and learned Lord to comment on it difficult to hit a target that does not actually exist. that, but we all read his judgment, and I concluded You will find it particularly hard to hit a target if you that it was one of the best judgments that I have ever are not armed with any weapon that is capable of read. I hope he will not mind if I use this opportunity hitting it, even if it did exist. to pay tribute to his tremendous skill as a judge. The Minister’s other point was that the aim here is Surely the effect of this Bill is as follows. A judge to produce legislation which is comprehensible to non- hearing a case needs to say to herself or himself, “My lawyers, but it also has to be implemented by the decision was going to be this, but before I make that courts. If it is not in a coherent form that sits easily decision I must take account of the Social Action, with other legislation, all the Government are going to Responsibility and Heroism Act. Having done that, do is cause confusion which will promote litigation at my decision is now this”. Of course, the decision may great expense to non-lawyers. The Minister simply did ultimately be exactly the same, but the process by not address the main concern behind Amendment 2, which it is reached will be subtly different. Today is an which is that if the Bill is enacted in its current form, opportunity to debate whether the changes to the law there will be two statutes addressing the same general introduced by this Bill ought to be rather more overt. issue in different language. Before we come back, I ask This amendment, and others in my name, is intended the Minister and the Bill team to give some thought to to stimulate that debate. whether it is sensible not to address Section 1 of the I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will forgive 2006 Act at all by amending or repealing it in this me if I say that I have given up. Every time I set up a legislation. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw target, he puts the patch over his good eye and does the amendment. not see it. He then protests that there is not a target. I will continue to supply targets. All I would ask is that, Amendment 2 withdrawn. as with rehabilitation, he should focus on the issue and then work with all noble Lords to try to improve the Clause 2: Social action Bill rather than seek to reject it as useless. Surely the whole purpose of this House—above all, this Chamber—is Amendment 3 not moved. that we should seek to improve legislation, not to dismiss it as lacking substance. Let us give it some substance. I am sorry, I must not get too emotional about this. Amendment 4 Amendment 4 is quite detailed but its overall effect Moved by Lord Hunt of Wirral is simple enough. In terms, it requires a court to have 4: Clause 2, page 1, line 8, at end insert— regard to the resources of the voluntary or charitable “(2) When assessing whether a voluntary organisation, charitable organisation, or a state-funded organisation. I regard organisation or volunteer has been negligent or in breach of this as an important adjunct to the common law statutory duty, the court shall have regard to— position. Too often we hear of front-line resources 393 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 394

[LORD HUNT OF WIRRAL] —shall we put it gently?—overambitious solicitors or being diverted to pay for compensation claims instead others in promoting such matters. Many of us regularly of paying for services. I shall give one example. Alarm—the report to this House being approached by such Association of Local Authority Risk Managers—reports organisations on our telephones, computers and that councils paid out £32 million for pothole claims Blackberries, let alone through adverts in the press in 2012, and in the same period fixed 2.2 million and other media. That is something that is entirely potholes, but that the average English authority was reprehensible. We are at one with the noble Lord in £6.2 million short of the money it needed to complete wanting to see those matters regulated. I congratulate the repairs properly. That risks generating more claims the Government on the steps that they are taking in and taking more money away from councils’ budgets. that respect. These proposals go much too far and In these times of significant pressure on state resources, would have an adverse effect on people with legitimate a spiral of compensation claims is surely not the way claims. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will forward. Likewise, the voluntary and charitable sector feel able to withdraw them. has finite resources which should properly be concentrated on its various good causes. If its limited budget has to Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con): My Lords, I go to fund claims or pay increased insurance premiums, rise briefly to support the amendment of my noble what on earth is the sense in that? friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, which seems a potentially I believe that this amendment would help both sectors sensible and proportionate addition to the Bill. to bring their resources to focus on helping society, In this group, we have a clause stand part debate in not the compensation bandwagon. It is no accident the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd that when I searched for the statistics I used earlier, the of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I was search results started with, “Pothole Bike Accident— wondering if they were going to speak to this because injured by pothole?”, and, “Entitled to compensation?”. I have an interest in it. I shall not name the organisations because they do not deserve that publicity, but they were a claimant solicitor firm and a claims farmer respectively. Surely there Lord Faulks: I understand that the noble and learned must be a better way. I beg to move. Lord has decoupled that from the amendment.

4.15 pm Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: In that case, I Lord Beecham: My Lords, it is interesting that the shall wait until the clause stand part debate and speak noble Lord seeks to give carte blanche to any organisation, on that occasion. whether it be a statutory organisation or a voluntary organisation, to preside over a situation in which injuries Lord Faulks: I understand my noble friend Lord can be sustained but no compensation paid because the Hodgson’s slight surprise. It was a late, though perfectly organisation would have difficulty in funding the claim. legitimate, move. Until recently, a number of us thought There are considerable difficulties with that approach. that whether the clause should stand part was to be The first is that it entirely removes any incentive to debated with the amendment. As it is, we are debating prevent accidents occurring in the first place. This Bill one amendment, Amendment 4 in the name of my is supposed to encourage people to volunteer. The effect noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, which would build of the noble Lord’s amendment would be to encourage on Clause 2 by requiring courts to consider certain statutory and other authorities to take no precautions factors about the nature of an organisation’s activities whatever because they can always demonstrate that when determining whether it had been negligent or in they need more money. It would be more relevant if breach of a relevant statutory duty.Where the organisation the noble Lord addressed his colleagues on the government concerned was a voluntary organisation, the courts Benches to ensure, for example, that the health service would have to consider what resources were available and local authorities are adequately funded to carry to it; whether there were competing demands on those out all their responsibilities, whether dealing with resources; the level of training that volunteers could potholes or treating people properly in hospital and be expected to undertake; and how similar organisations avoiding clinical negligence claims and the like. would have provided those resources. Where the It strikes me as extraordinary that the noble Lord organisation was state-funded, the court would again should be making a proposition which would completely have to consider what resources were available to it exclude compensation for an innocent injured party and whether there were any competing demands on who proves injury, bearing in mind that all these cases funding. It would also have to consider whether there depend on a claimant proving on the balance of were specific reasons why funding had been allocated probabilities that he or she has been the victim of in a certain way and how similar state-funded negligence leading to the injuries for which he or she organisations manage similar activities. seeks compensation. Those are quite extraordinary My noble friend was instrumental in tabling propositions, and I hope the Committee—and in due amendments to the Compensation Act 2006 during its course, if the noble Lord brings the matter back on passage through Parliament and those very much helped Report, the House—will not countenance them. They to improve the legislation. I am grateful for his constructive would remove from compensation a large number of suggestions during today’s debate. In this difficult people who are entirely justified in making a claim. area, it is useful sometimes to think differently from Let us be quite clear: nobody has any sympathy the traditional way in which we have approached with claims farmers or anybody attempting to make a claims of this sort. Normally, a judge simply ignores fraudulent claim, whether or not they are represented by the resources of the defendant as not being relevant. 395 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 396

The question is whether there has been a breach of confined to that particular issue; it would apply much whatever duty of care is impugned by the claim. Many more generally, and I invite him perhaps to consider people believe it is relevant, as a matter of justice, to whether it would be better narrowed to the kind of think beyond that. However, the Government do not incidents to which he has referred. Having said that, I believe that this amendment is appropriate. As I have do not necessarily pledge myself to support him should explained, the Bill will require the court to consider he come back with something like that. It seems that certain factors to do with the context of a person’s the way he has put the matter is rather different from actions before reaching a decision on liability. The Bill how the amendments as presently drafted would be does not change the general way in which the courts interpreted. consider claims of negligence or for breach of statutory duty. They will continue to judge a person’s conduct Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am very grateful to the noble against that of the ordinary and reasonable man. Lord, and to the Minister for his comments. I will of There are a range of factors that the court already course reflect on and consider the points that have considers in determining whether reasonable care has been raised. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw been taken in a particular case. For example, it looks the amendment. as the nature of the activity in question and the degree of care required; the gravity of the harm which might Amendment 4 withdrawn. be suffered if insufficient care were taken; and the cost of mitigating any risk. 4.30 pm We have not attempted to set out these matters in Debate on whether Clause 2 should stand part of the the Bill; nor do we intend to do so. Such an exercise would Bill. add unnecessary length and complexity to what is a clear and—even its critics would accept—concise Bill. Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB): My Lords, I oppose Some noble Lords have already expressed reservations Clause 2 standing part of the Bill, and my reason is that the current Bill fetters the discretion of the courts simple: it adds nothing useful to what is already contained by requiring them to consider certain factors about in Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006. It adds the context of the defendant’s actions. As I have nothing to what was contained in the pre-existing already explained, the Bill does not purport to tell common law, as my noble and learned friend Lord courts how much weight to put on each factor, covered Brown has already demonstrated. What, then, does by Clauses 2 to 4, or to prevent them finding negligence Section 1 say? It has already been read by my noble where the circumstances of the case warrant it. However, friend Lord Pannick but I find it a little wordy, so I the effect of being too prescriptive—for example, about will do my best to paraphrase it. It provides that a the type of evidence the courts need to look at when court may have regard to whether the desirable activity determining whether an organisation was negligent—could would be prevented or discouraged if defendants were introduce new burdens, which we think, on balance, would required to take some precaution or undertake some not be desirable. That being the case, while renewing action to avoid liability in claims for negligence. my tribute to my noble friend’s attempt to add constructive Clause 2 says: suggestions to the Bill and his insight into this particular “The court must have regard to whether the … negligence … area, I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment. occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society”. The simple question for the Committee is whether Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am very grateful there is any distinction between, to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his support. I say “acting for the benefit of society”, to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that I should like to and a “desirable activity”. If not, the clause and the return to this subject again at a later stage. In the mean section provide exactly the same. time, if he could reflect on the case of Wilkinson v City of York Council, he would understand that I am Nobody has yet been able to suggest a distinction not seeking to achieve what he described. I seek merely between those two ways of putting it. If Clause 2 is to to respond to the words of the Court of Appeal in that stand part of the Bill—putting aside for the moment case. I will not go into too much detail, but he will see the must/may distinction—we will have, as my noble what I mean if I quote just one sentence: friend Lord Pannick stressed, two provisions on the statute book covering exactly the same ground. I suggest that “A judge, it seems to me, should be slow to reject the evidence given by a responsible council official that resources did not that is not a good idea. It is said that it may not matter permit a more frequent inspection than that which was given”. and does no harm. However, in this instance it matters The conclusion in that case was that, whereas the a great deal because the drafting of Clause 2 is so question of manpower resources was able to be considered defective that, if it is to stand part, it will give rise to in relation to other sections in the Highways Act, the what one witness described as “massive unintended particular section—Section 58—did not make reference consequences”. I will come back to that later. to this shortage of resources as a factor to be taken into I want to refer to the evidence of Mr Fraser Whitehead, account. Therefore, the Court of Appeal concluded that who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee on Parliament had not wanted it to be a relevant factor. I 4 September. Mr Whitehead is chair of the legal affairs therefore hope that the noble Lord will see that I am and policy board of the Law Society. In his view, seeking to meet a particular problem in a specific way. Clause 2 is unnecessary because the subject is already covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act. He said Lord Beecham: I understand the point that the that it adds nothing of value. That evidence was never noble Lord is making, and I will certainly look at that challenged on behalf of the Government. Mr Vara, case. However, his amendment does not seem to be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, instead 397 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 398

[LORD LLOYD OF BERWICK] details of those examples, so it is difficult to know of challenging the evidence, attacked Mr Whitehead’s exactly what he had in mind. A little later he said that credibility. I think it is best in those circumstances if I the Bill would, quote from Hansard, which I would not normally do, “consolidate the law, which exists in fragmented places around but the Committee may find it helpful. past legislation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/14; col. 1191.] Mr Whitehead was asked whether he had consulted Again, he was not specific, but I think that he must the many thousands of members of the Law Society have been referring to the Compensation Act—although, and if so, whether by line, survey or in writing. oddly enough, he does not actually mention it. I have Mr Whitehead replied that he had not consulted widely not myself been able to find any other “fragmented” but he had discussed the Bill with the various chairs of pieces of legislation dealing with social activity, so I the various relevant sub-committees of the Law Society. assume that what I have said so far is his view. If so, I I take up what was said in Hansard. Mr Vara said: can summarise his approach by saying that, in his “Are these personal views that are shared by a limited number view, Clause 2 does not change the law—otherwise, he of colleagues in the Law Society—the other chairs that you would hardly have described Clause 2 as consolidating mentioned—as opposed to the views of the majority of the Law the law. He must have been aware that the whole Society, whom you admit that you have not consulted?”. purpose of a consolidation Bill is that it does not Mr Whitehead said: change the law. I leave it at that. “The position I am putting forward is the Law Society’s I return to the evidence of Mr Fraser Whitehead position”. and the massive unintended consequences to which I referred earlier. For example, he mentioned the use of Mr Vara asked, the word “person” in Clause 2. No doubt the Lord “am I right in saying that this is your view and the view of one or Chancellor had in mind organisations and individuals two other people? You mentioned the chair of one committee or such as the Scouts but, of course, “person” is not another, but how many people precisely have had an input into the views that you have put forward today? Are they principally confined to individuals. It goes far wider than that; for your views? If not yours alone, how many other individuals have example, it would include the banks. Are they entitled you spoken to who share your views? Finally, will you kindly tell to the benefit of the clause? Is that what is intended by me the precise number and their names, if possible?”. the Bill? Suppose that a bank were being sued for Mr Whitehead explained that the: negligent misrepresentation, would it be able to argue that it acts, “Law Society is actually a democratic structure”, “for the benefit of society or one of its members”, and was interrupted by Mr Vara: whenever it cashes a cheque? Presumably, it would. No “Forgive me for interrupting … As a former solicitor, I am doubt “person”could have been amended by substituting aware of the structure of the Law Society. Basically, you have not “individual”, if that is the real intention. However, it is consulted your members. You are relying on the views of a small number of people who sit on a specific committee of the Law now much too late for the Government to do that and Society”. there is no government amendment to that effect. In any event, Mr Vara was present in the Public Bill To that, Mr Whitehead said: Committee when Mr Whitehead described what he “The people on whom I am relying are a wide cross section of then referred to as the “horrific”unintended consequences specialists. of Clause 2. Mr Vara never challenged that evidence. Mr Vara: How many, please? All one can therefore conclude is that the Government Fraser Whitehead: The total number is approximately 35”. were content with that evidence and accepted it. It remains unchallenged. Mr Vara asked: Moreover, “person” is not the only word in Clause 2 “Have 35 people given you their views, either in writing or by that is likely to give rise to trouble. What about the speaking to you? phrase, Fraser Whitehead: No, but we have discussed— “society or any of its members”? Mr Vara: Thank you. I am mindful that time is limited, and I am happy to give way to someone else”.—[Official Report, Commons, What on earth is that supposed to mean? The drafting Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill Committee, 4/9/14; of Clause 2 is so woolly that I could not help wondering cols. 9-10.] who did the drafting. That is a question I am not I do not know what impression that sort of questioning allowed to ask, so I shall: was it perhaps the Lord gives your Lordships. All I can say about it is that, in Chancellor himself? Is the Bill before the Committee itself, it would be sufficient reason for the Government something which the Lord Chancellor scribbled down to lose this Bill, and they would deserve to do so. But on the back of an envelope, as seems to be the practice of course there are many other reasons also, to which I nowadays? To a lawyer like me, that is exactly what it shall come in a moment. looks like. Lastly, I come to the Minister—the noble Lord, Next I come to the Lord Chancellor and the reasons Lord Faulks. He finds himself in an awkward position. that he gave for bringing this Bill forward in the first Either he accepts the Lord Chancellor’s view that the place. The key thing is that it lays down, Bill does not change the law or he accepts the view of “a series of principles off the back of which the courts will evolve the Parliamentary Under-Secretary—Mr Vara—that a jurisprudence”. it indeed does. The Minister’s solution to that problem He said that there had been a number of examples is, as always, ingenious: he comes down in the middle. over recent years in which Parliament has adopted He says that Clause 3 does, indeed, change the law that approach. Unfortunately, he did not give any because it refers to “a generally responsible approach”. 399 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 400

He says that those words are new and I am sure that Most appropriately for our purposes, the quotation they are. They have never been seen before in any form comes, of course, from “Much Ado About Nothing”. of legislation with which I am familiar. That is part of Given that a few moments ago the Minister praised what will be dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, the concise nature of this Bill, perhaps “little ado when we discuss Clause 3. However, it is interesting about nothing” is more appropriate. that the Minister does not say the same about Clause 2. Judges can already see a church by daylight. They On 4 November, he accepted, at col. 1573 of Hansard, already take account of beneficial action—responsibility, that Clause 2 covers “broadly similar territory” to what heroism—when they decide on potential liability for we have before us today but added that the approach negligence or breach of statutory duty. Noble Lords “is different”. As he did not actually spell out the difference, discussed the case law relevant to this matter at Second I pressed him on this. His answer was that the 2006 Act Reading; I will not repeat it. The Lord Chancellor’s had been “ineffective” and had not achieved what defence of Clause 2—as the noble and learned Lord, it set out to achieve. However, he did not explain why Lord Lloyd, has said—is not that Clause 2 will change Clause 2 would be any better or more effective than the law. The Government have identified no cases Section 1 had been. When the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which would have been decided differently had Clause 2 pressed him again on that distinction, he said: been in force. The point made by the Lord Chancellor— “I am entirely aware of the question that the noble Lord asked the point made by the Government—in support of and I am attempting to answer it”.—[Official Report, 4/11/14; Clause 2 is that people do not understand the existing col. 1574.] law and therefore we, Parliament, should send a message He then moved on. Of course, there are verbal distinctions to people who are worried that conduct beneficial to between the Compensation Act and Clause 2 of this society may result in legal liability, even though those Bill. One important difference is that the Compensation worries are entirely baseless. I do not know whether Act is rather carefully drafted whereas Clause 2 is not, the Lord Chancellor is on Facebook or Twitter but they but the substance is the same. would be far more effective methods of communicating a message—if it is the intention of the Government to 4.45 pm do so—than the legislative time being taken up by the I hope I have said enough to persuade the Committee Bill. that Clause 2 should find no place on our statute book. I hope that it is appropriate to say that I cannot put First, it serves no useful purpose. Secondly, the drafting out of my mind—although I hope to do so by ventilating is so defective that it will be greeted with “derision” by it in this Committee—an image of the Lord Chancellor the courts—that is the word of Sir Edward Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as the parliamentary former Solicitor-General, from the Government’s own equivalent of the Bee Gees singing their hit, “I’ve Back Benches. Thirdly, it has been described—in evidence Gotta Get a Message to You”. The problem is that that was never challenged by the Government—as there is really no point sending a message unless there being likely to have “horrific” consequences. So the is something of value to communicate and unless one only remaining purpose for this Bill is to repeat a has reason to think that it is going to be received. message sent out eight years ago by Section 1 of the There is simply no evidence whatever to suggest that Compensation Act which may or may not ever have those thinking of performing beneficial acts or heroism been received. That, I submit, is a misuse of legislative are deterred by a misunderstanding of the protection process. If the Government wish to send out messages—as that the law already offers them. no doubt they do—they should use some other means. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its report published last week, helpfully summarised the Lord Pannick: My Lords, I have added my name position in relation to this crucial point. I draw the to that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Committee’s attention to paragraph 2.23. It refers to Berwick, in opposing Clause 2 standing part of this Bill, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, which, and I agree with everything that he has said. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the “say that there is ‘some evidence’ that people are deterred from participating in socially useful activities due to worries about risk noble Baroness, Lady Browning, each quoted Shakespeare … or liability”. in their competing assessments of the value of Clause 2, and indeed of the whole of this Bill. At that stage I The Explanatory Notes, as the Joint Committee points was unable to contribute at such a high literary level—I out, cite only an example of a survey conducted in could offer only a quotation from Basil Fawlty. 2006-07. The committee asked the Government if there were any other evidence upon which the Bill is Since then, I have received a valuable e-mail from based in relation to the suggested need for a message Paul Mitchard QC of the Faculty of Law at the to be sent. This was the report’s conclusion at paragraph Chinese University of Hong Kong. He assures me, 2.26, which stated: and I assure the Committee, that the Official Report on this Bill is being carefully studied in the special “We have considered carefully the strength of the evidence base showing that the specific risk of legal liability, as opposed to administrative region of the People’s Republic of China. risk generally, is a reason why people do not volunteer, and we Mr Mitchard has drawn my attention to a valuable have found it weak. The evidence relied on by the Government as quotation from the works of Shakespeare which is demonstrating a public perception that volunteering carried too relevant to whether Clause 2 should stand part of this great a risk of legal liability is almost entirely anecdotal, and we Bill. On being complimented on making a perceptive do not consider such evidence to be a sound basis for legislating”. comment, Beatrice responds by emphasising the obvious I respectfully agree. If the Government are bringing nature of what she had said: forward Clause 2 on the basis that there is a need to “I have a good eye, uncle; I can see a church by daylight”. send a message, they need to present to this House 401 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 402

[LORD PANNICK] Britain’s reputation. I have also had the pleasure of some evidence to support that assertion. Anecdotal speaking with the noble Lord on the Justice and Security accounts are simply not good enough. I therefore Bill. To maintain the rule of law, the law must command share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord general respect. It must not become disconnected from Lloyd of Berwick, that Clause 2 serves no useful the regulars of the saloon bar in the Dog and Duck. I purpose; it should not stand part of the Bill. fear that in this area it is becoming so disconnected. Some of the disconnection is direct and some is indirect, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I have been listening in that the law is being considered to support approaches carefully to the two speeches. The noble and learned that our fellow citizens think are at best foolish and at Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, referred to the interplay worst downright unhelpful. between this piece of legislation and the Compensation Let me give an example of what is happening, which Act 2006. I had to note that after he said that he thought was provided to the task force. A young woman, an that the Compensation Act was sending a message, he undergraduate at Oxford University, saw an advertisement added that the message may or may not have been in the paper asking for individuals to act as room curators received, which is part of the issue that we are tackling at one of the city’s museums. Like many or perhaps today—that the message has not been received. I most undergraduates she was short of money and listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, anxious to earn some additional sums. The job required Lord Pannick, and have read with equal care his her to sit in the corner of a gallery, watching that article about this piece of legislation in last Thursday’s visitors going by did not interfere or tamper with the Times, which was headed “UK negligence law is already exhibits, or steal them. When she applied for the job fit for heroes” and saying that we do not need this Bill. she was immediately told that it required her to have a Its tone can only be described as uncompromising Criminal Records Bureau check. She was not keen on throughout. what she found a disproportionately untrusting attitude. Regrettably I was abroad on business during the At this point she was put in touch with the task week beginning 3 November and therefore was unable force. I knew that CRB regulations check that a job to participate in the Second Reading debate. The applicant is suitable for “frequent and intensive” contact proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, with children or vulnerable adults and could not see and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that Clause 2, how this undergraduate sitting in the corner of a room headed “Social action”, should not stand part of the in a museum would call that principle into question. Bill clearly rips the heart out of a large part of this So I asked her to write to the university authorities measure and deserves a response. With respect to the and ask them for the basis of their CRB requirement. noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I do not think that people’s The answer was that the museum authorities had fears are baseless. consulted their solicitors and had been told that to cover Before I go any further, I need to declare an interest. all the bases, including generally, a failure to have First, I am not a lawyer. Hearing the interchanges I CRB checks would increase the likelihood of the sometimes feel that I have joined a party to which I trustees being found liable if there were problems in have not been properly invited. Secondly and more any of the operations of the museum. In the event, the importantly, in late 2010 I was asked by the Government young woman did not take the job because she refused to chair a task force to look at those factors affecting to have the CRB check and the museum would not the growth of the charitable and voluntary sector, amend its policy. especially among smaller charities and voluntary groups. That example could be replicated thousands of I was asked to look at three specific questions. times up and down the country. I could—but will not What stopped people giving their time to volunteering, —bore the House with examples: the Punch and Judy for example? What deterred them from giving their show on Hastings pier; the Women’s Institute putting money? What stopped smaller charities and voluntary flowers on a Welsh railway station; or a retired doctor groups from growing in general terms? The task force’s seeking to read a few hours a month to Alzheimer’s report, entitled Unshackling Good Neighbours,was patients in Northumberland. Each case results in people published in May 2011 and remains available for being reluctant to get involved. aficionados on the Cabinet Office website. Only the first of those three tasks is relevant to our deliberations today. With the greatest respect to the 5pm noble Lord and noble and learned Lord, with the Lord Beecham: Can the noble Lord explain the experience of that task force and the evidence that we relevance of the cases he has just cited to the Bill—or, received. I think that they have seen this issue too to put it the other way round, the relevance of the Bill exclusively, through an over-narrow legal prism. I to the cases he has just cited? The Bill is speaking agree with their view that this problem of volunteer about claims for negligence. concern will not be solved by change to the law alone. There is no silver bullet and I would not claim that this Bill is one. The problem can be addressed by multiple Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: What I am talking bullets and this Bill provides one of them. about here is the provision that the court, The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is aware of the “must have regard to … the alleged negligence or breach”. importance that I attach to the rule of law. I have had In the case of the Oxford museum, the solicitors were the pleasure of participating with him in debates on indicating that failure to have CRB checks could render the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the museum liable for a negligence claim in the event about the importance of the rule of law abroad and of there being a problem. 403 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 404

Lord Pannick: Perhaps I might point out to the called “volunteer liability” type cases because, as he put noble Lord that the Minister assured the Committee it, they are always complex and judgmental. Once you in relation to the first group of amendments that the appear before a judge, and even more so before a judge Bill would have no effect whatever on vicarious liability. and jury, the potential for unpleasant surprises increases Therefore, the museum’s approach—which does not significantly. sound very sensible—would not be affected in any way Earlier in the Bill, I said this was one of a series of by the Bill. bullets that needed to be fired to tackle this problem. So that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am not going to and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, do not try to argue a fine legal point with the noble Lord but think that I am trying to attack the lawyers, I will give the fact of the matter is that the museum was advised two brief examples of other bullets that need to be that unless there were full and clear CRB checks for all fired. One is the availability of insurance. The task individuals, it would be liable. This piece of legislation force found that improving the clarity and comparability gives us an opportunity because in a case such as this, of insurance cover would have a major impact on the museum, encouraging volunteers. As the task force recommended, “was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members”. the Government have established a working party that I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that includes representatives of the insurance industry and I was disappointed with his remarks at Second Reading the voluntary sector to tackle this and other insurance when he said: problems. For the second bullet, I follow what the noble “The irony is, of course, that banging on about a compensation Lord, Lord Pannick, said earlier, when he wrote in his culture is itself likely to create the very apprehension that the Bill Times article, “Why not just issue a press release or purports to allay”.—[Official Report, 4/11/14; col. 1552.] pay for a newspaper advertisement?”. This raises the Regrettably, the apprehension is already very widespread. issue of myths. My task force was appalled at what we If he wishes to find out what is causing that apprehension, found, and we listed the 20 most extraordinary in our I invite him and other noble Lords to read the briefing report. They include people worried that they could sent by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which not put a plaster on a child’s cut; that goggles could describes the impact of the Bill as follows. It says, not be worn in a swimming lesson; that they could not “those who ‘employ’ volunteers may be less rigorous in their risk take photographs of their children at a school play, assessments, thereby leaving those in their care more vulnerable to and that they could not offer meeting space in an harm. An example is the chairman of a local football club where office to a local community group. I hope that in volunteers coach children. As a result of this Bill, the chairman parallel with implementing this Bill the Government may be tempted to cut corners in vetting the suitability of his volunteers”. will take active steps to ensure that where myths occur, To suggest that those of us who support the Bill are they are duly busted. somehow careless about our children’s future is unfair, To conclude, valuable steps have already been taken unworthy and, indeed, outrageous. as regards the law in this respect. The Compensation I referred earlier to my support for the rule of law Act was the subject of our debate this afternoon. The but I have an equally deep affection for the right of restrictions on contingent-fee legal work and after-the- free association. It is on this right that our civil society event insurance are most welcome. We need, however, is built. Many argue that in this screen-based age, our to continue to explore ways to encourage, or at least society is becoming more atomised and more self-centred. not discourage, our fellow citizens to get involved in Whether or not this is true, I believe strongly that a civil society, and this Bill is important in that regard. I vibrant civil society improves social well-being and hope that the noble Lord will not divide the House social cohesion. All possible steps should be taken to tonight on the proposal that Clause 2 should stand avoid people being discouraged from getting involved. part of the Bill and that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be robust in rejecting the Motion. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will argue that if a case with the characteristics I have Lord Blair of Boughton (CB): My Lords, I find myself described were to come to court, it would be thrown very surprised to be supporting the Motion, if that is out. That is as may be. I am certainly not going to try the right term, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord to swap legal precedents with them as that would be a Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, battle I would surely lose. But I ask the Committee to but I do. I am surprised because, although I am broadly consider that for the noble Lord and the noble and in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, learned Lord, a day in court is another day at the office, has been saying, I think this piece of legislation is, but for the defendant it is an entirely strange world frankly, a lousy way to do it. —working to unfamiliar and not always understandable Most years I would take part in a little-known procedures, often taking quite a long time to come to ceremony called the Provincial Police Award, which is court and incurring considerable cost and expense. It for the greatest act of heroism by a member of the public. is a highly stressful experience for the layman or This is what happens when a member of the public sees laywoman as well as for their families and work colleagues. a red mist and goes for the armed robbers. It is fantastic. Of course, if the defendant is a trustee of a charity The award could actually be called the Unluckiest which is not a CIO, he or she has unlimited liability. Robber of the Year Award, which would be a more In the background is the advice we were given at the accurate term. Having said that, we know how difficult time of the task force by an experienced litigation it is to legislate in this field. I was involved in a number solicitor who explained that he would do everything of the cases concerned with health and safety legislation he could to prevent his clerk going to court in what he and the police and the fire service. Those cases were 405 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 406

[LORD BLAIR OF BOUGHTON] Funnily enough, if you look carefully at Section 1 extraordinarily difficult. After a number of pretty climactic of the Compensation Act 2006, you see that it does events, we ended up in long, detailed and creative not create that problem because it does not use such discussions with the Health and Safety Executive about precise language, rather it is framed in a general way the right way to deal with issues which affect not only that covers the kind of situation I am talking about. members of the public, but also the individuals who One is not asked to be so precise in looking at the work for these services. Can they climb ladders? Can a person who is undertaking particular acts or is prepared sergeant order somebody to climb a ladder? Can they to do so. dive into rivers? It needs really detailed work. What For those reasons, I am deeply troubled by Clauses 2 this clause does is smooth over all that with a series of and 4. I really do not think that they have been framed words that have very little meaning in relation to the in a way that meets the full range of cases, in particular detail. cases where employers instruct those who are prepared The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talked about the to do these things not to do them. It is not quite the Bee Gees. In my view, what the Government are same as the example in Oxford, but I suspect that it is attempting here is more like Don Quixote and Sancho not far removed. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Blair, Panza: they are riding along and tilting at windmills. can think of examples where police forces have suffered exactly the same problems. It is a great shame that the Lord Hope of Craighead (CB): My Lords, I am Government have not thought this through, faced up troubled by this clause for a reason related to the two to the real problem, and addressed it in a proper way. speeches that have been just been made. I can express it in a slightly different way. There was a tragic incident 5.15 pm in Scotland a few years ago where a young woman had Lord Faulks: My Lords, the noble and learned been walking in the country and fell down a hole, Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, which I think had been created by old mine workings, Lord Pannick, contend that Clause 2, along with and she could not get out. The fire brigade was summoned Clauses 3 and 4, should be removed from the Bill for a and its officers were prepared to go down the hole and number of reasons, one of which is that it covers the rescue her, which they had to do because I think she same ground as the Compensation Act 2006. There is was injured and could not use a rope or a ladder. They a breadth of criticism of this clause, including that it is were perfectly willing to help her, and you might say not well drafted and that there is insufficient evidence that that was an act of heroism of the kind that to justify the whole Bill, but in particular this clause. Clause 4 is asking us to think about. But the fireman The two are, in a sense, not entirely unconnected. who really wanted to go was ordered not to do so by his superior officer, no doubt for reasons of health The question is how we deal in legislative terms and safety.Unfortunately, the woman died of hypothermia with a problem that may not be seen as a problem by because by the time the appropriate equipment, which those who are skilful in the law. The noble Lord, Lord the person who was prepared to go down was happy Pannick, will navigate his life secure in his knowledge to dispense with, reached the site, it was too late. The of the law and the likely outcome of any case. His case caused great concern in Scotland. I know that it is conduct will be so affected. Others are less knowledgeable a Scottish case which did not occur in this jurisdiction, about the law and much of their conduct is based on but it is an example of something that I do not believe an imperfect understanding of what the legal position this Bill deals with. It is an example of the way in is and what it might be in the unhappy event, as my which the Bill has not been properly thought through. noble friend Lord Hodgson says, of finding themselves I think that there is a real problem for employers who in court. are contemplating health and safety legislation and Successive bodies, such as the committee of the thinking not so much about themselves as their liability. Department of Constitutional Affairs, which preceded It may be vicarious liability, which I understand the the Compensation Act, found that there was a perception Minister is not interested in, or it may be a direct of a compensation culture, as did my noble friend Lord liability for something they failed to do to protect an Young of Graffham, in his report Common Sense, officer who is himself injured or killed. It is a great Common Safety. Those outside the law would quite shame that all these clauses have not faced up to that. confidently assert that there was a compensation culture. That is due partly to the wording of Clauses 1, Quite what they meant by that would no doubt vary 2 and 4, which concentrate on an individual who is between individuals, but some of the instances cited described as “a person” and “the person”. It is feature by my noble friend Lord Hodgson are instructive. He of this Bill that one is asked to think of the same provided evidence based on what his committee heard. person all the way through; in other words, the person This was not a single assertion. It was not based on who is said to be negligent or in breach of statutory one person’s experience. It was an accumulation of duty is the same person that you are supposed to be evidence. thinking of when you contemplate whether they were Those in your Lordships’ House who are not lawyers acting heroically. In the example I am talking about, would, I suggest, recognise the very problem that the the person who was at risk of being sued, or thought Bill seeks to confront. My noble friend Lord Hodgson that his organisation was at risk of being sued, was not is absolutely right to say that the Bill is not the answer the person who was acting heroically. Therefore, Clause 4 to that problem. It is just one possible answer to that in particular—and, I suspect, Clause 2 as well—misses problem. With respect to the fault in the drafting that the real target where the most difficult problem in the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said he found, dealing with these situations arises. I just wonder whether someone who is not skilled and 407 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 408 learned in the law would have much difficulty in Volunteering Research found that worries about risk understanding what was meant by Clause 2. It conveys and liability were one of the significant reasons cited that somebody who is potentially to be sued for being by 47% of respondents to the survey who volunteered. in breach of statutory duty or negligence would have The National Council for Voluntary Organisations their actions, if acting for the benefit of society or any confirmed that these concerns remained a real issue of its members, taken into account. Is that so difficult for many voluntary organisations when it gave evidence a concept? I suggest not. It would provide some to the Public Bill Committee following the introduction reassurance. of the Bill. It is said to be rather unworthy of Parliament that In terms of people being deterred from helping we should be sending a message. The noble Lord, others in emergencies, a recent survey, carried out in Lord Pannick, who shows the breadth of his allusions August 2014 by St John Ambulance, showed that to popular culture and Shakespeare, relies on the Bee 34% of more than 2,000 adults questioned said that Gees. Sending a message is not, of course, the primary they might be deterred from intervening due to worries purpose of legislation but, as I said at Second Reading, about legal repercussions. Evidence also suggests that we legislate in a particular context. We do not live in a responsible employers worry about spurious or speculative hermetically sealed Chamber where we do not take claims being brought by disgruntled or opportunistic into account what people on the outside think and say. employees. We heard at Second Reading the speech We should indeed not be out of step with those who from my noble friend Lord Cotter. Then there is the drink at the Dog and Duck, who are aware of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Young, Common Sense, possibility of a compensation culture. If the Bill chimes Common Safety, and the report of the red tape task in common-sense terms with what ordinary people force under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord feel—that we have gone too far—then the Bill is Hodgson, from whom the Committee has heard today. providing a useful purpose. I submit that there is evidence, of a positive sort, of a perception. Lord Beecham: The Minister is not resiling, is he, We should not underestimate what acceding to the from the position that Clauses 2 and 4 do not change amendment to remove Clause 2 would do: it would the existing law? emasculate the Bill. At the moment, it is broadly drafted so it would apply in a wide range of situations where people are acting for the benefit of others, Lord Faulks: At the moment we are debating Clause 2. whether they are doing so on a voluntary basis or in a I gather that we are to have the delight of a debate on paid capacity. For example, it could include organised Clause 4 in due course. The position is that, were the charitable activities such as running a village fete or Bill to be enacted, a judge would have to have regard informal, individual activities such as helping an elderly to the matters contained in, among others, Clause 2. It neighbour with their shopping. It could also cover has been said, rightly, that judges would normally be workers such as teachers, doctors and members of the expected to pay attention to the matters in Clause 2 in emergency services, who are acting for the benefit of any event, but I suggest that it is sometimes useful for society as part of their jobs. a judge, perhaps faced with a seriously injured claimant, to bear in mind a specific statutory provision when The clause does not tell the court what conclusion it considering what is often an extremely hard task for a should reach and will not prevent a person engaged in judge—to turn down a badly injured person—because socially beneficial action being found negligent if the the injury was sustained as a result of the act of circumstances of the case warrant it. It will be for someone acting for the benefit of society or any of its the court to determine whether a person was acting for members. It should not change the law, but it is the benefit of society and, if so, what weight it should sometimes useful to put into statutory form what is give to that factor in all the circumstances of an often difficult to find in the morass of common-law individual case. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord decisions. Blair, said about trying to frame appropriate legislation in the context of health and safety. It is very difficult The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to cater for the myriad circumstances that arise. However, to the evidence that was given in Committee in the the idea is that this will give the courts the maximum House of Commons, commented on what my ministerial flexibility to reach fair and just decisions, while sending colleague had said and asked, and pointed to so-called a strong signal to give reassurance to the public that horrific unintended consequences that were not challenged. they will, in all cases, consider the wider context of the I am not entirely clear what the horrific unintended defendant’s actions, prior to reaching a conclusion on consequences were, and although I understand what liability. he meant by saying that they were not challenged, we should be a little careful in drawing an analogy between I have already addressed the Committee on the not challenging something in court, which is often of difference between the Compensation Act 2006 and great significance, and the rather less structured method this Bill—the use of the word “may”and the requirement in which evidence is adduced in committees. None the that is contained in this Bill. I do not think the less, I take his point that the cross-examination was Committee would like me to repeat that. There are, of perhaps less than ideal and not particularly illuminating. course, similarities, but the Bill requires the court to I respectfully suggest that there is evidence to support consider in every case. the clause. A survey of volunteering and charitable Reassurance is important: we want to encourage giving carried out in 2006 and 2007 by the National volunteering. I am glad to say that volunteering is Centre for Social Research and the Institute for increasing, but it could increase still further. As my 409 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 410

[LORD FAULKS] noble friend Lord Hodgson said, it is a desirable trend Amendment 6 and it is tragic if people are deterred by the fear of litigation. I do not apologise for saying that this is a Moved by Lord Beecham difficult target to hit. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, may 6: Clause 3, page 1, line 12, leave out “generally” fire bullets at me all afternoon, but we are trying to identify, through this legislation, matters that it is hoped will reassure, by legislating in a way that is in tune with Lord Beecham: My Lords, Amendment 6 deals with how the public see the current situation. I respectfully the provisions of Clause 3, which purports to be—and submit that the Bill, which may be unusually short and as I understand it, the Government agree to be—the unusually drafted, in the sense that it uses ordinary only substantive change in the law that the Bill promotes. language— That, of course, raises the question of the relevance of the other clauses of this ephemeral legislative concoction, Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB): My Lords, I am but it is also unacceptable in itself. preoccupied by what the Minister said earlier: that the Clause 3 requires the court to, effect of the Bill, essentially, would be to cut through a morass of various decisions in the common law and, “have regard to whether the person, in carrying out the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory thereby, clarify the situation for the assistance of the duty occurred, demonstrated a generally responsible approach judge. I think I have paraphrased what he said reasonably towards protecting the safety or other interests of others”. well. Could the Minister deal with a technical point? Is At Second Reading I asked what was meant by a there not a presumption in our law that the common “generally responsible” approach. The Minister did law will be changed by statute only where statute not vouchsafe a reply. I do not blame him. The Lord makes it clear, beyond peradventure of doubt, that it is Chancellor and the Minister in the Commons were changing the common law? In other words, what unable to supply a meaningful interpretation: a case of common law is being changed by this particular clause the inscrutable in search of the unintelligible, or perhaps that was not already dealt with by the 2006 Act? In vice versa. other words, what specific common law, now extant, is The Government’s obsession with the so-called being changed, if at all? If not, can there be any compensation culture was reflected in the Lord Chancellor’s validity to the clause at all? response to an Oral Question quoted by the Joint Lord Faulks: I do not think that one would find any Committee on Human Rights at paragraph 2.35 of its common law decision the ratio of which was precisely report. The Lord Chancellor talked of the need, what we find in Clause 2. My point was simply that in “to provide a deterrent to an employee who tries it on in the face deciding a particular case of negligence, judges will, of a responsible employer who has done the right thing, when on the whole, have regard to overall principle. There someone in their employment has done something stupid and still tries to sue. As part of our long-term economic plan”— may or may not be another case sufficiently on all fours on the facts to be worth drawing to the attention I note in parenthesis that it is a long-term economic of the judge. This does not overrule any of those cases, plan which appears to be growing ever more long-term but it provides a clear statutory provision to which the by the day— judge could be referred in approaching the facts of a “I want to see those responsible employers protected against spurious claims, and that is what the Bill will do”.—[Official case. There may well be some authority on the facts Report, Commons, 1/7/14; col. 731.] which could also be provided for the assistance of the court which would not conflict with this provision. There are, to put it mildly, several problems with That is my answer to the noble Lord. that argument. The first is the sheer paucity of evidence for the existence of the compensation culture, apart I submit that this clause should remain part of the perhaps from the road traffic cases of whiplash and Bill and that this Bill serves a useful purpose. the like about which we have heard so much today. 5.30 pm The second is the apparent belief that the courts are unable to detect whether or not a claim is spurious, Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I am grateful to given that a claimant has to prove it. The third is that, my noble friend Lord Blair and to my noble and despite its apparent belief that the Bill, learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead for supporting me. The Minister has not dealt with most of the “is not designed to reduce standards of health and safety in the workplace”, difficulties which some of us feel. He has not really dealt with the fact that the ground is already adequately and, covered by the Compensation Act, and he has not “will not protect negligent employers who do not have a responsible dealt with the defective drafting and the unintended approach to health and safety”, consequences which are bound to arise as a result. He the Joint Committee concluded that: said that the target at which he is aiming is very “To the extent that Clause 3 of the Bill will lead to some health difficult to hit. At this stage, all I can say to him is that and safety cases against employers being decided differently, we do not consider that the Government has demonstrated the need he has not hit it. I will certainly return to the matter on to change the law to restrict employees’ right of access to court for Report. personal injury in the workplace”. Clause 2 agreed. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Joint Committee’s fears in that respect are misplaced and Clause 3: Responsibility that the Bill is not intended to and will not affect such health and safety cases? He gave a general assurance Amendment 5 not moved. this afternoon, for which I am grateful, about claims 411 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 412 for employers’ liability. The JCHR raised a specific become a victim of insurance fraud where organised point in relation to health and safety, and perhaps he criminals are now manufacturing situations in which will deal with that aspect. innocent motorists are caused to collide with their The fourth problem is that the Bill is not, in any vehicles in a manner which indicates negligence on the event, confined to personal injury cases, and still less part of the innocent motorist. That is why I wanted to to cases brought by employees against their employer, bring this amendment again to the attention of the which seemed to be the burden of the Lord Chancellor’s House. principal concern. Clause 3 refers not just to injury The second part of the amendment intends once but to safety and “other interests”. It must be taken to again to remind your Lordships of the importance of include economic interests, such as claims concerning non-monetary offers and, where they have been made damage to property or professional negligence by, say, by defendants, how they should be considered when an accountant, a financial adviser or, heaven help me, the courts come to decide whether to award damages a solicitor. This much was made clear by Mr Vara in and the extent of the damages payable. I know that his heroic attempts to make the case for this generally rehabilitation treatment is often offered to those injured irresponsible measure. At column 693 of Hansard he in accidents but in many cases, because of the action proudly announced: of an intermediary, that treatment is often refused by “We have deliberately drafted the clause broadly... This ensures the injured party and the period of suffering prolonged that it will be relevant in a wide range of situations … The clause in an attempt to increase the award of damages in is not restricted to personal injury claims and could in principle which that intermediary may be interested. If the be applicable in relation to other instances of negligence, such as courts were to be permitted to order that the treatment damage to property or economic loss, where issues of safety may provided by a defendant and his representatives is a not necessarily be relevant”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/14; col. 693.] fair reward in compensation for the injury suffered, then the motivation of fraudsters to pursue “crash for Presumably, issues of heroism would be equally irrelevant. cash” accidents should be reduced. Note that he assumes that negligence exists in such claims but excuses it in the manner of the old saw about the housemaid’s baby: “It’s only a little one”—a Lord Pannick: Before the noble Lord sits down, “Downton Abbey” analogy, I suppose. It is a rather could I ask him whether the first part of Amendment 7 curious way to approach legislation. would not be covered by the existing law of causation and, indeed, by the law on contributory negligence? Perhaps the Minister will tell us the difference between being responsible and being generally responsible, and why the clause extends to a wide variety of claims Lord Hunt of Wirral: It is partly covered, but I which have nothing whatever to do with social action, think this makes it much clearer. volunteering or heroism. Perhaps he will also comment on the paucity of any evidence provided to the Joint Earl Attlee (Con): My Lords, it is well known that I Committee by the Government in answer to its request generally support this Bill but I have to confess that I for examples of what the Lord Chancellor described as, do not have the foggiest clue what Clause 3 is for. It “a jobsworth culture or a legalistic culture that seems to stop would be much better to have a social action and common sense in its tracks”. heroism Bill. If the noble Lord wishes to return to it at It asked for such information but received none. Where, a later stage, he will have to amend Clause 5 and the one might ask, is the evidence of a common-sense Long Title. A clearer, simpler Bill would send a clearer, approach, let alone one grounded in an understanding simpler message. of the law and the courts that one has the right to expect a Lord Chancellor to display? Lord Faulks: My noble friend Lord Attlee would The twofold approach that I adopt in moving the like to make a short Bill shorter. I submit that this amendment and speaking to the clause stand part debate particular clause seeks, as does the Bill as a whole, to is, first, to endeavour to effect a modest improvement reassure ordinary, hard-working people that, when in Clause 3 by removing the word “generally” so that something goes wrong and they are sued, the courts that fairly vague and opaque term disappears; and, will take into account that they have adopted, during secondly, to address the general position in relation to the course of an activity, the clause stand part debate—that this is the only “a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety substantive change in the Bill, and it is not acceptable. or other interests of others”. If the Government continue to press for this it will Most people would understand that expression. certainly be a matter to which I will return on Report. At Second Reading, we heard from my noble friend I hope the Government will concede that it is ill Lord Cotter how court proceedings can affect the designed and likely to produce effects that are not owners of small businesses in particular. Even if they consistent with the overall theme, however repetitive it have taken reasonable steps to protect people’s safety, might be, of the Compensation Act 2006, and therefore they might be worried about expending the time or that it contributes nothing but potential difficulty for resources defending themselves in court and some might the future. I beg to move. prefer to settle claims before they reach that stage. Others will defend themselves in court but we heard from my Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, in drawing attention noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger about the to Amendment 7, I am returning to the points I psychological effect that this can have on a defendant. referred to earlier. The first part of the amendment She pointed out that, even if the courts reached the reminds the Committee how society as a whole has right conclusion, the defendant might have gone through 413 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 414

[LORD FAULKS] find themselves threatened with a negligence claim when the most stressful and distressing time to get there, an employee is injured through no fault of the employer. possibly putting relationships at work and at home It will not protect employers who do not have a under strain. responsible approach to health and safety. An employee We hope that Clause 3 will give the owners of small can still bring a negligence claim against an employer. businesses and employers greater confidence to stand We consider that that answers the concerns which the up to those who try to bring opportunistic and speculative noble Lord, Lord Beecham, expressed in relation to claims by showing them that the law is on their side. the possibility that this would erode the rights of One important theme running through this Bill is that individuals in some way. we want to stop people suing at all in cases which do I accept that the use of the word “generally”is unusual not have any merit, so that a judge never has to decide in statutory terms. It is a word that would easily be any case either by referring to cases in negligence nor understood outside the context of statutory construction. by virtue of this Bill should it become law. I have listened to what the noble Lord said about that Clause 3 is not just about protecting small businesses. word. I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not In previous debates we discussed examples provided undertake to bring back an amendment on Report but by members of the Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service I will consider carefully whether and to what extent it who said that they had been sued by passers-by who adds anything to what is in the clause at the moment tripped over their hoses when they were attending the and whether, on balance, it takes the matter any further. scene of a blaze. During oral evidence sessions in the I entirely understand what lies behind the amendment other place, Justin Davis Smith, Executive Director of in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral Volunteering and Development at the National Council but, with respect, I consider that the matters to which for Voluntary Organisations, spoke about voluntary he refers are sufficiently covered either in the general organisations which have considered closing or stopping law relating to contributory negligence or would otherwise some of their most valuable operations because of be reflected in the approach a judge would take to this worries about being sued. He provided an example of type of case. I accept that those matters to which he one charity which helped to take elderly people to draws attention in his amendment should be part of hospital in the absence of any accessible bus routes. the analysis, if not specifically in the Bill in the way The charity was being sued after a patient slipped and that the amendment suggests. broke her leg getting into a volunteer’s car and this had caused it to consider whether such activities could be continued. Lord Beecham: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. The Government believe that it is right, in cases such as this, to require the courts to take into account Amendment 6 withdrawn. the general approach of the defendant to safety during the course of the activity in question. This will reassure Amendment 7 not moved. organisations that, if something goes wrong in the course of that activity, in spite of their efforts to keep Clause 3 agreed. people safe, the courts will always consider the context of their actions. However, the clause will not stop Amendment 7A not moved. organisations being found negligent nor of proportionate and just decisions being reached if all the circumstances of the case warrant it. Clause 4: Heroism

5.45 pm Amendment 8 In a letter which I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I discussed the questions of health and Moved by Earl Attlee safety. In the third paragraph, I said: 8: Clause 4, page 1, line 15, at beginning insert “Subject to “Most health and safety duties do not provide for an employer section (Interpretation),” to meet a particular standard of care and so would not be covered. In addition, since the coming into force of section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, a person who Earl Attlee: My Lords, I shall also speak to my suffers damage or injury through breach of an obligation imposed Amendments 12 and 14. I have tabled these amendments under health and safety legislation can no longer sue for damages on the basis that we will have to send back to another for breach of statutory duty unless legislation provides otherwise. place something that actually works. However, an employee could still bring a negligence claim against an employer and, in doing so, might rely on evidence of breaches At Second Reading many noble Lords observed of health and safety duties to support that claim. The Bill would that, for a person to benefit from the heroism provision apply in that type of negligence claim and the court would be in Clause 4, they must act without regard to the person’s required to have regard to the specific factors in the Bill along own safety or other interests. That would mean that if with any other factors it considered relevant”. I intervened in an emergency, and I undertook a So it is perfectly in order for someone to sue an proper dynamic risk assessment and eliminated all employee if they have been injured at work in the way avoidable and non-necessary risk to myself—and in in which they would do now. This Bill is not designed doing so probably to anyone else—I would get no to reduce standards of health and safety in the workplace. protection from the Bill. On the other hand, an imprudent What it is intended to do is to provide some reassurance rescuer would benefit from Clause 4, assuming for the to responsible employers who do the right thing but moment that as drafted it changes the law. 415 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 416

Amendment 12 is my substantive amendment, which am thinking of acting heroically by jumping in the removes the offending words and changes the drafting lake to save the drowning victim, Clause 4 will not to read: “to assist an individual in danger and without protect me if I have regard to my own safety or other acting perversely”. The Committee will be aware that the interests, perhaps by taking off my valuable watch noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has an amendment that has before I jump in or, if we are to follow the Government’s a similar effect to mine, and I anticipate that he will go reasoning as regards Clause 4, by consulting my solicitor. into greater detail about the problems with the need Surely the hero deserves protection whether he or she for the rescuer to act without regard to his own safety. jumps in “without regard to” their own safety or with Amendment 14 defines what is meant by “acting regard to their own safety.What matters is that they jump perversely”. I fully accept that the courts might not need in to save the victim. Clause 4, as drafted, protects the the benefit of this amendment and, if it or something instinctive hero but not the thoughtful hero, and that similar does not find favour with the Committee, that distinction is entirely unjustified. will not be a surprise to me. I understand that my Amendment 10, which again is designed to be words, in the circumstances, would mean that the level constructive, would remove that arbitrary distinction of skill, knowledge, experience and training enjoyed from Clause 4. However, I cannot agree with the noble by the rescuer would be taken into consideration by Earl, Lord Attlee, that the law of negligence in this the courts—and in any case it already is. area should be replaced by a test of perversity, which I hope that by this stage of the Committee we will is a test far more favourable to the defendant. He asked understand whether the Bill changes the law, but I for views from Members of the Committee as to whether myself am still not clear. I am sure that the noble his amendment would change the law; it undoubtedly Lord, Lord Pannick, will tell the Committee that my would. I anticipate that we will take different views on amendment would change the law and the effect of the the merits of that change, but to introduce a test of Bill. If it does, I am sure that it can do so only very perversity would be a substantial change. slightly. As the Committee knows perfectly well, and as I have always understood, the courts have never Earl Attlee: My Lords, would the noble Lord be made an unhelpful judgment in that area of law. able to illustrate to the Committee how that difference However, as I indicated at Second Reading, the fear of would work—a case where someone would be protected, legal action or, as the Minister put it, an imperfect and someone else would not? That would be very understanding of the law causes the mischief. helpful to the Committee. It would be very helpful if some noble and learned Lord Pannick: At the moment the court assesses Lord or the Minister could describe to the Committee whether in all the circumstances the defendant has acted a situation in which the effect of my amendment with reasonable care, and the court will take account, would be to deny someone compensation for negligence as it will under the Bill, of whether in all the circumstances, when they would otherwise have secured it. I suspect including that of heroism, the defendant has acted that the Minister himself is struggling to determine reasonably. However, that is a very different test from whether the Bill is supposed to change the law or not. a test of perversity. It will not help the Committee to By now the Committee seems to have the view that the try to identify particular factual circumstances, but I Bill makes no significant difference to the law apart can tell the noble Earl that there is a very real difference from, possibly, Clause 3. However, if a first aid instructor between a test of reasonable care and a test of whether could have the future SARAH Act confined to one the defendant has acted perversely—in other words, PowerPoint slide, that could make a practical and has taken leave of his or her senses. beneficial difference. That is because, as the Minister I have also indicated my objection to Clause 4 pointed out during our debate on Amendment 2, the standing part of the Bill; that is part of this group of Bill has deliberately been designed to be comprehensible. amendments. The objections to Clause 2 standing part I suggest that the Committee cannot tolerate a of the Bill, which we debated earlier this afternoon, provision in the Bill where an imprudent person enjoys are equally applicable to Clause 4, and I will certainly greater protection than a person who has taken steps not repeat all those points. However, there is an additional, to avoid unnecessary risks. I am relaxed if the amendment specific reason why Clause 4 should not stand part of in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, finds the Bill. The simple reason is that it adds absolutely greater favour with the Committee than my amendment, nothing to Clause 2. I cannot envisage any case in although his amendment may have the difficulty that which a person is acting heroically for the purposes of it does not change the law at all. I would love to know Clause 4 which is not also a case where that person is if we were supposed to be changing the law or not. protected by Clause 2 as currently drafted. If you act Clause 4 is the most useful clause. I certainly have heroically for the purposes of Clause 4 you act, no entrenched position, but by Report we will need to “for the benefit of society or any of its members”, have worked out what we can do to make this clause for the purposes of Clause 2. Does the Minister agree and the Bill do what they say on the tin. I beg to move. with that analysis and, if not, can he please give the Committee some explanation of the sort of circumstances Lord Pannick: My Lords, Amendment 10 is in my that potentially come within Clause 4 that would name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. nevertheless be outside Clause 2? It would remove the final words of Clause 4: “and without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests”. 6pm The inclusion of those words frustrates the purpose of Lord Aberdare (CB): My Lords, I will speak to my Clause 4 for the reasons already given by the noble Amendment 11 as well as to Amendments 8, 10, Earl, Lord Attlee. Those final words suggest that if I 12 and 14 in this group. I remind your Lordships of 417 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 418

[LORD ABERDARE] this might cause other injury. Similarly, a responder my interests as a trustee of St John Cymru Wales and may be concerned about causing injury through giving as a vice-president of the First Aid All-Party CPR—particularly if it might subsequently turn out Parliamentary Group. to have been unnecessary because the person’s heart As I indicated at Second Reading, the leading first had not actually stopped. CPR requires quite forceful aid organisations including St John Ambulance and pressure on a casualty’s chest, which may result in the British Red Cross welcome the Bill in principle. injury such as broken ribs. Again, inaction could have Anything that serves to reduce or overcome people’s much more severe, possibly fatal, consequences than reluctance to step forward to provide assistance in unnecessary action. I cannot see that the wording of emergency situations has to be good news. It can, as Clause 4 offers any reassurance at all in these instances. we have heard, be argued what actual difference the I will look at situations more specifically covered by Bill makes to the law as it stands. However, if there is a the wording of Clause 4. If someone has been electrocuted perception that it removes the likelihood of people and a first aider rushes into action without considering being sued after trying to give life-saving assistance in whether the power source is still live and the casualty an emergency, and if people believe that the Bill gives still in contact with it, he or she might well be acting them some extra protection, that in itself is worth heroically, but is likely to make the situation worse, having. with two casualties instead of one. We often hear of My concern is that Clause 4 as it stands is not seen people plunging into cold or fast-flowing water to try by the leading first aid organisations as giving that to rescue someone in difficulties, only to end up drowning reassurance. We know from the research I quoted at themselves, or suffering a cardiac arrest from the Second Reading that the people most likely to help in shock of sudden immersion in cold water, when they an emergency are those who have actually received first may have been able to help more effectively from the aid training. So these potential life-savers go along to shore. Yet this is the sort of rash and unreasonable their first aid courses, where they are taught to: action that the wording of Clause 4 might seem to “Protect yourself and any casualties from danger—never put envisage, if not encourage. yourself at risk”. There are a number of options before noble Lords I quote from the standard First Aid Manual. During to improve this part of the Bill and ensure it sends a their training, they may well ask, “If I take action to clear, positive and unambiguous message to potential provide first-aid assistance in an emergency, can I be life-savers and, of course, to those who train them. confident that I will not subsequently be sued if something Amendment 10 from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, goes wrong?”. To which the answer from the first aid simply removes the unsatisfactory wording from the training body would have to be, “As long as you act end of Clause 4. Amendments 8, 12 and 14 from the without regard to your own safety or other interests, noble Earl, Lord Attlee, improve on this by replacing you should have protection under this law; but we these words with the phrase “and without acting recommend that you should consider your own safety perversely”, which is defined in terms of how a reasonable before acting, in which case this law would not seem to person would act in the circumstances. My own help you”. I suggest this would be more than a little Amendment 11—which needless to say is the one I confusing and unlikely to provide the reassurance recommend to your Lordships—replaces the same which the Minister has emphasised several times is the words with the phrase, object of this Bill. “and was acting reasonably and with a public-spirited intention”. I thank the Minister for copying me on his letter to Any of these three options would improve the Bill; the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I welcome his better still, of course, would be for the Government confirmation in that letter of the Government’s desire themselves to come up at a later stage with a form of to encourage first aid and his recognition of the concerns words to define the sort of behaviour that is both of St John Ambulance and others. He also states that heroic and consistent with good first aid practice, in the Government will, quite rightly, work with voluntary order to give real reassurance to potential life-savers organisations and other bodies during implementation that they are unlikely to be successfully prosecuted if phases to ensure that the Bill’s contents are brought to they act in a way that is reasonable and public-spirited, the attention of all those with whom they engage. In as well as heroic. that case it would seem rather important that those bodies should themselves see the wording of the Bill as Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I am in the helpful to their own concerns. happy position of not having my name to any of the Let me briefly cite some examples, provided by the amendments and therefore can offer such thoughts as British Red Cross and St John Ambulance, of how might be useful as to which of them is to be preferred. Clause 4 might affect the actions of a potential life-saver. I support a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, First, I shall give two examples of heroic actions for has said about the wording as it stands at the end of which Clause 4 as it stands would seem to offer no Clause 4 but I prefer the simplicity of the amendment reassurance at all. If a person has fallen off a ladder from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The more you and is lying unconscious on their back, a responder qualify the proposition that ends with, might be afraid of moving them because of the risk of “to assist an individual in danger”, causing damage to their back or neck. Leaving them the more you open up the possibility of argument. The on their back could cause them to die from a blocked simpler the message, the better. The message is well airway, often described as swallowing one’s tongue, so conveyed by stopping at “danger” without introducing the heroic act would be to move them on to their side these complications and therefore I support the in the recovery position, with an open airway, even if amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. 419 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Responsibility and Heroism Bill 420

Lord Beecham: I, too, support the amendment from Lord, Lord Hope, have proposed in Amendment 10 to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I sympathise with the remove the final words of the clause, which refer to amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, but acting, the whole point of the law of negligence is that it is for “without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.” a claimant to establish that the defendant did not act I am grateful to them for tabling this amendment reasonably. Some of the cases cited by the noble Lord because we have been considering this issue carefully would be very unlikely indeed to attract any award of following correspondence received from St John damages against somebody acting reasonably in an Ambulance. I am also mindful of the persuasive points emergency situation to help somebody with unfortunate made at Second Reading and again today by the noble consequences. I cannot see that any such claim would Lord, Lord Aberdare, on that organisation’s behalf. succeed but he is right to differ slightly from the As the noble Lord said, St John Ambulance has amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. indicated that the words, However, the best formulation is that put forward by “acting without regard to one’s own safety”, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I hope the Minister conflict with first aid practice, which encourages first will accept it. aiders to do precisely the opposite; namely, to have regard to whether intervening in an emergency might Lord Faulks: My Lords, we have had a very useful put themselves or others at risk. Although we think debate on this group. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it is unlikely that the courts would misinterpret said that Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill but the clause in that way, we can understand why St John has also proposed a specific amendment that would Ambulance has raised concerns about this issue. If its amend the definition of acting heroically, should the misgivings can be allayed through the omission of the clause be retained. The noble Lords, Lord Beecham words in question, that is certainly something we and Lord Aberdare, and my noble friend Lord Attlee would be willing to consider before Report. suggested various amendments to the clause, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, who is not I turn to Amendments 8, 11, 12 and 14, tabled by in his place. the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and my noble friend Lord Attlee. I realise they may seek to address the I will respond to the argument that Clause 4 should same issue identified by St John Ambulance but, rather be removed and then I will deal with the amendments. than omitting the final 11 words of the clause, as As I explained at Second Reading, Clause 4 requires proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, they suggest the court to, an alternative form of words. The noble Lord, Lord “have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of Aberdare, has suggested that, statutory duty occurred when the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger and “without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests”, without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests”. should be replaced with a requirement that the defendant Unfortunately, all too often people are unwilling to acted, intervene and step forward in emergencies due to the “reasonably and with a public-spirited intention”. fear that they might be sued and ordered to pay Meanwhile, my noble friend Lord Attlee’s amendments damages should they attempt to help. This is not to seek to replace them with a requirement that the suggest that people do not act spontaneously and defendant must not have been acting “perversely”. He positively in such circumstances; many do, assisting defines perversely in Amendment 14 as, others and coming to the aid of distressed individuals “a course of action that a reasonable person … would not take in without a second thought to their own interests. However, the circumstances, irrespective of”, we have heard how other people stand by and do whether that person was putting his own safety at risk. nothing because they feel that it is safer not to get I suspect that both my noble friend and the noble involved and run the risk, however unlikely, of a Lord are thinking about situations in which a person negligence claim being brought against them. Clause 4 intervenes in an emergency and then does something helps to allay these concerns by giving a reassurance to so risky or careless that it makes the position of the those brave and laudable members of our society that injured person even worse. They would not want the heroic behaviour in emergencies will be taken into Bill to help defendants who have acted in that way. I account by the courts in the event that a claim for am grateful for their attempts to improve the clause, negligence or breach of a relevant statutory duty is which I know are very well intentioned. I have already brought against them. It will assure those who are in mentioned in response to the amendment proposed by two minds about intervening to assist an individual in the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Beecham, distress that doing the right thing is recognised by the that we would be prepared to look more closely at law. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that the whether a government amendment along those lines Compensation Act 2006 covers similar territory but, might be desirable. There is certainly a consensus that as I have already explained, we prefer the approach the final 11 words of the clause are problematic and taken in the current Bill for the reasons I have given, we will consider the options carefully before Report. and I do not think that it would be helpful if I went I turn to the final amendment in this group, tabled over them again. by my noble friend Lord Hunt. Amendment 13 would I now turn to the specific amendments that have add a further subsection to Clause 4 which would been tabled in relation to Clause 4. Amendments 8, 10, require the courts, when reaching a decision on liability 11, 12 and 14 would all amend the wording in the and damages, to consider, clause which provides clarification as to what is meant “the circumstances in which the rescuer acted … the eventual by “acting heroically”. The noble Lords, Lord Pannick outcome and outcome anticipated by the rescuer … and … the and Lord Beecham, supported by the noble and learned risks to which the rescuer was exposed”, 421 Responsibility and Heroism Bill[LORDS] Marriage of Same Sex Couples 422

[LORD FAULKS] Marriage of Same Sex Couples as an effect of his or her actions. I am grateful to my (Conversion of Civil Partnership) noble friend for tabling this amendment, but I believe that the additional wording would add unnecessary Regulations 2014 complexity to the clause, the purpose of which is to Motion to Approve reassure brave members of the public who act heroically by coming to the aid of someone in danger or distress 6.19 pm that the courts will take the context of their actions Moved by Baroness Garden of Frognal into account in the event of their being sued. That the draft regulations laid before the House I gratefully decline the invitation offered to me by on 15 October be approved. the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to cite examples that would be entirely separate in the various clauses; there Relevant documents: 10th Report from the Joint is bound to be a degree of overlap—there often is. The Committee on Statutory Instruments and 11th Report scenario that the clause evokes in most people’s from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. imagination is sufficiently clear for it to be worth a Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD): My Lords, both clause on its own, but I accept that there will inevitably this House and the other place overwhelmingly supported be instances that might be covered by both clauses. I the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, hope that the undertaking I have given in relation to a change which has brought joy to a great many people the final 11 words of the clause, which could either be who now feel that they are truly recognised as equal removed or replaced by a government amendment, under the law of this land. That is a major development will be such that noble Lords who have tabled amendments for this country, and one very much to be celebrated. in this connection will be prepared not to press them. I am pleased to be able to bring these statutory instruments before the House, allowing conversion of 6.15 pm civil partnerships into marriages and allowing couples who wish to do so to remain married if one or both of Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble them change their legal gender. Subject to the passage Lords who have contributed to this debate, and in of the necessary instruments through this House and particular the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who of the other place, we intend those provisions to come course did a far better job than I of explaining the into force on 10 December this year. difficulties with the last few words of Clause 4. I There has been a lot of discussion about these accept that using my perversity test was a much higher proposals since we first laid instruments in July. People barrier for a claimant to climb, but it was designed to felt that these were too restrictive and did not allow be. I am extremely grateful for the support of the sufficient flexibility for the celebration of their marriage noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the briefings from St for couples who had chosen to enter civil partnerships John Ambulance and the Red Cross. However, I was a at a time when marriage was not available. As a result, bit disappointed that neither the noble Lord, Lord we agreed to see what we could do to provide greater Pannick, nor my noble friend the Minister were able to choice for couples. We have done that, and these illustrate how my amendment would change the law. instruments offer more flexibility, allowing conversions We were just told by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to be completed in the same range of venues where that the courts would take it all into account. same-sex couples can currently marry. I accept the guidance of the Minister on my I will briefly explain each of the three affirmative amendment, but I am extremely grateful, as I am sure instruments in turn. The Marriage of Same Sex Couples the rest of the Committee is, for his positive response (Conversion of Civil Partnership) Regulations 2014 to the principles behind Amendment 10, as proposed set out the procedure for couples who wish to convert by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Therefore, in the their civil partnership into a marriage in England and mean time and subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave Wales, and overseas in British consulates and Armed to withdraw my amendment. Forces bases. The simplest conversion procedure can be completed in one visit to the superintendent registrar. The couple will provide evidence of their identity and Amendment 8 withdrawn. sign a declaration to confirm that they are in a civil partnership with each other and wish to convert that Amendments 9 to 13 not moved. into marriage. The superintendent registrar will also sign and that completes the procedure. Alternatively, they can opt to go to the superintendent Clause 4 agreed. registrar with the required evidence and then complete the conversion into marriage by signing the declaration in approved premises, such as a hotel, where a ceremony Amendment 14 not moved. is then to be held. If the couple want a religious ceremony, the registrar can complete the declaration Clause 5 agreed. on religious premises where the religious consents required under the Act have been obtained and where a ceremony under Section 46 of the Marriage Act 1949 House resumed. is then to be held. Section 46 provides for religious marriage ceremonies to be held following the registration Bill reported without amendment. of a marriage by a civil registrar, and the 2013 Act 423 Marriage of Same Sex Couples[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Marriage of Same Sex Couples 424 amended it to include ceremonies following the conversion one or both change legal gender to remain married, of a civil partnership into a marriage, ensuring that which is of very great significance to couples affected the religious protections, which we all worked hard on and an occasion of joy for many. I hope that the during the passage of the Act, applied to such ceremonies. House will support them. Where one of the couple is housebound, detained or seriously ill and not expected to recover, the superintendent Lord Paddick (LD): My Lords, I declare an interest, registrar will go to the couple where they are, and after having married a Norwegian man in 2009 in Norway. the declaration is signed they may have a ceremony, My marriage is now recognised as a marriage in the including a religious ceremony, if they wish. These UK, whereas previously it was recognised only as a regulations will also allow the conversion of a civil civil partnership. partnership into marriage at consulates and Armed Today we are nearing the end of the legislative road Forces bases overseas where the authorities in the host as far as equality for same-sex couples in the UK is country have consented to this. concerned. There have been some ironies along the way. I turn to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 The late Lady Thatcher—considered by many to have (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) been a conviction politician—and the Conservative and Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 Government that she led, introduced Section 28 into (Consequential Provisions) Order 2014. First, the order the Local Government Act 1988, provoking the noble makes necessary consequential amendments to primary Lord, Lord Cashman, and others to form the pressure legislation to allow conversions of civil partnerships group Stonewall to fight for equality for lesbian, gay into marriage to take place. Most significantly, the order and bisexual people. When the Labour Party came to clarifies the way Section 46 of the Marriage Act 1949 power, it repealed Section 28, although it had to works, making clear that a ceremony can be held invoke the Parliament Act to overcome opposition in following a housebound, detained or deathbed conversion, this House. How times have changed. or Armed Forces conversions which take place overseas. Under a Labour Government, civil partnerships It also names the appropriate Jewish and Quaker were introduced in 2004. That was progress but still governing authorities and makes it clear that ceremonies not equality. It was left to this coalition Government—a of other religions are covered, thus ensuring the protections Conservative-led coalition Government—to achieve apply appropriately in these cases. equality for same-sex couples. It was the Liberal Democrat Secondly, the order makes amendments to support MP, the right honourable Lynne Featherstone—the the provisions of the Act, enabling couples who wish then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for to do so to stay married where one or both of them Equalities—who proposed that the Government introduce changes legal gender. Notably, it ensures that where a legislation to allow equal marriage. To his credit, the person changes gender their spouse will not lose any Prime Minister agreed despite opposition from many pension expectations they would otherwise have had. in his own party. In contrast to its implacable opposition Thirdly, the order also includes specific provision in to the repeal of Section 28, this House agreed to equal relation to particular pension schemes—for example, marriage without a Division at Third Reading. to ensure gender-specific treatment in relation to a I place on record my thanks to Nick Boles MP and specific Armed Forces pension scheme. to my noble friend Lady Northover for achieving the changes to these regulations to allow those wishing to Finally, the order revokes Article 5 of the earlier celebrate the conversion of their civil partnership to Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential an equal marriage to do so in places and in ways that and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order, under those same-sex couples not previously in a civil partnership which marriages of same-sex couples solemnised in are allowed to do. England and Wales are treated as civil partnerships in Scotland. This is simply to ensure that, from 16 December, I say that we are nearing the end of the legislative when marriage of same-sex couples will become possible road as far as equal marriage is concerned but it is to in Scotland, they can be recognised as marriages under be regretted that equal marriage is still not possible in Scottish law. This order also makes associated transitional Northern Ireland. The Liberal Democrats not only and saving arrangements and further amendments in support the approval of these regulations but we are consequence of the Marriage and Civil Partnership also very proud to have played such a prominent role (Scotland) Act 2014. in achieving equal marriage in England, Wales and Scotland. I turn finally to the Consular Marriages and Marriages under Foreign Law (No. 2) Order. This revokes and Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, I, too, re-enacts, with some additions, an earlier order. It acknowledge the journey we have travelled. It has been provides for: consular marriages; the issuing of certificates a long and sometimes very difficult one but nothing of no impediment by consular officers; the Registrar- gives me greater pleasure than to acknowledge that we General for England and Wales to pass on to the have a cross-party consensus on equality under the Registrar-General for Scotland relevant consular marriage law. That is something that we can be proud of in this certificates; the registrars general to provide certified country and is not something to be ashamed of. copies of certificates; and for superintendent registrars I, too, thank the Minister, Nick Boles, and the to issue certificates of no impediment. noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for listening to all Although technical in nature, these instruments those people in civil partnerships who, like me, want to allow us to give effect to the provisions of the 2013 Act take this final step of equality under the law by marrying to allow couples in civil partnerships to convert their in front of our friends and family. I was really pleased relationship into marriage and to enable couples where that the original drafts were taken back, and that we 425 Marriage of Same Sex Couples[LORDS] Marriage of Same Sex Couples 426

[LORD COLLINS OF HIGHBURY] end, it became law. However, the scrutiny committee are still now able, with the help of the department, to asked itself why this had happened. The short answer stick to the original timetable. It is a great achievement was that the Government had not consulted properly and I am pleased that the Minister was able to do that. on the draft orders. Paragraph 17 of its report said: It is not easy, sometimes, for Ministers to take something “While we note that there was extensive consultation in relation back and work on it, but they did a great job and I am to the Act and general principles, it would appear that even a brief thankful to them. consultation on the proposed detail of these Regulations might have avoided the need to withdraw and re-lay these instruments 6.30 pm and the uncertainty that will have caused those making arrangements However, I make a couple a points. I made the for conversions soon after the planned 10 December implementation point, originally to the Minister—during the original date”. passage of the Bill—that a lot of misinformation I think the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, would go out. Certainly, a lot of people I knew who and his colleagues are much to be congratulated on wanted to get married on the “day of equal marriage” having spotted the limitations in the original order suddenly found out that they could not, because they relating to where these marriages could be celebrated, were in a civil partnership. We have even heard of and persuaded the Minister, Nick Boles, who is listed consulates saying that you have to dissolve your civil as the Equalities Minister for same-sex marriages—and partnership in order to get married. What we need, as I have no doubt my noble friend Lady Northover—to quickly as possible, is for information to go out—very withdraw it. It is a pity that there was no proper clear guidance that registrars are able to offer this consultation beforehand. stage 2 of a proper ceremony and to work with people However, here we are: it is almost the last chapter of to ensure that the guidance is properly reflected. I am this legislation and I am delighted that it has now been sure that will happen, but I want to make the point. introduced. I hope that the regulations will be approved I am lucky enough to live in the London Borough by both Houses of Parliament so that the noble Lord, of Islington, which has a very high proportion of Lord Collins, can celebrate his marriage to his partner lesbian and gay people, and I was able to go in, as soon before Christmas. as I was aware of these regulations, and say: “Well, hang on a minute—you’ve been told one thing but it is Baroness Thornton (Lab): My Lords, we all know that going to change. But I need to book”. I discovered it is rare, as parliamentarians, to see through a piece of that the day I wanted for our wedding was practically legislation which has the direct effect of making so fully booked and I got the last slot. So there we go. I many people so happy. We have all seen the joy of the managed to ask my partner on Radio 5 Live if he would couples who have been married since the Act came marry me when the regulations came out. I now have a into effect in March. While I welcome the noble Baroness, date—20 December—and I am really pleased that all Lady Garden, to her place and thank her for explaining my friends and family will be there to see it. So thank the orders so comprehensively, I am sad that the noble you. Baroness, Lady Northover, is not here to see these orders through, due to her very well deserved promotion. Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con): My Lords, I too However, I place on record my thanks to her, and to support these regulations. Perhaps I might just respond her colleague the Minister, Mr Nick Boles, for the open to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, by reminding him and accessible way in which they conducted these that there was only one party that actually included proceedings. I also thank my noble friend Lord Collins same-sex marriage in its manifesto. That was the for the eloquent and sometimes forceful way in which Conservative Party. The Conservative Party was the he supported the need to withdraw these orders as only one to promise the original Act in its manifesto. they were drafted in July, which—along with the threat Having said that, I too rejoice that this now has of mobilisation to defeat the orders, if necessary, by complete cross-party approval. my noble friend Lord Alli—I am convinced swung the One of the issues that needs to be remembered is decision to withdraw them, much to everyone’s relief. that in contrast to what happened in the other place, those in favour of the Bill as it then was—what is now My view at the time—which I expressed to the civil the 2013 Act—always were a majority on the Conservative servants concerned—was that the original draft showed side in this House. For that we can take some credit, a lack of emotional intelligence about the way to considering—as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said—the proceed which had not been there during the rest of history of Clause 28, which happily has now been confined the passage of this Bill. It could well be that that was completely to history. This House has distinguished through lack of consultation. itself very much in this whole area. We have, in passing these further measures, the I also make the point that the Secondary Legislation privilege of creating more happiness for those who Scrutiny Committee looked at this question and asked wish to convert from civil partnerships to marriage itself why the original orders were withdrawn and new and, crucially, to celebrate this conversion in the way orders had to be introduced. The noble Lord, Lord that they choose. I know of several couples who are Collins of Highbury, has kept me well informed on waiting for confirmation that these orders have been this—not that I have a direct personal interest: noble enacted in time for them to celebrate their marriage Lords may remember that at Second Reading I declared conversion—some of them very close at hand. to the House that my wife and I had celebrated our For example, my friends John Nickson and Simon diamond wedding anniversary the year before the Bill Rew had their civil partnership on the very first day in was introduced. Nevertheless, I then spoke very much Westminster Register Office and will be married on in favour of the Bill and was delighted when, in the 19 December this year. They have been together since 427 Marriage of Same Sex Couples[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Marriage of Same Sex Couples 428 the early 1980s, certainly for more than 30 years. Like and the criteria by which all policies now have to be many couples they have been anxious to get on with assessed; the legalisation of humanist marriage would organising this very happy occasion, and we need to perfectly fit those criteria and strengthen the institution apologise to them and others for causing them worry of marriage—and no doubt lead to an increase in about whether they would be able to proceed on the marriage, as it has in Scotland. dates the Government promised at the beginning of Given that the public consultation has closed and the year. We also need to wish John and Simon, and that the responses were, I gather, overwhelmingly indeed my noble friend Lord Collins and Rafe, a very favourable, can the Minister explain when the Government happy day when they eventually convert. are publishing their report, and when the orders will On these benches we will not be raising issues to be laid? I am worried because I hear rumours of heels delay the passage of the orders before the House being dragged at No.10 and that there may be some today. These new orders allow same-sex marriages to resistance at senior levels in the Church of England, take place in any if the 6,729 premises licensed to which I hope both institutions will strenuously deny. conduct civil marriages and civil partnerships, in addition There is a suggestion that humanist weddings should to registry offices. be limited only to places that are licensed for marriage, which kind of defeats the point of having a humanist We are satisfied with the consequential provisions wedding in the place of one’s choice. The reason that detailed in these regulations and believe that the dual this is important is the same reason why the timetable path offered to people—to have a sort of cheap-and- for the orders under consideration today is so important cheerful conversion or a celebration—is exactly the to those who wish to convert their civil partnerships. right way to go. We are also pleased that couples will People plan their weddings years in advance and I can be able to have their civil partnerships converted on inform the House that my sister, who is a humanist religious premises, where those premises have been celebrant—I probably need to declare her as an interest—is approved to marry same-sex couples. This is an important already receiving inquiries about humanist weddings issue of religious freedom and one that respects the next summer and autumn. She, along with the hundreds protections for religious organisations enshrined within of other humanist celebrants, has a dilemma over how the Act. I was also pleased that the marriage certificate to answer those questions. Perhaps the Minister can will look very similar to the marriage certificate I advise on that. received 40 years ago. Such things are important. We welcome these orders and I congratulate the My noble friend mentioned that the Stonewall brief Government on bringing them forward in time for all mentions conversions in British consulates. Will the the happy events to take place before Christmas. Minister assure the House that all consulates are properly briefed about how and when to conduct conversions? My second question relates to guidance and training Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, I am most for those whose job it is to administer these conversions, grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to and making sure that the two options of how to the debate. They were constructive, considered and convert are properly available. supportive. I place on record also my thanks to all I know that everyone is referring to these orders as those who took the time over the summer to discuss the final chapter in the enactment of the same-sex their concerns to help us get these statutory instruments marriage Act. Indeed, they are the final issue to be to a better place. I am sure that all noble Lords will resolved for same-sex marriages. However, the Act was agree that it has been worth it. also amended in your Lordships’ House to include the I turn to some of the points raised. The noble Lord, new provision for legalising humanist weddings. I take Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, this opportunity to ask the Minister about the progress referred to consular services. In fact, the GOV.uk in that direction. Indeed, the amendments to legalise website is already providing information about humanist marriage had majority support in both Houses. conversions, and will be constantly updated. Detailed The Government’s amendment allowed for a review guidance is being provided to all consular offices to and consultation on the matter and included order-making make sure that they are familiar. This has obviously powers. The review and consultation are over and been quite a steep learning curve for a number of there have been more than 1,900 responses. They seem consular offices but there is nothing now to delay it. to show that this continues to be an issue with wide Consular offices have been provided with full guidance public support. Last year the British Humanist Association and correct information. We therefore hope that some was assured that this process would be completed well of the early misconceptions will therefore have been before the end of the year, giving enough time to make addressed. orders in good time before the general election. This has not happened. When will the report emerge and 6.45 pm when will we see the orders? I am very concerned that My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked why the we get on with this. Government did not consult on the regulations and In Scotland, where more than 10% of all marriages why we got it so wrong. The original proposals were are now humanist marriages, the first ever same-sex based on the Government’s response to the public marriage on 31 December will be a humanist marriage. consultation, which set out that conversion would be The experience in Scotland has been nothing but an administrative process. This recognised that the positive. In fact, humanist marriages have accounted couple were already in a valid legal relationship and for 54% of the overall net increase in marriages. We are should not be required to have another ceremony, pleased to see the Government’s “family test” policy although we have provided flexibility for couples who 429 Marriage of Same Sex Couples[LORDS] Consular Marriages under Foreign Law 430

[BARONESS GARDEN OF FROGNAL] have won out by coming in at a late stage to take these choose to have a ceremony. However, we listened to measures through. I also thank the officials, who have what people said about the process set out in the draft been tireless in seeking the best outcomes. It is very regulations and are pleased that we have been able to fitting that my noble friend the Leader of the House provide more flexibility and choice in these revised has just come in as I was thanking her for her part in regulations. the Bill. I apologise for omitting many others who The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about have played a part. humanist marriages. The Ministry of Justice issued a However, as my noble friend Lord Paddick indicated, consultation document earlier this year. The Government one parliamentarian’s tenacity ensured the passage of are considering the submissions made in response and the Bill—my right honourable friend Lynne Featherstone, intend to issue a report on the outcome of that review Stonewall’s Politician of the Year and a true champion by 1 January, as required by the Act. We hope that it is of equality. She, I and others here were among many understood that the consultation was held in good guests who had the great pleasure of attending one of faith and that the Government are not willingly dragging the first same-sex marriages, between Ed Fordham their feet over this. We hope that before long there will and Russell Eagling. The two had helped lead the be clarity on the issue of humanist marriages, too. serenading across the road as the Bill made its way In drawing to a close, I celebrate the part this through your Lordships’ House, and their marriage House has played in the passage and implementation was a truly joyous occasion. of the Act. It has been a momentous step forward for As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, it is LGB&T equality and one of which we should rightly not often that we pass legislation that has such a direct be proud. As other noble Lords have said, there has impact on the lives and happiness of our citizens. been cross-party agreement all around the Chamber These instruments will make a significant difference to on the best way forward. These statutory instruments those people’s lives. I hope that the House will approve implement decisions we made during the passage of them. the Act and are important for those who formed civil partnerships when that was the only means by which Motion agreed. they could have their relationship recognised in law, and who would now like to be married. They also Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 support in particular loving couples who will now be able to remain married when one member changes (Consequential and Contrary Provisions their legal gender. and Scotland) and Marriage and Civil We have come a very long way since my noble Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill’s far-sighted Private (Consequential Provisions) Order 2014 Member’s Bill, which set in train the legislation for Motion to Approve civil partnerships. Many people have worked and campaigned for these measures. In your Lordships’ 6.50 pm House, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, kept our feet to the fire and rewarded us with pink carnations. From the Moved by Baroness Garden of Frognal Cross Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Rabbi Neuberger, That the draft order laid before the House on is putting these measures into practice and will be 15 October be approved. conducting a number of conversion into marriage ceremonies in December, the first of which I understand Relevant documents: 10th Report from the Joint will be on 10 December—auspiciously 10.12.14. On Committee on Statutory Instruments and 11th Report the Benches opposite, support has come from the from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Royall, as well as from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to whom Motion agreed. we offer advance congratulations on his forthcoming conversion into marriage ceremony. Consular Marriages and Marriages under From the Conservative Benches, there were valuable Foreign Law (No. 2) Order 2014 contributions from my noble friends Lady Jenkin and Motion to Approve Lady Noakes, as well as from my noble friend Lord Jenkin, to whom we offer congratulations on his long 6.50 pm marriage. The Liberal Democrats were led by my noble friend Lady Barker, with able support from my noble Moved by Baroness Garden of Frognal friend Lord Paddick. I also pay tribute to the government team who steered the Bill through the House, including That the draft order laid before the House on my noble friend Lady Stowell, my noble and learned 24 October be approved. friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and my noble Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint friend Lady Northover, who has already been mentioned Committee on Statutory Instruments and much regrets in many ways that her promotion to a ministerial post means that she is abroad on government Motion agreed. business; otherwise, wild horses would not have kept her from being here to see this through. However, I House adjourned at 6.50 pm. GC 107 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 108

The purpose of Amendments 82 to 87 is to Grand Committee make minor technical amendments to Schedule 18. Amendments 82 and 83 provide for the reporting Tuesday, 18 November 2014. duties in new Section 3C of the Poisons Act 1972 to apply to explosives precursors at all concentrations, as required by EU regulation 98/2013, which is directly Deregulation Bill applicable in the UK. New Section 3C will impose Committee (7th Day) reporting duties in respect of both poisons and explosives precursors, and is therefore wider than the EU regulation. 3.30 pm However, the reporting regime in respect of explosives precursors must be compliant with that regulation. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar) (CB): My Lords, if there is a Division in the Amendment 84 creates a new power by which the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will modifying new Section 3A of the Poisons Act so far as resume after 10 minutes. it applies to any supplies that involve dispatch of a regulated substance to Northern Ireland or export of Clause 68 agreed. it from the United Kingdom. Currently, the proposed new Section 11(6) of the Poisons Act provides that any Schedule 18: Poisons and explosives precursors reference in the Act to supplying something does, “not include … export to a person outside the UK”. Amendment 87 will remove this aspect of the definition. Amendment 82 Amendment 84 will enable the Secretary of State to Moved by Lord Wallace of Saltaire make regulations about export from the UK, and 82: Schedule 18, page 175, line 13, leave out “A” and insert dispatch to Northern Ireland, having regard to EU “Subject to subsection (3A), a” regulation 98/2013, in particular its territorial scope, and other prevailing circumstances. Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): My Lords, Schedule 18 Amendment 85 clarifies that the 12-month time amends the Poisons Act 1972. It introduces a common limit for commencing criminal proceedings for offenders licensing system for the acquisition, importation, under the Poisons Act applies to summary offences possession and use of poisons as well as of chemicals only. There is generally no limit for triable offences. that can be misused to make explosives—termed explosives Amendment 86 introduces a transitional provision precursors—within Great Britain. relating to maximum statutory fines in the magistrates’ Current poisons controls are outdated and ineffective. court pending the commencement of provisions in the In 2012, the Poisons Board made a number of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders recommendations after being reconstituted to review Act 2012, which will remove such maxima. the Poisons Act 1972 as part of the Red Tape Challenge Amendment 87 is purely consequential on the new retail theme. These included that the Poisons Act 1972, regulation-making power introduced by Amendment 84. the Poisons Rules 1982 and the Poisons List 1982, That is to say, it changes the definition of supply for which are owned by the Home Office, should be the purposes of the Poisons Act so it does not automatically amended to reflect current retail market practices. It exclude exports. I beg to move the amendment and also recommended that greater clarity should be given that the schedule stand part of the Bill. regarding inspection and enforcement of retailers and businesses involved in the trade of poisons, which are very often of course for household use. Schedule 18 Lord Skelmersdale (Con): My Lords, I have been does that. prompted to rise to my feet on Amendment 84, to In making these changes, we are aligning controls which the Minister has just referred. I will ask a very of dangerous poisons with new regulations that control simple question: are there no regulatory supplies from the sales of explosives precursors that are susceptible Northern Ireland, given that Amendment 84 refers to, to being used to create explosives to commit terrorist “any supplies that involve despatch of the substance to Northern attacks. The Control of Explosives Precursors Regulations Ireland or export of it from the United Kingdom”? 2014, which implement EU regulation 98/2013 on the Of course, Northern Ireland is included in the United marketing and use of explosives precursors, came into Kingdom, so I wonder if the Minister could, at some effect on 2 September 2014. The amendments to the point in this debate, answer my question. Poisons Act 1972 will create a streamlined, cohesive regime that will make it easier for retailers to implement Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab): My Lords, I had and reduce costs, because there is only one regime to not intended to speak on this; I think the Minister follow. might have moved “clause stand part” in error at the Schedule 18 removes the current requirement for end of his comments, because my next amendment is a businesses to annually renew a local authority listing clause stand part debate. On the Northern Ireland that allows them to sell common household products. question, my understanding is that Northern Ireland This will save businesses some £20,000 a year. Paragraph 1 is part of UK, so I was rather surprised that the abolishes the statutory Poisons Board, whose constitution direction was to Northern Ireland and from the UK. is written into the Poisons Act 1972. Abolishing the That is a similar point to the one made by the noble statutory body would mean that appropriate and specialist Lord, so was it just an error in the drafting of the advice can be sought. legislation? GC 109 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 110

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, Northern Ireland 87: Schedule 18, page 187, line 33, leave out from “charge,” to has separate legislation that controls sales of poisons end of line 35 and will implement separate legislation that controls sales of explosives precursors and their exports. The Amendments 83 to 87 agreed. reasons for this are entirely clear and that is why this is concerned with Great Britain. Debate on whether Schedule 18, as amended, should be agreed. Baroness Smith of Basildon: Then the term “UK” might perhaps be incorrect in terms of drafting. Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s brief introduction to this debate, Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The UK is, of course, an which he may want to repeat. The reason for tabling a integrated market, so it is difficult to say, “exports stand part debate is not that we are necessarily opposed from Great Britain”. That is the reason why we vary to the schedule, but a number of questions arise on between Great Britain and the UK in different references. which it would be helpful to have clarification. I raised this issue last week when we discussed the clauses on Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab): We are getting alcohol and the sale of liqueur chocolates to children. somewhat held up: I am sure that this can be resolved I find it difficult when asked to consider schedules to very quickly. The point raised first by the noble Lord Bills—or any legislation—when there has been a opposite was that we need to know what the Government government consultation but we do not have the responses are trying to say here. Are they saying that material to it. All that is available is the consultation document, exported out of the United Kingdom, including Northern the impact assessment and the government response Ireland by definition, is caught by this, or is it meant to the consultation, not the consultation responses to mean that there is a separate territorial area called themselves. Northern Ireland for which different regulations apply I understand that in some cases there may be reasons and that therefore, the schedule bites only on Great of confidentiality, but the consultation document refers Britain? to personal information being kept confidential. That is of course appropriate, but I found it difficult to Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I will write to the noble analyse and assess the Government’s proposals. It Lord if I am misinformed, but I think that if this were would have been very helpful to know what some of to read, “Export for the United Kingdom”or “Despatch the experts and petitioners thought and what were the of the substance within the United Kingdom to Northern consultation responses. I shall come to a couple of Ireland,” it would be entirely clear. reasons why. The first issue is that of home use. The impact Amendment 82 agreed. assessment says that known uses of Part 1 poisons for the home are rodent control and metal extraction. I have worked hard on this, but I do not know what Amendments 83 to 87 metal extraction in the home is. I should be grateful if Moved by Lord Wallace of Saltaire the Minister could enlighten me. I can think of other uses for small amounts of poison in the home, but 83: Schedule 18, page 175, line 20, at end insert— metal extraction has got the better of me. “(3A) For the purposes of section 3C however, and the meaning of “regulated substance” in or in relation to that section, a The list of consultees in the Government’s response “regulated explosives precursor”— to the consultation is interesting. Some clearly involve (a) is a substance listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1A, and domestic uses, such as the British Tropical Fish Club, (b) includes a mixture or another substance in which a which apparently is different to the Tropical Fish substance listed in that Part is present, Club. We have the Model Power Boat Association, the but, in each case, only if the substance or mixture is not Pool and Water Treatment Advisory Group and the excluded.” Ornamental Aquatic Fish Trade Association. It is more understandable why they would use Part 1 poisons 84: Schedule 18, page 178, line 18, at end insert— in the home—albeit, I would think, in small quantities— “( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision but the issue of metal extraction has got me beat, so modifying this section so far as it applies to any supplies that involve despatch of the substance to Northern Ireland or export any advice would be gratefully received. of it from the United Kingdom.” The Government’s charts in their summary of 85: Schedule 18, page 184, line 12, leave out “this Act” and responses were helpful. Under questions for home insert “section 3A(3) or (4), 3B(3), 3C(8) or 7(2)” users of Part 1 and Part 2 poisons, less than half of 86: Schedule 18, page 184, line 38, at end insert— those who currently use such poisons would continue “(12) In relation to an offence committed before section 85(1) to do so. Perhaps the Government are seeking to of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act reduce the number of poisons on the Part 1 and Part 2 2012 comes into force— list in the home, but I do not think that that was listed (a) the reference in subsection (1)(b)(i) to a fine is to be read as an objective of the legislation. That is where the as a reference to a fine not exceeding the statutory consultation responses would have been useful. Two maximum; of the questions in the consultation are: what do you (b) the reference in subsection (4)(a) to a fine is to be read as use Part 1 poisons for and what you use Part 2 poisons a reference to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard for? Not being a scientist, not knowing what the scale.” chemicals are for, I would find that very useful. GC 111 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 112

The consultation also asked whether alternatives will be liable for those costs, although it is something could be used and what they are. In assessing whether of an irony that after last night’s debate and other it is justified to say that more than half the people debates we have had on opting out of the European would not continue to use those poisons, would it not police and justice measures, the Government are now be helpful to know—and to have it in the summary or seeking some funding from the European Union to published in the consultation—how many of those pay for specialised training in this area, so that businesses people are likely to use alternatives to what is available will not have to fund it themselves. However, the now? As it stands, we may be preventing people who Government say that businesses will have to pay for have ornamental fish or tropical fish tanks at home training on the new regulations in regard to licences enjoying their hobby, or their sport with model boats and that individuals will have to pay for those licences and so on. I do not know because we do not have that and, understandably, for cost recovery in regard to information. If the Minister can address the issue of them. Unless I have missed it, I cannot find anywhere the consultation and the points that I have raised in the documents what the costs of those licences are about the alternatives available, I would find that quite likely to be. Is there anything that he can say to advise helpful. on what the costs will be? I understand that the Government are committed 3.45 pm to full cost recovery on licensing regimes but there The other point that I would like to pursue with the remains one outstanding area where I am told that the Minister is the issue of licences. What is being proposed Prime Minister himself has vetoed it. It is on the issue is a new licence, with home owners having to obtain a of firearms licences, which currently cost just £50 for licence in advance for Part 1 use, although business five years and £40 for renewal. While I do not necessarily users would not. Can he help me to understand the disagree with the Government’s view of having full logic of saying that while a home user would need a cost recovery on these licences, it would be helpful licence in advance for what I imagine to be relatively if—again, on the issue of public safety—the Minister small amounts of chemicals, although since that is not could say why those who have firearms and shotguns in the consultation I do not know what for, a business should not pay full cost recovery when somebody who user would not? I would assume that a business user wants some chemicals to keep their fish tank clean would have a much larger degree. If he could explain should pay full cost recovery. I am concerned that, that again, I would find it helpful. having made a promise to have full cost recovery on all licences, there seem to be just two involving firearms When this was brought forward the Government, that are exempt. I do not understand why that is. quite rightly, took specific advice on the poisons from the Poisons Board, which recognised and identified Can the Minister also confirm that the enforcement some weaknesses in the current regulatory regime. body would be the Home Office? What funding has Those are listed in the impact assessment, which says been made available for that? I am not convinced that that: the Home Office has a particularly good record on the “The poisons register in its current form does not prevent Gangmasters Licensing Authority. If the Home Office someone purchasing poisons for misuse … Licensing retailers is to be responsible, we need an assurance that this will does not add significant protection against misuse”, be properly policed and enforced; otherwise it will be a and that: step backwards. “Business-to-business transactions are not monitored”. If there are weaknesses in existing legislation, should So I understand why regulatory systems would be not those who deal with the consequences of such changed to address weaknesses but where issues such weaknesses in terms of explosives and poisons be as poisons and explosives are concerned there has to consulted? Although the weaknesses are identified by be a presumption in all cases about public safety, as I the Poisons Board, I am not sure what the consequences am sure the Minister would agree. Yet if we read are. What I found curious in the list of consultees—I further on, it is quite clear that the Poisons Board’s assume that it is an almost complete list—is that, for preferred option was not the option 2 of licensing, example, the British Fireworks Association and many which the Government are now proposing, but in fact others were consulted but the fire service was not. If was option 3. there are issues around explosives or around poisons It would be helpful to know why the Government that may escape into the air and cause difficulties, took the advice of the Poisons Board on what weaknesses surely the fire service should have been consulted there are in the current regime but then did not take its alongside the British Fireworks Association and others. advice on what the solution should be. Part of it is this If there are medical concerns relating to the home use deregulatory mania which the Government have. While of chemicals—for example, if someone ingests them— no one wants to see unnecessary regulation, I am sure should the NHS not be consulted? We need to understand that the Minister and other noble Lords would accept the extent of any problem that now exists, if one does, that there are times when regulation is appropriate, and to see whether there is any way in which this can particularly in areas of public safety. I am struggling be better dealt with. to understand the logic in some of the Government’s I have posed a series of questions to try to understand thinking on this issue. the Government’s thinking. As I have said, we never Can the Minister also say something about the want to regulate for the sake of regulating, but nor do costs of licences? What he has in the documents that I we want to deregulate for the sake of deregulating if have read—there are a few—is what the costs will be we are removing public protection. However, here it for implementing the new licences. He says that businesses seems that we are merely replacing one set of regulations GC 113 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 114

[BARONESS SMITH OF BASILDON] Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My understanding is that with reregulation rather than deregulation, with additional Appendix A of the report on the consultation had a costs to some users. If the parts of the Government’s summary of consultation responses. I have now been consultation that we have been allowed to see are deluged with notes that I will attempt to absorb. accurate, a number of people who currently use poisons The Department of Health was a statutory consultee in small amounts at home, such as for their fish tanks, as part of the Poisons Board and was consulted on the may in future be prevented from doing so. If the noble draft legislation regarding any consequential amendments. Lord can address those points, that will be quite The Home Office ran an open research call to find helpful. research into alternative substances for Part 1 poisons and licensed explosives precursors. Research proposals Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the are currently being evaluated. The Home Office remains noble Baroness for that very detailed and well prepared the primary enforcement body, although a range of set of questions. I have to agree with her that in a sense others, including the police, come into play at certain this is a much less deregulatory measure than many of points. the others in the Bill. It is a revision of regulations In some ways I rather wish my wife were here. She is more than deregulation. Indeed, in terms of safety, much more experienced in poisons for household and these proposals are designed to strengthen controls garden use. She has strong views about some aspects over those selling and purchasing dangerous poisons of EU regulations because a number of poisonous and explosives precursors. We are continuing a long substances, in safe hands, are very useful to use in the trend of tightening government regulation of poisons home and garden. However, policy in the United and, increasingly, of explosives precursors. Kingdom and in other countries has been moving in A hundred years ago, a good many arsenic compounds the direction of tightening up controls on these because were available for purchase and they were, on occasion, of what can happen in unskilled hands and how used for nefarious purposes as well. Over the last desirable it may therefore be to tighten control of 40 years, the European Union has increased regulation them. and, in some cases, has banned a number of poisonous On the question of how much a licence would cost, substances for use not only in the home but in gardens a new licence application costs £39.50 at the moment and allotments. Here, we are in part implementing for a maximum three-year period. Any amendments those regulations. We are also concerned, as the noble to current licences are free of charge to encourage Baroness will understand, with the use of substances compliance with conditions to notify changes in which had not been misused as explosives precursors circumstances. Replacements of lost or stolen licenses in the past but which are now widely recommended on cost £25. The Home Office has kept costs to a minimum the internet for those who wish to make explosives for by using existing IT systems as far as possible. A nefarious purposes—hydrogen peroxide and others. I similar background to the checking process for firearms am referring to substances which, when purchased in licensing is being followed up, with some differences. large quantities, can be mixed into what then becomes No home inspections or face-to-face interviews will be explosives. There have been one or two cases of people conducted. being accused of terrorist offences who had managed Firearms licensing is governed by a different policy to purchase large quantities of the same substances and we are looking to full cost recovery in this area, that hairdressers, for example, purchase in small quantities. but I will write to the noble Baroness about the I note in the extensive list that I was given of the comparisons that she has been making with the licensing various different substances that there are a number of of firearms. I understand the point that she is making. metallic substances. Their main home uses are listed as metal cleaning, etching, electroplating, painting and Baroness Smith of Basildon: I appreciate that because soldering. I am told that there are those who even use I have had different responses from different Ministers metal substances and metal complexes at home for on the issue. Before the Minister moves on, I asked extracting the gold from their old mobile phones. This about the cost of new licences. I am not sure whether is a delicate issue. Members of the Committee may not that was the figure he gave me. If it was, I thank him. I do this, but others may wish to do all sorts of things at was not 100% clear about whether it was the new home. Happily, my children did not get into chemistry licence for home use that he referred to. Can he clarify particularly heavily. On the question of the Poisons that he was saying that the fire service was not consulted? Board’s preferred options, I am told that the Poisons Will he confirm that he will publish the consultation? Board accepted our policy approach and objectives in its final note to the Minister for Security and Immigration. 4pm The noble Baroness has seen a summary of recommendations and I am happy to talk further to Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I do not have an answer her about what extra things she would like to know on the fire service and will have to come back to the about the replies to the consultation. noble Baroness on that. The costs I was quoting are for new licence applications. I hope that that answers the majority of the questions raised by the noble Baroness Smith of Basildon: It was not a summary Baroness, and I am happy to talk further or correspond of recommendations, but a summary of the consultation if necessary on any other questions that I have not responses, and I identified one or two that were not followed up. I thank her for the detailed effort she has included in the summary but would have been very made to ensure that we have got it right. It is an helpful in considering this clause. important area, although I have to say that when I GC 115 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 116 looked at the extremely long list of the various substances This is despite the fact that there was no clear support that will now be controlled differently, I did not understand for removing regulation in the original consultation what a good many of them were or what their uses are. responses. This is unavoidably a rather specialised field. The Government did not consult on this issue as There is a regulation-making power in the schedule part of the consultation in April 2014 on extending to vary, add or remove a substance or limit its outsourcing in children’s social work. During the debate concentration. After all, chemical substances are changing in Committee in the House of Commons on whether in terms of how they may be used, and our ability to the clause should stand part of the Bill, the Deputy combine chemicals for various purposes is also changing, Leader of the Commons, Tom Brake MP, acknowledged so a degree of flexibility is highly desirable. that there had been no clear support for removing the I have now been told that we have consulted the fire registration requirement. service, particularly on home storage, and that it supports The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for the proposals. England raised concerns and stated: “We consider all delegated social care services should be Baroness Smith of Basildon: I am grateful for that, required to have formal registration with Ofsted in addition to an but I am puzzled why, in the list of consultees, the two expectation that they will be held to account by rigorous and I asked about were not included, although the Minister expert inspection, just as local authorities currently are”. has been able to reassure me. It would be helpful to Ofsted conducted its own consultation on a regulation have a comprehensive list of consultees. I have one and inspection regime for social work providers. It final point. I asked about the publication of the consulted children and young people for their views, consultation responses—I made that same point in unlike the Government. Ofsted found that respondents last week’s debate. Can he confirm that the Government, to its consultation wanted thorough checks to be subject to the normal procedures of ensuring made on companies and applicants that plan to provide confidentiality of those who have responded, will publish delegated functions. They also felt strongly that registration the full consultation responses on the two consultations— checks should be backed up by later inspection. poisons and explosives? Local authorities thought it would be, “important to ensure there is a proper, external-to-the-local-authority Lord Wallace of Saltaire: That is entirely understood. registration process to enable a local authority to be confident in I will do my best on that, and will write to the noble using the services provided by the social work provider”. Baroness with the assurances that she is asking for. I should, perhaps, remind the Committee that the Ofsted registration requirements cover important areas Schedule 18, as amended, agreed. of social work provision, such as the “fit and proper person” test for those running social work providers, Clauses 69 and 70 agreed. financial viability, registered manager, sufficiency of qualified staff, vetting checks and conditions of registration. Clause 71: Reduction in regulation of providers of The Government propose that the external providers social work services of social work services will not be inspected in their own right by Ofsted, and nor will they be registered as Debate on whether Clause 71 should stand part of the providers in the way that children’s homes and adoption Bill. societies are. There will be no overview of their activities across local authorities where they hold contracts and Baroness Donaghy (Lab): My Lords, I am asking no visible assurances for the public about their financial the Government to withdraw Clause 71 on social work viability, quality standards or working practices. Unison, services and registration. Clearly there is a history to the trade union that represents social workers, believes this which I shall not spend a lot of time on, but I have that the regulation and inspection of social care services to say a couple of things about it. First, the previous are essential to safeguarding vulnerable children and Labour Government issued a guarantee in 2008 that their families. It also said that regulations should not any delegated service would be required to register be regarded as a burden in this extremely sensitive with the regulator. The Government propose to withdraw area. that provision. Secondly, in June last year the Delegated Internal contract monitoring by local authorities Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee criticised cannot be relied on by itself to ensure that acceptable the Government’s proposals to remove regulation of standards in the safety and quality of social work with social work providers. It said: looked-after children are upheld. By removing the “Registration would allow the imposition of national minimum separate registration of providers, the Government are standards and requirements as to the fitness of providers. It relying on Ofsted to pick out issues about their fitness would also provide a mechanism for removing providers who are to operate as part of its inspections of individual local failing to meet standards”. authorities. However, providers could operate across The Government subsequently retained separate many local authority areas. Local authorities already registration but not inspection for external providers face challenges because of funding cuts and it is likely through the Providers of Social Work Services (England) that contracts will be held by larger private or voluntary Regulations 2013. The discussions are as recent as sector contractors. Close ties with local authority teams that. Now the Government are seeking to reverse that and systems will be weakened; their interests and decision and to remove the registration requirement. priorities will be different from those of the client GC 117 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 118

[BARONESS DONAGHY] I emphasise equal measure—with public services. I authority. The drivers of service provision will be cost sometimes worry that the Government assume that driven. Relying on local authority inspection will be any private service is somehow good, while public inadequate and emphasises the need for a single services are suspect. That seems to me to be an incredibly registration point. dangerous assumption. The focus of the single inspection framework is the I share the concern of the noble Baroness about the local authority, and this will necessarily limit the range limited parliamentary debate about the new regulations of regulatory action Ofsted takes in relation to the and, more particularly, the concern that the removal failings of an outsourced provider. Ofsted needs to be of the one safeguard from these functions is proposed able to focus on the provider in its own right, rather when the evidence for the efficacy or otherwise of than on individual local areas of work. It also creates these delegated services is not yet available. Will the a lack of symmetry in the system by requiring providers Minister explain to the Committee why the Government of children’s homes and fostering and adoption placements are proposing to remove the requirement to register to be registered and inspected in their own right while with the inspectorate from these newly delegated services? providers of social work services—which are exercising Is this a matter of cost? If so, what will be the annual major statutory functions, taking sensitive and critical saving to the Exchequer from this change? Has a decisions about placements for children—are not required cost-benefit analysis been done of Clause 71? Is there to do so. How can the Government defend such any evidence to suggest that the proposal will not lead inequality? Do the Government think that providing to a deterioration in the quality of service provided? social work services is somehow less important? Are These really are very important questions for the the Government confident that this act of abandonment Government to answer. will not lead to a lowering of standards? It would also be helpful to have some explanation Finally, the College of Social Work is calling on the about how the local authority responsibility for these Government to pause, so that the service implications delegated services will work. As I understand it, local of these regulatory changes can be fully considered in authorities will remain accountable to the regulators the light of real evidence. There needs to be detailed for the quality of the delegated services, but they will consideration of potential conflict of interest in the surely need to undertake some form of inspection role provision of children’s services and the management in order to satisfy themselves that the services are of of risk. The College of Social Work has stated: an acceptable quality. But will they be funded to do “The proposals raise serious and important questions about that? We know how hard-pressed local authorities are; how services to some of the nation’s most vulnerable children and if they do not have the funding for a job, they will young people may be delivered in future”. certainly not be able to do it. If not, is it right that a I can only echo that statement and ask the Government local authority should be held responsible for poor-quality to withdraw Clause 71 before it is tested on Report. services that do not fall within its purview? It all feels really very difficult from the local authority point of Baroness Meacher (CB): My Lords, I support the view and therefore the whole thing feels shaky. Who is noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and agree that Clause 71 going to lose? The vulnerable children, at the end of should not stand part of the Bill. Among the main the day. I hope the Minister will respond to these reasons for my position is, first, that the delegation of questions and provide some assurance to the Committee local authority statutory children’s services functions, that the Government are not taking unreasonable particularly child protection functions, was approved risks in Clause 71. only very recently, and we simply have not had the time to clarify whether the new arrangements are 4.15 pm working. Secondly, the delegation of these functions was approved by statutory instrument, and therefore Baroness King of Bow (Lab): My Lords, I support not subjected to very thorough parliamentary this amendment which is also in my name. Never has scrutiny—we already have, if you like, an unscrutinised there been greater concern around failures of child situation, or one subject to inadequate scrutiny, yet protection and greater revulsion about the scale and these functions are crucial to the future lives of very breadth of the abuse visited on vulnerable children. In vulnerable children. light of so many recent scandals, the Government’s It was presumably no accident that these statutory position seems at best puzzling and at worst possibly functions were not included in the Children and Young negligent at some point in the future. The amendment Persons Act 2008, which provided for the delegation would ensure the continued requirement for those of functions in relation to looked-after children and providing social work services on behalf of councils to those leaving care. Those are very sensitive areas of be registered, regulated or inspected. The two key work, and one can question their delegation, but these points at issue are the lack of consultation on the one new functions were not included even then. I should hand and the general opposition from almost all those make it clear that, along with members of the College involved on the other, as well as the fact that we of Social Work, I support the provision of children’s remain unclear as to how this will work in practice for and adult services by the third sector in partnership local authorities. with the statutory agencies—this is not an ideological The Minister will no doubt have read with great point at all—but as recent scandals have shown, the interest the views of the College of Social Work. The third sector is not immune from providing very poor- Government’s approach is puzzling because I accept quality services to very vulnerable people. It is this risk that they want to improve safeguarding services. The that needs to be guarded against in equal measure— Minister will no doubt set out, like his counterpart in GC 119 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 120 the other place, that the Government views registration children’s social care functions is completely separate of providers of social work services on top of their from its duty to inspect and to hold local authorities contractual arrangements as a potential duplication. to account in the discharge of their functions. Those of us opposing this view it as a potential extra I am also very grateful for the correct comment of risk to children. the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that we are talking The College of Social Work points out that earlier not just about for-profit providers but about third this year the Government published a set of regulations sector providers, which often provide very good services to accompany the Children and Young Persons Act in this area. Nevertheless, one wants to make sure that 2008 to allow local authorities to delegate almost all those services are always of a consistent quality. She their statutory duties. These reforms, taken in the has a great deal of experience in this area. I have very round, could have an extremely significant impact on limited experience but I am very conscious that third the delivery of social work services in England. There sector organisations can be absolutely superb but is a feeling in the sector and indeed elsewhere that sometimes not superb. there has been quite simply inadequate debate around It is argued that the removal of the requirement for these very serious and important issues. providers to register with Ofsted is a benefit to the The College of Social Work summarised its objection system because it ensures that there is no doubt or to Clause 71 as follows: confusion about where the statutory responsibilities “The new power to delegate social work functions is at the then lie. That makes it clear that local authorities are experimental stage and the evidence is not yet available for fully accountable for any decisions made by third conclusions to be reached about the impact on the most vulnerable parties to whom they have delegated functions. The children and adults. It may in future be appropriate to remove this argument here is that it should not be the responsibility requirement to register with the regulator but it would be risky to of Ofsted to make sure that the third parties to whom remove this safeguard at the present time”. local authorities wish to delegate functions are fit for My main question to the Minister is: why would he the job. want to take this risk at the present time? Why would the Government want to take the risk, given all the Under the current registration regulations, Ofsted problems that we know are taking place at the moment? is required to check on: first, the fitness of the provider to do the work; secondly, the appointment and fitness As we heard from my noble friend Lady Donaghy, of the registered manager; and, thirdly, the staffing the consultation carried out by the Government did arrangements and premises. The regulations also include not find support for this—far from it. Even Ofsted’s provisions for making changes to any of the above. To own consultation found a strong desire to maintain cover Ofsted’s costs, providers are required to pay fees registration checks. Local authorities themselves are for registration and for making changes to the registration calling for external inspection. Why will there be no once made. overview of quality and working practices in some of the key areas, as outlined by my noble friend Lady These requirements duplicate the “due diligence” Donaghy? Why is asymmetry and inequality in the that a local authority will perform as part of its services essentially being written into the Bill? procurement of a provider. No local authority would appoint a third party provider to undertake its functions In summary, if the registration requirements are without making such checks. However, the current removed, the Government are essentially dismantling system creates confusion as to where accountability what the CSW describes as the backstop. Will the lies. The requirement for providers to register with Minister explain why in these current circumstances Ofsted is separate from Ofsted’s continuing duty to the Government would want to remove a safety backstop? inspect and to hold local authorities to account. How Surely, if anything, the Government should be bolstering Ofsted inspects local authorities is for it to determine. the backstop and not weakening it. For that reason, I For other provision—as for children’s homes—it conducts support the proposition that Clause 71 should not separate inspections, but it has concluded that delegated stand part of the Bill. functions should be inspected as part of the local authority single framework inspection and has published a plan as to how this will operate. The Government Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I recognise the consider that that is adequate and that it provides the passion with which these objections have been made, regulation required without unacceptable risk. as well as the experience and expertise of those who made them. I shall be very happy to hold further conversations between Committee and Report to make Baroness Donaghy: I apologise to the noble Lord sure that we can come to some agreement about the for interrupting but I wish to seek clarification. Clearly, balance between regulation and potential risk, to which on the face of it, it does look like double accounting, the noble Baroness, Lady King, rightly pointed. We but similar things exist in other areas—for instance, in are all quite clear that children’s services are a very the construction industry, where there is a pre-qualification important area where we must make sure that we get system. At the moment local authorities are given the balance right. confidence in employing a company which might cover The Government’s view after consultation and a lot of local authorities. There might be a very small consideration is that the double layer of inspection strapped-for-cash local authority—as nearly all of them provided by Ofsted’s national perspective and the are now—but it is given confidence because the name responsibility of local authorities to inspect and to of that company is on a register. It has already qualified license providers is duplication. Our view is that Ofsted’s to meet a certain level of standards. I am not sure that existing duty to register providers who may discharge in the Minister’s answer so far—he may be coming to GC 121 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 122

[BARONESS DONAGHY] Commission. I accept entirely that it will not happen it—he has explained how local authorities have the this side of the general election, but whatever party or confidence to get to the pre-qualification stage of parties are in power post the general election next saying, “Okay, let’s look at these people with a view to year, we will need to look at the governance arrangements. hiring them”. I am not saying that they do not have I am sure that noble Lords will know that the the responsibility to inspect—of course not—but it commission was set up after the 1997 general election. could save a lot of time and money if there is already There was an inquiry by the Committee on Standards in existence a body of knowledge and a body of in Public Life, undertaken by that body at the request standards which local authorities can apply. of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. That then led to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I understand that point. I Act 2000, which set up the commission. I have always am not entirely clear as to the balance between for-profit been of the opinion that the Electoral Commission providers and not-for-profit providers but I am getting should be a regulator in equal measure of both parties some information from my officials. There are some and the electoral registration service carried out by important distinctions here, which I would like to take local authorities in England and Wales and by the back and discuss further with them because I recognise electoral management boards in Scotland. That is not that it is absolutely important that we get this right. the case at the moment, as it is skewed much more The Government’s case is that the clause provides the towards parties, but registration is so important that necessary protections without unnecessary duplication. we need to balance that out a bit. I recognise that we need to provide the reassurance to The commission itself reports to a body known as all those who have spoken in this debate that we have the Speaker’s Committee, which is made up of senior got the balance right. parliamentarians in the other place. I am not of the Incidentally, we did consult in January and February opinion that that body necessarily gives the correct 2013 and got only some 20 responses, which broke on level of challenge to the commission all the time. I also both sides. There were mixed opinions as to whether know that the Constitutional Affairs Committee has the registration regime should be removed; 45% said some role in working with it. However, the time has no and 40% yes. A majority agreed that the proposal come to discuss that and look at it carefully, and would reduce burdens; 53% said yes and 32% no. So perhaps to give it to a particular Select Committee in the answer is that it did not give us a clear set of the House of Commons to look at it. That may be the arguments as to how to respond. Constitutional Affairs Committee or the Public Accounts Again, I recognise the great concerns which have Committee. been put forward. The Government have argued When I came on to the commission I served as one consistently that removing this extra level of the of the first political commissioners. I was on the registration regime preserves necessary protections. I commission with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, am very happy to have further discussions between Sir George Reid, who was the second Presiding Officer Committee and Report to make sure that we can of the Scottish Parliament and really should be a provide those assurances before we return to this. Member of your Lordships’ House, and David Howarth, who was the Lib Dem MP for Cambridge. Clause 71 agreed. I think that we all served very honourably and David still serves on the commission. We brought a lot Clause 72: Electoral Commission: changes to facilitate of common sense to the discussion, but I sometimes efficient administration felt that there was a bit of “them and us” in the commission. We were the political people and they Debate on whether Clause 72 should stand part of the could be a bit biased—could we really be trusted? We Bill. actually worked very honourably and well together. I think that we won people over in the end. We proved that it was rubbish, but it was an issue. Having people Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab): My Lords, I will on the commission who are politicians or have a be brief in my remarks. I make it clear at the start that political understanding is important. We can bring a I am not in opposition to the clause. I am using this lot of common sense. I wanted to be involved and for debate as a device to raise a couple of issues and I that to be developed and increased. We will need a hope that the Minister will agree to meet me and review to do that. discuss them outside the Room. I am sure that he will not be able to answer these things today but I wanted I will leave it there. I wanted to raise those issues to raise these issues. and I hope that the noble Lord will agree to speak to me before Report. I entirely accept that we are doing First, I have considerable respect for the Electoral this Bill here but I wanted to raise those issues because Commission and its staff, who do some excellent next year, whichever party is in power, there are things work. I had dealings with them as a senior official of that we need to look at. the Labour Party. I was for many years the director of finance and served on the political parties panel, and 4.30 pm then I kind of jumped ship and became a commissioner. I served on the Electoral Commission for four years, Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the so I have experience on both sides on the fence. However, noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his remarks, which the time is rapidly approaching when we need to ranged much more widely than the limited proposals review the governance arrangements of the Electoral in Clause 72. Clause 72, on the whole, makes technical GC 123 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 124 changes to the governance arrangements for the Electoral had four and a half years to plan for the date. Therefore, Commission. Clause 73 makes similar technical and is there an absolute rock-solid guarantee that there modest changes to the governance arrangements for will be no chaos in any of the polling stations in this the Local Government Boundary Commission. country of the kind that occurred in 2005? As the noble Lord said, the Electoral Commission is the independent body established by Parliament and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab): My Lords, I join overseen by the Speaker’s Committee with governance my noble friend and add to what he said. My noble arrangements set out in Schedule 1 to the Political friend knows that I come from Birmingham and I was Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, known shocked by some of the behaviours I saw outside some to us with great affection as PPERA. Birmingham polling stations, to which I suspect he is At present, the Electoral Commission has to provide referring. I particularly remember a polling station in a five-year corporate plan, with the new plan having to Moseley, where large groups of men—about 20 or be prepared and submitted annually. The National 30—were outside. This was clearly intimidatory; it was Audit Office is also required to undertake annual very difficult—particularly for women—to go and value-for-money studies. The Speaker’s Committee vote. The current system is so slow to react to situations has reviewed these governance arrangements, comparing like that when they arise. This is a very serious matter: the Electoral Commission with other modest similar-sized in some parts of the country, people are not able to organisations, and has recommended the following exercise their democratic right to go to a polling changes. First, a five-year corporate plan should be station free and unfettered. produced in the first financial year of a Parliament. For some years, the Electoral Commission took the The statutory requirement to update this on an annual view that it could only take measures that applied to basis should be removed, although the Speaker’s each part of the country in an equal way. That was Committee should retain the right to request updated madness; it has been clear for a number of years that plans outside the five-year cycle. Secondly, value-for-money we have a real problem in some polling areas and we studies by the NAO should be linked to the production need a response from the Electoral Commission that of the organisation’s five-year plan and not on an recognises that. annual basis. Noble Lords will be aware that the approach that Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it would be central government take to the funding of public foolhardy to give a cast-iron guarantee that no problems bodies is through a spending review. These spending might break out. These are not purely matters for the reviews are fixed and spending is planned over a Electoral Commission; as we all know; the local police number of years. As such, the existing statutory provisions and the local electoral registration officers have clear for the Electoral Commission to provide annual updates responsibilities here as well. to their corporate plan seem excessive. In terms of removing the statutory requirements for annual value-for-money studies, the NAO has said Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In the case I mentioned, that it supports such a reduction as the current statutory there was a police van outside; I approached the police provisions are disproportionate to the size and spending van and the officer, of his own volition, went to speak power of the Electoral Commission. Clause 72 simply to this group and kind of negotiated that the numbers implements the recommendations put forward by the would come down from about 20 to three or four on Speaker’s Committee. The Government see these as either side. I applaud the fact that a police constable, sensible and proportionate changes to the governance of his own volition, was able to make his own judgment, arrangements for the Electoral Commission but that does not necessarily happen, and there is no guarantee that there will be police outside each polling The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised some wider station during the whole of the day. The other problem issues about whether it is not now time, after 14 or is that the polling officers are in the polling station in 15 years of operation of the Electoral Commission, to the school, a long way from the road where people can review the overall balance, and whether the current congregate. I accept the point he is making, which is arrangements, including, as he said, a Select Committee that it is not just down to the Electoral Commission—but as well as the Speaker’s Committee, provide sufficient the Electoral Commission has a leadership role here. oversight. That is an interesting discussion to throw out. As he rightly remarks, we will not get very far with this over the next five and a half months. But this Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, let me take House may appropriately return to this after the election that back and make sure that the Electoral Commission when we have seen how the Electoral Commission has is informed of this. I trust that the incidents were operated with its responsibilities, which are most important reported to the local authorities and the local police at in the course of and the run-up to an election campaign. the time. I am conscious from my own experience with Perhaps at that point he and I and others might talk polling stations in parts of west Yorkshire that there together about how we take such wider issues further. can be problems; although my strongest memory of the last election is of passing a polling station 10 minutes before it closed and meeting a large extended family Lord Rooker (Lab): My Lords, before we leave this coming out of the polling station after voting, having clause, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the a very sharp and loud argument as to whether each of Minister a question. I am a strong supporter of the them had voted the right way. I fear that, in this Electoral Commission, with no qualification whatever; coming election, there may be rather more of that sort but next year’s election will be the first time that it has of confusion than any of us would really like to see. GC 125 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 126

[LORD WALLACE OF SALTAIRE] (ii) to the Secretary of State; Meanwhile, I can assure the noble Lord that I will take (iii) between more than one NHS body or between one these points back and make sure that they are reported or more NHS bodies and the Secretary of State.” to the Electoral Commission. I repeat that local issues (7) In that section, in subsection (5), for “to an NHS foundation like this are very much about local support. It is for the trust” substitute “to an NHS body”.” local police, local education and the local political parties, of course, to make sure that the police and the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department electoral authorities are doing their duty. of Health (Earl Howe) (Con): My Lords, this clause makes amendments to Sections 56A, 57 and 65LA of Clause 72 agreed. the National Health Service Act 2006. These provisions are all concerned with the transfer of property liabilities Clause 73 agreed. and staff between NHS bodies. The changes proposed in the amendment simply clarify the provisions in the existing legislation to ensure that it can be used in a Amendment 87ZA seamless and efficient way. They do not create new Moved by Earl Howe policy. 87ZA: After Clause 73, insert the following new Clause— The clause is needed to remove the current uncertainty “NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts: acquisitions and over the powers of an NHS foundation trust in Section dissolutions etc 56A to acquire another NHS foundation trust or NHS (1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as trust, and to correct the omission of key powers with follows. respect to the transfer of staff and criminal liabilities (2) In section 56A (acquisitions), after subsection (4) insert— in this provision. It would also explicitly extend Monitor’s power in Section 65LA to transfer the property and “(4A) Where the regulator proposes to grant the application, it may by order make provision for the transfer of employees of B liabilities, including criminal liabilities, of an NHS to A on the grant of the application.” foundation trust dissolved following special administration. (3) After section 56A (acquisitions) insert— I am sure that it would help the Committee if I “56AA Acquisitions under section 56A: supplementary expand on those initial comments. The existing Section (1) On the grant of an application under section 56A— 56A provisions are uncertain and open to interpretation. Critically, there is no express explanation in the provision (a) any order made by the regulator under section 56A(4A) takes effect, of what happens to the acquired trust’s property and liabilities, or third party rights and obligations. As a (b) the property and liabilities of the acquired NHS foundation trust or NHS trust are transferred to the consequence of this uncertainty, NHS foundation trusts acquiring NHS foundation trust (other than rights and are unlikely to utilise the current provision for fear of liabilities which may be dealt with by order under section legal challenges. We are keen to ensure that where 56A(4A)), acquisitions are deemed to be in the best interests of (c) the acquired NHS foundation trust or NHS trust is patient care, legislation supports this approach. dissolved, and Accordingly, paragraph 1(3) of the clause inserts new (d) where the acquired trust is an NHS trust, the NHS trust Section 56AA to provide for a direct transfer of property order establishing it is revoked. and liabilities by operation of law. The grant of application (2) So far as may be necessary for the purposes of subsection would also be conclusive proof that the acquired trust (1)(b)— is dissolved, and in the case of an acquired NHS trust (a) anything done before the grant of the application by or the establishment order revoked. in relation to the acquired trust is to be treated (on and The Government are committed to ensuring that after the grant) as having been done by or in relation to staff involved in transfers from one public body to another the acquiring trust; are treated fairly and consistently, and that their rights (b) any reference in a document to the acquired trust is to be are respected. The amendment to Section 56A would read as a reference to the acquiring trust. give Monitor an additional discretionary power to (3) Anything (including legal proceedings) that, immediately make an order for the transfer of staff from the before the grant of the application, is in the process of being done by or in relation to the acquired trust may continue to be done acquired to the acquiring trust. This would ensure that afterwards by or in relation to the acquiring trust. in cases where TUPE does not apply, or where it is (4) In subsection (1)— unclear whether it does, Monitor can set out a clear (a) “liabilities” includes criminal liabilities; mechanism of transfer that specifies which of the staff are transferring and the implications of transfer. The (b) “property” includes trust property.” amendment would also apply to orders made under (4) In section 57 (sections 56 to 56B: supplementary), after Section 57 in respect of mergers and separations. subsection (3) insert— It is established Department of Health policy that “(3A) The order may include provision for the transfer of employees of the trust or trusts dissolved by the order.” criminal liabilities must be preserved on dissolution and transfer of an NHS trust or NHS foundation (5) In section 64 (orders and regulations under this Chapter)— trust, so that organisational change does not prevent (a) in subsection (4), before paragraph (c) insert— the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings. “(ba) section 56A(4A),”; New Section 56AA creates a statutory authority for (b) in subsection (4A), after “section” insert “56A(4A),”. the criminal liabilities of an acquired NHS trust or an (6) In section 65LA (trusts to be dissolved), in subsection NHS foundation trust to transfer to the acquiring (3)(b), for the words following “trust” to the end substitute “— trust. Amending Section 65LA will enable Monitor to (i) to an NHS body; implement the recommendations of a trust special GC 127 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 128 administrator. Property and liabilities, including criminal major issue. The problem is that, by so doing, the liabilities of a failed NHS foundation trust, may need Government are threatening the viability of a voluntary to transfer to more than one NHS body. Currently, register, the UK Public Health Practitioner Register, Monitor can only transfer to a single NHS foundation because it depends on the fees of those non-doctor trust, and this is not adequate. specialists for its viability. I should have thought that a As stated earlier, these changes simply clarify the voluntary register accredited by the Professional Standards provisions in existing legislation that already support Authority is just what a deregulatory approach would the NHS in taking the decisions necessary on how to lend itself to. continue to deliver high-quality patient care. I beg to Again, I do not expect the noble Earl to give me a move. response today, but I wanted to raise with him that there is considerable puzzlement that a Government 4.45 pm who brought forward this deregulatory Bill is hell-bent— for some reason that no one can understand—on Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, like the forcing a statutory approach to non-doctor public noble Earl, I make a happy, though unexpected health specialists, which will put at risk a voluntary intervention in the proceedings of this Grand Committee. register that is entirely consistent with the deregulatory I thank him for giving me advance warning that he approach that the Government are taking within the intended to move an amendment on the question of Bill. trust mergers. I certainly would not oppose the amendment, but I should like to put some points to I will ask three or four questions about the noble him. As this is being introduced at such a late stage, Earl’s amendment. It arises from the issue in Staffordshire. perhaps I could ask him about the Department of Essentially, the services that were being run by the Health’s approach to deregulation, because it is entirely Mid Staffordshire foundation trust are being transferred relevant to the amendment. to two other trusts: North Staffordshire and the Royal Wolverhampton, one a foundation trust and one an The noble Earl will know that a later clause in the NHS trust. The technical amendment that the noble Bill introduces a new duty for non-economic regulators Earl has brought forward seems eminently reasonable to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic in that context, but I wonder whether he would care to growth while exercising their regulatory functions. From reflect on the process by which that has occurred. He the list that we have been given by the Government, we will know of the trust’s special administrators, who understand that the Care Quality Commission is were appointed to deal with the problems at Mid encompassed in the list of organisations to which the Staffordshire. I was very surprised that the estimated new provisions may apply. The Opposition have asked cost of that process has been between £12 million and the CQC for its views on the clause, but we have been £15 million. Can the noble Earl confirm that and say informed that the Department of Health has told the whether he really thinks that we got value for money CQC that it was not appropriate for the CQC to from that process? respond to our query, given that it is an arm’s-length body of government. I am surprised by that. As the The second question is whether he can assure me noble Earl has frequently said to us, the CQC is an that this new amendment will not make it easier to independent body. I am surprised that the CQC even force through mergers without proper public consultation. approached the DoH for advice, and I am shocked Staffordshire health service has a bit of form recently. that the DoH should prevent CQC from giving its He will know that the clinical commissioning groups advice to parliamentarians on the Bill. I do not expect have made some very controversial decisions, including—I the noble Earl to respond to this point today, because think this was announced yesterday—the outsourcing I doubt that he could, but I ask him to respond to me of much of their commissioning responsibility. It is in due course. notable that the CCGs are very reluctant to debate or What is the Department of Health’s approach to discuss those proposals in public. We have debated deregulation? My understanding is that it is in favour, Lewisham hospital in south London, which is in a and recently told the Health Select Committee that, special administration process, and we have had some unless issues of public safety are concerned, it is not in discussion about how services in Staffordshire are to favour of extending statutory regulation to other be reorganised. I have been to a number of meetings in professions within the health service, which is entirely Staffordshire and there is real concern that a lot of consistent with what Ministers are saying in the Bill. these major changes are taking place without adequate public consultation. For instance, in relation to services The noble Earl will not be surprised that I then in Mid Staffordshire, assurances were given—it was want to ask why the department is still attempting to called the double-lock assurance—by the Secretary of require non-doctor public health specialists to be State that there would, as I understood it, be proper statutorily registered. I recently asked a Written Question public involvement and support for the changes. I am about that. I cannot for the life of me see that public not entirely sure that that has happened. health non-doctors pose any risk to public safety. That conviction has been reinforced by the evidence that the I would just like to make two further comments. As Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social I understand it, by statute, mergers have to be approved Care, which is the overarching regulator, has now by Monitor, the economic regulator for NHS foundation given to the Government, in which it confirms my trusts—and presumably, for non-foundation trusts, by view that minimal risks are posed by public health the NHS Trust Development Authority, acting on specialists. There is a very limited number of them. behalf of the Secretary of State. In the light of experience, Whether they are statutorily regulated or not is not a does the noble Earl not think that the Secretary of GC 129 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 130

[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH] Lord Hunt, by tomorrow, I will. I cannot promise that State should have to give their approval to mergers but I shall use my best endeavours to get an answer to even if they involve foundation trusts? I realise that him as quickly as I can. this amendment is based on parent legislation that The noble Lord referred to the administration process goes back further than 2006—perhaps to 2003—and at Mid Staffordshire. He is right that the cost of that we now have a much more fragmented system administration has been significant. I cannot confirm than we had then. the precise cost at this stage but it is substantial and I A trust merger is not a business arrangement; think that that serves to illustrate that the administration essentially, what usually happens is that one trust has process is not one that any Government, or indeed fallen into a great deal of trouble and has to be Monitor, should give the green light to wantonly or ill rescued. That will often have a dynamic impact on the advisedly. It is a last-resort solution and should always services to be provided; Mid Staffordshire is a good remain so. Clearly, in a challenged health economy, as case in point. Given that, should the Secretary of that has been and still is, it is not surprising that the State, because of his direct accountability to Parliament, net result of the exercise is not just a substantial bill in not have to sign off that merger? The noble Earl may terms of the trust special administration but a very know of Clive Efford’s Private Member’s Bill, which I substantial capital commitment by the Department of think is being debated in the Commons on Friday. Health to augment the facilities in the trusts concerned There is a clause in the Bill which actually says that the to ensure that the quality of care is as we would all merger of NHS trusts or foundation trusts should wish it to be. From memory, that net investment will require the consent of the Secretary of State, so I am be about £0.25 billion. Therefore, the people of that sure that this is a matter to which the department will area should feel satisfied that this process has led to a be giving consideration. result that will give them significantly enhanced facilities. My final point is about the impact of the amendment As for the noble Lord’s question about public on PFI schemes. The noble Earl has already explained consultation, this amendment has nothing to do with about the transfer of criminal liabilities, which makes the process by which a decision is reached on a trust in eminent sense, but let us say trust A is being acquired administration or the consultation requirements that by trust B. As I understand it, trust B takes on the go with it. It merely streamlines the process that takes liabilities of trust A. But what happens to the indemnity place after that final decision is taken so that it is not that the Secretary of State has made in respect of a cumbersome. PFI scheme entered into by trust B? When trust A The noble Lord asked me about the indemnity takes on trust B’s liabilities, including possibly a PFI associated with PFI agreements in relation to a trust scheme, does the Secretary of State’s indemnity also that has been taken over. My understanding is that the now apply to trust A? I understand that the Department indemnity does transfer. That is the advice that I have of Health has said that it does not and I would be received, but if I need to qualify it in any way, I will grateful for some clarity on that. correct it immediately after Committee. As regards the Secretary of State’s approval for Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble trust mergers, it is important to point out that Section Lord for his comments and questions. I shall certainly 56A provides for the acquisition by an NHS foundation write to him on the two issues that he raised: first, in trust of another FT or an NHS trust, and it confers on relation to the CQC and to extending statutory regulation the sector regulator, Monitor, the power to grant an to non-doctor public health specialists. application for an acquisition. The section was intended to enable acquisitions to take place expeditiously with Lord Rooker: I did not want to interrupt the noble a minimum level of bureaucracy. The decision to Earl but perhaps I may intervene as he has raised that undertake an acquisition, if it is between two foundation point at the beginning of his speech. I know that it will trusts, is taken by the FTs themselves with Monitor take time to write to my noble friend but in two days’ undertaking a minimal administrative function to time this Committee will be discussing the growth implement the decision as long as the set legal process duty. It would be useful to have a response before we has been followed. start that debate because there are a couple of amendments relevant to the growth duty. The Joint Committee fully 5pm supported the Government’s response on the growth In other words, the section is designed to allow the duty in January, but the committee received representations trusts in question to work with Monitor to determine from certain regulators. I do not recall whether the their future without a role for the Secretary of State CQC was one of them—I do not think that it was—but and to have the governors who represent the public there was an open discussion when we were taking and patients approving the whole process. If the target evidence about this. Therefore, it would be quite useful trust is an NHS trust as opposed to a foundation trust, to have an answer by Thursday to the specific question the support of the Secretary of State must be secured— raised by my noble friend because there would still be that is not changing. But we feel that there is merit in time to table an amendment. Sometimes it takes a few having a locally driven decision in which local people days or even weeks to get a letter, even with the best take ownership. We do not think that value would be intentions of the Minister. added by requiring the Secretary of State in the case of two foundation trusts to have a role in the process. Earl Howe: I note the request from the noble Lord, I beg to move. Lord Rooker, and I can only undertake to do my best on that front. If I can get an answer to the noble Lord, Amendment 87ZA agreed. GC 131 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 132

Clauses 74 to 78 agreed. invaluable. Birth certificates contain the father’s name and occupation and the mother’s maiden name. A Amendment 87A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled marriage certificate will record both the father’s name List. and occupation, so in theory, you could use the general registration to trace ancestors back for well over 200 years. An ancestor dying in 1837 at the start of registration Amendment 87B might well have been born in the 1750s. Moved by Baroness Scott of Needham Market Sometimes, the GRO is the only way of resolving 87B: After Clause 78, insert the following new Clause— the matter by distinguishing between individuals of “Births, marriages and death registration: historical searches the same name on census and parish records, but this (none) After section 34 of the Births and Deaths Registration valuable resource is nothing like as well used as it Act 1953, insert— could be because the only form in which it is legally “34A Historical searches allowed to be given is by ordering and paying £9.75 for (1) The Registrar General may provide a copy of an historical the full certificate. That is not the case in many jurisdictions. record held by him, which need not be a certified copy, to any In Ireland, for example, the essential information is person who makes a search and requests such a copy. provided for ¤4. In Scotland, an extract can be ordered (2) A copy provided under subsection (1) may not be used in online through the authorised provider, ScotlandsPeople place of a certified copy as proof of an entry in the register. Centre. The General Register Office issues many thousands (3) For the purposes of this section— of historic copies every year. Even at £9.75 it does not (a) an “historical record” means any entry in a register held make a profit from them. As I will explain in a by the Registrar General which is more than one moment, it would almost certainly be happy to find a hundred years old on the date on which such a request is made; less onerous way of doing this kind of historic business. It would also fit in very well with the Government’s (b) a copy of a record which is not a certified copy means a paper, electronic or other duplication as may be deregulation agenda and the drive to digitise public prescribed in regulation. services. (4) The Registrar General may charge such fees as appropriate Turning to my amendment, I recognise and say at in relation to making and delivering a copy of a record which is the outset that my limited expertise will not have not a certified copy, but such a fee shall be no more than £3.00 per produced an amendment that the Government would record.”” accept in its current form. But the fundamental point, aimed at allowing the GRO to change the regime for Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD): I rise to historic events of more than 100 years ago, is one that offer the Government an early Christmas gift, cunningly I hope the Government will take away for consideration. disguised as Amendment 87B. It is a rare jewel; a It would mean that for a much reduced fee—I have genuine piece of deregulation which no one as far as I suggested £3—the data could be sent by e-mail, rather can tell opposes, which saves money and does not cost than issued in a long-form certificate. One hundred anything. I shall explain. years simply reflects the period at which census data is In 1837, a system of civil registration of births, made public, and was the period chosen in the 2002 deaths and marriages was introduced into this country. White Paper. A different time could be chosen, or For most of the time since then, it has been a legal differentials between births, marriages and deaths requirement to register these events with the district established. registrar who issues a certificate. The framework has This issue has been discussed since 1990. A public remained largely unchanged since then. Anyone can consultation in 1999 showed overwhelming support order a copy of a certificate from the General Register for such a change. The GRO itself proposed similar Office, which is currently set at a cost of £9.25. Because changes in a 2005 regulatory reform order. Ironically I possession of a certificate does not confer identity, was a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory these certificates could be used for any purpose and Reform Committee at the time, but sadly the GRO many of us at some point or other may have used this proposed a whole package of measures rather than service to order a copy certificate. simply this specific change. Had there been this change The one group of people in this country who could only, it probably would have been successful, but really use this service much more extensively are those, unfortunately the package was considered far too like me, who are researching their family history. Should wide ranging for a regulatory reform order. noble Lords think this is a minority pursuit, one I caution the Government against putting off making website alone, Ancestry, has 2.7 million global subscribers. this modest reform until a wider package of measures The success of programmes such as, “Who Do You can be drawn up in their own Bill. The reality is that Think You Are?”, along with the relative ease of GRO reform is always unlikely to be a priority in the internet searching has led to an explosion of interest legislative programme of any new Government. The in genealogy. This will almost certainly increase this fact that the GRO has been unable to get a Bill in three year as the result of the wonderful coverage of the terms of the Labour Government and one term of the centenary of World War I. coalition Government says it all. As I said, this is a Genealogists from across the globe can trace their probing amendment only, which I hope that the ancestors back to these islands. The Irish and Scottish Government will take away and consider. I recognise Governments have been much quicker than the English that the GRO will need time to consult on changes and Welsh Governments to appreciate the great tourist and draw up the details, but this can be done by value in people looking for their roots. For genealogists, secondary legislation. The important thing is to get the information on general registration certificates is this change into this Bill. I beg to move. GC 133 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 134

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the but the draft clause seeks to amend only the Births noble Baroness very much. In listening to her, I was and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which does not remembering that I discovered a new third cousin provide for the issuing of marriage certificates. We 10 days ago when the political adviser to someone in would expect any amendment that provides for a the Government in the Emirates got in touch with me. change to the issuing of marriage certificates to be I recognised his unusual name, which happens to be included in the separate marriage legislation, which is my mother’s maiden name. In inviting him, I asked the Marriage Act 1949. In addition, the clause applies him to bring the names of his great-grandfather and the same definition of “historic” to all types of records, great-great-grandfather. He arrived with an A3 family but this is not aligned—as the noble Baroness has tree and the comment from his uncle that the missing suggested—with the systems of civil registration in bit was a group who had moved away from Somerset, place in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which operate which is where this uncommon local name comes under separate legislation. The legislation in place in from, and were alleged to have set up as fishmongers Scotland and Northern Ireland provides for records to in Leicester. That was my grandfather. I now have a be defined as historic at 100, 75 or 50 years respectively, new third cousin and quite a useful set of additions to depending on whether the information relates to a our family tree. I also have a strong desire to visit birth, marriage or death, which goes further than the Australia where the third cousins who have made proposed clause suggests. good live. They are apparently very generous to their The clause makes no changes to the information visitors. I should also say that this summer my wife available from the register office where the event was and I were in north Yorkshire looking for her family registered, meaning that while the GRO could make and we spent a very enjoyable and constructive time in historic records available more cheaply centrally, local the local history section of Stockton library. The local register offices would have to continue to provide any historians were extremely helpful and provided us information from a record, regardless of its age, in the with a number of useful bits of family history, including form of a certificate. The impact on the local some birth certificates for nothing. The local dimension registration service of introducing a legal distinction is as important as the national one. between modern and historic records needs further I can reassure the noble Baroness that officials in consideration: the amendment as it stands would the Home Office who lead on this issue will be very disadvantage local authorities, which would continue happy to meet her soon to discuss the issue further. to be legally obliged to maintain the original historic There are, however, a number of technical issues which records but would see the demand for information mean that the Government cannot accept the amendment from them decrease as customers chose a cheaper, as it stands for reasons that I will summarise. The centrally provided service. proposed new clause would enable copies of historic The Government therefore cannot accept the proposed births, deaths and marriage records aged 100 years or amendment as drafted on the grounds that a number more to be provided in formats other than a paper of aspects would prove problematic in practice. In certified copy or certificate. It allows for such copies to addition, by defining all records as “historic”at 100 years, be produced on paper, electronically or in another rather than following the precedent of Scotland and prescribed format with a stipulated cost to the customer Northern Ireland, and preventing the change to be of, applied to marriage records by failing to amend the Marriage Act 1949, the clause as it is currently drafted “no more than £3 per record”. fails overall to achieve the intended aim of opening up The amendment seeks to address restrictions laid as wide a range of records as possible to greater public out in primary legislation that currently prescribe that access. We therefore express sympathy with the aim the only way to access information from a civil registration but reservations about the clause as currently drafted; record, regardless of age, is to purchase a certificate and offer an invitation to meet and discuss further. On either from the GRO or from the register office where that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her the event was registered, at a standard cost of £9.25 or amendment. £10 respectively. While recognising that allowing historic civil registration records to be treated differently from modern records may support government objectives Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I around transparency of data and digitisation, there am grateful to the Minister and certainly look are some aspects of the clause that make it unworkable forward to having a meeting to see how we can in its current form. progress this further. I have been trying to talk to somebody about this for about five months now, so I For example, the proposed new clause limits the hope that even at this late stage, it is not too late to amount that can be charged for an historic record to bring something forward for the next stage of the Bill, £3, but further work would be needed to ensure that because this is a very important issue for people this allows for compliance with Treasury rules regarding researching family history. As I have already said, the management of public money—such as rules about there are many millions of such people. The point full cost recovery. Of course, specifying the fee cap about local offices is, of course, valid, but the fact is within the clause hinders a regular review of fee levels, that most people who order copy certificates would as any resultant changes would require further amendment do so through the website of the national GRO. That to primary legislation. particularly applies to people from abroad. We should be doing everything we can to open up our records The title of the amendment refers to, where appropriate to people resident both here and “Births, marriages and death registration”, abroad who look to us as their historic homeland. GC 135 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 136

I look forward to having meetings as soon as possible Lord Sharkey: My Lords, I move Amendment 89 and perhaps taking this further. I beg leave to and shall speak briefly to Amendments 103 and 104. withdraw the amendment. Amendment 89 deals with Clause 82 and Schedule 20. Clause 82 is very short. It contains 17 words. It Amendment 87B withdrawn. asserts that the laws listed in Schedule 20 are no longer of any practical use and it repeals or amends them all. Schedule 20 is in 10 parts and runs to more than seven 5.15 pm pages. It lists at least 84 pieces of primary legislation, seven of which are whole Acts, and eight pieces of secondary legislation. Those numbers will rise in a Schedule 19: Removal of consultation requirements moment when the Minister moves Amendments 91 and 92, which, at this late stage in the Bill, add a Amendment 88 further two pieces of secondary legislation and another three whole Acts to the list of repeals. Moved by Lord Wallace of Saltaire Schedule 20 and the Minister’s further additions 88: Schedule 19, page 195, line 33, after “(1)” insert “, if that today are a widely varied and miscellaneous collection. sub-paragraph comes into force before paragraph 123(c) of They range from apparently obvious candidates for Schedule 12 to the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014,” repeal to deeply complicated amendments. It is probably not dangerous to repeal the 22 Sections of the Town Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I have an Police Clauses Act 1847, creating as it does offences to extremely long speaking note on this. Amendment 88 do with every person who rolls or carries a cask, every is a minor and technical amendment to Paragraph 14 person who beat or shakes any carpet, every person to Schedule 19 to the Bill. It makes clear that the who keeps a pigsty and even—the politician’s favourite— repeal to a provision of the Public Audit (Wales) Act every person who flies a kite. 2004 made by that paragraph will come into force only However, most of the provisions in Schedule 20 are if a duplicated repeal of the same provision made by not like that. They are repeals of complicated sections the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 has not of Acts or of whole Acts themselves. There is even one yet commenced. The purpose of the amendment is Schedule 20 provision to be repealed which seems not legal clarity. I beg to move. to be “not of any longer of practical use”. That is Paragraph 40, which repeals Section 13 of the Defamation Amendment 88 agreed. Act 1996, which allows an individual litigant in defamation cases to waive the ban in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights on proceedings in Parliament being impeached or Schedule 19, as amended, agreed. questioned in court. That section of the Defamation Act has been much Clauses 79 to 81 agreed. discussed by your Lordships and the Commons, and I support its removal. However, this section is still of practical use. We are removing it because we think that Clause 82: Legislation no longer of practical use it is wrong, not because it is useless. It may be in the wrong place in the Bill. Amendment 89 In its report, the Joint Committee recommended that items in what was then Schedule 16 be referred to Moved by Lord Sharkey the Law Commissions for confirmation that they are 89: Clause 82, page 58, line 14, at end insert— in fact no longer of practical use. We did that because “(2) This section and paragraphs 1 to 39, 41 and 42 of we felt that: Schedule 20 may not come into force until the three conditions set “The skills, research and consultation needed to ensure that out in subsections (3) to (5) are met. Parliament, external organisations and the public can be satisfied (3) The first condition is that the Law Commission and the that a piece of legislation is genuinely obsolete strongly suggest Scottish Law Commission (“the Law Commissions”) have reported that the Law Commissions are better placed to conduct that work on whether each item of legislation to be repealed by paragraphs 1 than Government departments. Added to which, the independence to 39, 41 and 42 of Schedule 20 is, or may be, of practical use; or of the Law Commissions from Government and their track is no longer of practical use. record since 1965 reinforce the trust that Parliament places in the (4) The second condition is that the reports of the Law … Law Commission Bills including SLR Bills”. Commissions under subsection (3) have been laid before each The point here is this. Who do we trust to certify House of Parliament. that Acts or parts of Acts are genuinely no longer of (5) The third condition is that the Secretary of State has, by any practical use? Should it be the department’s assessment regulations made by statutory instrument, removed from the list agreed by a Minister, or should it be by an independent of legislation to be repealed in Schedule 20 any provisions which the Law Commissions have reported are, or may be, of practical body, such as the Law Commission, to ensure use. thoroughness of inquiry and absence of any suspicion (6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection of political bias? Or should it be Parliament itself? (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid Parliament has not thought so, for good reason. To before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. examine in exhaustive detail the possible consequences (7) Paragraph 40 of Schedule 20 comes into force on the day of repeals would overwhelm Parliament and would on which this Act is passed.” reintroduce the possibility of suspicion of political GC 137 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 138

[LORD SHARKEY] items be left to the independent review of the Law motivation. That is why Parliament delegated the job Commissions to decide whether they really are obsolete to the Law Commissions and why it approved an or not? The Joint Committee asked the Law Commission accelerated procedure for Law Commission Bills. how long it would take for it to review the legislation In the present case, as this Bill passed through the in Schedule 20. The answer was that it would probably Commons, there was no real discussion of Schedule 16, take between four and 12 months. What is the problem which is now Schedule 20. So the question resolves with waiting that long? In previous Committee sessions itself into this: is it better to accept, without evidence the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whom I am sorry not to or supporting argument and without substantive see in his place, and other noble Lords have wondered discussion, the Government’s assertion that the items whether parts of the Bill are there simply so that the in Schedule 20 are really no longer of any practical use Government can say that they have repealed so many or is it better to let the uniquely qualified and independent pieces of allegedly burdensome legislation, and that Law Commission certify that for us? The Joint Committee this can be a big number. thought that the second option was better but the The situation that we find ourselves in is this. The Government did not agree. In their response to the Government are proposing the wholesale repeal of at Joint Committee’s report, they made three points. least 84 pieces of primary legislation and seven pieces First, they noted that Governments frequently repeal of secondary legislation. If the Bill passes as it stands, legislation. However, they do not say how frequently this legislation will be repealed without any real this extends to the en-bloc repeal of over 90 items of examination by Parliament or any examination at all legislation. Secondly, they disagree on whether by the Law Commissions. The Government assert that departments have the expertise to determine whether the departments are qualified to make a proper assessment legislation is obsolete or to know the importance of of whether the candidates for appraisal are obsolete. accuracy and giving consideration to saving transitional This is an unevidenced assertion but, even if true, it or consequential provisions. Here, they are pleading does not mean that they are best qualified. We have not guilty to something that they have not been accused heard nothing to suggest that the departments’assessments of. The Joint Committee simply noted that the Law are as deep, as consultative or as rigorous as the Commission was better qualified for this task than the assessments made by the Law Commissions. departments are. The Government also make no mention Of course, any departmental assessment approved in their response of the importance of having independent by a Minister leaves the whole process open to the judgment, free from the possibility of the suspicion of suspicion of political bias. This is not an independent political bias. Thirdly, they agree that some of the assessment process; by contrast, assessment by the provisions in the then Schedule 16 are the type of Law Commission is exactly that. It is independent of repeal candidates that can be referred to the Law government and it has a statutory duty to apply the Commissions. They do not say which or how many. three tests of external expertise, impartiality and When the Joint Committee heard evidence from the independence in its SLR function. How does a Law Commission, we were impressed not only by its departmental and ministerial review pass these three obvious independence and professionalism but by its tests? willingness to take on more work. We were also struck Furthermore, the process of assessment and review by the fact that in its last trawl of government departments by the Law Commission is extremely rigorous. It involves for suggestions for repeal to be included in the forthcoming research and consultation, and it finishes in a report SLR Bill, none of the items now in Schedule 20 was and a draft Bill. The research phase tests each repeal put forward. When we asked the Government why this candidate—there may well be more than a hundred in was so, they gave two reasons. In his letter to the any repeals project, although there are fewer than that committee of 5 November 2013, Mr Clarke noted that in Schedule 20—to check whether any of it is of any the Law Commission generally brings forward an practical utility. This includes checking parliamentary SLR Bill every four years, with the last being in 2012 records, including the original debates, examining other and the next in 2016. However, as departments have public records and studying a range of legal and been asked to implement Red Tape Challenge measures historical works to provide context and background in this Parliament, he went on to say that there are a information. The research is then written up and number of such measures in Schedule 20. He did not issued as a consultation paper to people in central and say which. local government, in industry and elsewhere. This Mr Clarke also told us that the existence of legislation consultation typically goes on for up to three months, that is no longer of practical use had come to light in dealing with inquiries and responses. After the the course of mainstream departmental work and that consultation, the report and draft Bill are produced. the Bill provides the Government with an appropriate This is all very rigorous and very thorough, as it must legislative vehicle to repeal it and rationalise the statute be if we are to be certain that legislation is really no book. Neither of those points quite answers the question longer of any practical use. of why none of the Schedule 20 items was referred to However, this raises a question about departmental the Law Commission when it asked in June 2011 for assessments. Can the Minister say whether the departments proposals for repeal. followed the same process? Was there consultation The Law Commission has also received no suggestions and, if so, with whom? Are there written reports for for repeal at all from the Red Tape Challenge people, the proposed repeal candidates? If so, can we see them the Better Regulation Executive. All this raises another before Report? On the one hand, we have the question: “What’s the rush?”. Why cannot the Schedule 20 Government’s unevidenced assertion that it is safe to GC 139 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 140 repeal the legislation in Schedule 20; on the other exactly how they were certain that the legislation was hand, we have the Joint Committee’s recommendation of no practical use, they could do that because it could that these items be referred for rigorous, impartial and be arranged. independent review to the Law Commission for The point that we are making is that the Law certification that it is safe to repeal them. We know Commission has a function that Parliament trusts. that it would take the commission only between four Again, the Joint Committee was told, “Oh, they take and 12 months to do this. So, again, why the rush? too long; it’s pressure on Parliament”, but the average Why not give these pieces of legislation the kind of Law Commission Bill takes three minutes on the Floor. scrutiny Parliament set up the Law Commission to That is the reality. So we were told a porkie to start provide? The Joint Committee thought there was a with. Parliament trusts the Law Commission because strong case for doing exactly that. both Houses know exactly what the process is. After Amendment 89 proposes exactly what the Joint First Reading and Second Reading, the Bill goes to a Committee recommended. Amendment 103 accepts committee—there is a separate procedure in Parliament the repeal of Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 for looking at Law Commission Bills. That is why over by exempting it from the provisions of Amendment 89. the years both Houses have trusted Law Commission Amendment 104 makes Clause 82 and Schedule 20 Bills, and we are now deviating from that on a grand come into force in accordance with the provisions of scale. Amendment 89. I beg to move. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, in the trawl by the Law Commission for legislation that was from a Amendment 90 (to Amendment 89) not moved. bygone age and of no use and obsolete, not one of these items was offered up by a government department Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have to be brief but I for the previous Law Commission Bill. I know why; I think that I can say without contradiction that the explained at one point. When you are in a department speech that we have just heard from the noble Lord, and something comes from the Law Commission, by Lord Sharkey, was made on behalf of the Joint and large it is not given top priority. Ministers do not Committee. I cannot think of a single member who say to their Permanent Secretary, “You’ve got to find would dissent from what he said, which was based, stuff for this”. When it comes from the Cabinet Office, essentially, on our report. When the report was written, from Ministers who say, “We’ve got a Deregulation over 12 months ago now, it was of course written not Bill. We want a list of stuff for the bonfire”, Ministers just on the basis of Schedule 16, now Schedule 20. say to the Permanent Secretaries, “Get some evidence. There was also the famous list of six other clauses, Get a list”. That is how this has arisen. By and large, about which we took evidence on the basis that they there is not any pressure in the department on Law were the worst and most offensive Henry VIII clauses Commission Bills. With everything else that goes on ever put before Parliament. The Government took there, it is just not a priority. It is sad, but that is the fright at that and took them out of the Bill, so they are reality of the situation. So we end up with a political not there. The Government were quite right to do that, list that is driven by Ministers—I do not complain so they have made the right decision. about that; I am saying what the reality is. However, the committee was faced with the context There has to be a better way of doing this, simply of cutting corners on parliamentary scrutiny. We had because Parliament is not scrutinising what is in this these six clauses, which were pretty bad, and we then schedule and we cannot be absolutely certain that we got this great list of material, some of it self-evident, have got it right. I am not saying that the Law Commission that was of no practical use. We also got the Law is perfect; it is not. It made one mistake—I think that Commission in front of us. We also realised quite it was in 1965—in something that was put forward for clearly from the evidence—not just the written evidence abolition. I forget what it was about—it was allotments but what was before our own eyes—that there was a for returnees from the First World War or something dispute between the Ministers and the Law Commission. like that. Someone was thinking of using that bit of It was self-evident, from both the body language and legislation and there was one mistake. I do not think the actual language, that Ministers thought that the that that can be said about the Government. Law Commission was working too slowly—not getting on with it and not chopping enough legislation out of So we have a problem. The Law Commission does the way. But of course that is the way the commission not take up parliamentary time, but we end up having works, and it quite clearly indicated to us that the staff more parliamentary time on this Bill because of suspicion. and resources for this were pretty small beer. There is a distinct lack of parliamentary scrutiny of what is going to happen with Schedule 20—there is no question about that—and that is a worry. It is not as 5.30 pm though there is not time to deal with this. When the It is the risk of error that we are concerned about. Joint Committee was set up, it was given a specific Basically, we are assuming that at the next stage and at date by which to report to Parliament—if I recall, it Third Reading Parliament, at the request of Ministers, was 16 December last year—and that is what we did will get rid of a host of legislation without any detailed because it was what we were ordered to do by the scrutiny. That is the reality. If Ministers wanted House. It was only at the very last evidence session 84 amendments for Report stage—I think that it is that we were told by Ministers, “Oh, it’s a carry-over 84—to enable them to speak to every substantive part Bill”. We had mentioned it, and no one had ever told of the schedule and to explain to Parliament, beyond us that it was a carry-over Bill. So there was time to do what is in the notes on clauses, which are not sufficient, more work on it, yet it only came out when we had GC 141 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 142

[LORD ROOKER] experience better. Perhaps it is something for another Oliver Letwin, Michael Fallon and Ken Clarke in time. The periodic appearances of my noble friend front of us. It was a carry-over Bill but that was the Lord Rooker and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, have first time that that had been raised. Therefore, there always generated, when they are here, a much better was a bit more time to do something about it. I am not and more focused discussion in our considerations saying that it would have solved all the problems but than when they are not; they have been present a lot we could have taken a little bit more evidence. and have raised good points. It has struck me that My concern over this, as the noble Lord, Lord when we have been able to interrogate and listen to Sharkey, has explained in a much more considered what they have been saying we have learnt a lot more way than I have, is that we are cutting corners on about the process that we otherwise do. parliamentary scrutiny. We do not normally do that That leads to a broader truth that came out in all unless there is a good and urgent reason, and in this the presentations that we have had around this amendment case there is not. Ministers ought to be aware that so far; we are probably rather ill equipped in Parliament mistakes arise. Ministers are never around when they under the processes that we have to follow to do the do because it may be a year or two years afterwards deep and important thinking about some of the legislation that something pops up, so Parliament gets it in the that has gone or is currently going through the House. neck and it will be said that we were not doing our job. I absolutely take the point that was made by the noble That is my worry here. This exercise ought not to be Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend Lord Rooker repeated. It is clear that there is a problem with the that it is inefficient for Parliament to try to scrutinise Law Commission as far as the present set of Ministers line by line material which is obscure and possibly not are concerned; clearly they wanted a list. All that I can very well expressed in terms of the material we are do is thank the Government for taking out the six given and the notes. clauses that they removed from the Bill, which would I do not want to go through each of the paragraphs have made matters even worse. in Schedule 20, but I wish to share with the Committee I am still very unhappy. Most of this is obsolete, two things about the process. One is that without a which is self-evident when you read it. However, we Keeling schedule relating to the particularities of the cannot be absolutely certain because we have no Bills being amended, it is almost impossible to work independent evidence that it is of no practical use. out what they are. One simply does not have the That is the worry that we ought to place on the record. expertise or even the time to do that, and it would not be fair to ask civil servants, even if they were able to do Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it seems that we are it, to help the Opposition on this matter. For example, discussing, in an amendment to Clause 82, the whole in paragraph 1, the best I could get from the Bill subject of Schedule 20. Five or six years ago I put team—and I thank them very much for it—was a set down a Question for Written Answer, “To ask Her of summaries in which they tried to characterise what Majesty’s Government”what the oldest piece of legislation is being done by the various enactments. The first, still on the statute book was. It dated from the 14th century, which is an amendment to the Companies Act 2006 though I cannot remember what it was. Looking very simply says: quickly through the items in Schedule 20 I notice that “The provisions to be repealed were originally included in the there is nothing older than the 19th century. Why? It is Companies Act 2006 to address an anticipated transitional issue a mystery. I certainly go along with what the noble in relation to moving the rules requiring audits of some small Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Rooker, said about an charitable companies from the Companies Act to charities legislation appropriate and responsible body to delve into and … This means the provisions are no longer needed”. probe obsolete legislation. I could not agree with them You do not have to be an expert in logic to realise that more. there a bit of imaginative leap in that. I do not know what legislation is being referred to, and I have not Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, although been able to track it down, so I am taking at face value I may be being a bit previous in saying this, I think what is, I am sure, good advice that the original that I am the only Member of your Lordships’ House legislation has indeed been overtaken by changes in who so far has sat through every minute of the debates charities legislation, but I do not know that. Therefore, that we have had in Second Reading and Committee. I I am not able to scrutinise as effectively as I would like draw two conclusions from that. Today’s open and the work that has been done. discursive discussions illustrate that it is a strange These are points already well made by the noble experience to be able, in your Lordships’ House, to Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend Lord Rooker, roam so widely through these uncharted territories of and I do not want to go over them. I have a number of legislation. Some of it, as has been pointed out, goes points throughout paragraphs 1 to 42 on these matters. back a long way, though not all that far back. We have I could go through them, but it would take up the also tried to come to some conclusions about how we good will in this Committee, so I will not do it. might look at this. However, it makes the point for me that we have to There are two conclusions to draw. First, the exercise have a body that we can trust as a Parliament to certify in pre-legislative scrutiny that was done in the Bill is a that the Bills or legislation that we wish to see excised very good thing. The reports that this scrutiny generated, from the statute book are no longer of practical use. and the actions that were taken and the improvements That body has to be independent. It has to have the that were made to the Bill by that process, exemplified time to do research, it has to be able to certify to by my noble friend Lord Rooker, are things that we Parliament that it has done a full and comprehensive should bear in mind. Secondly, we need to utilise that study of the work, duly taking evidence and drawing GC 143 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 144 conclusions from work carried out in other ways, to that we are discussing now was not discussed in the provide a draft Bill to be taken forward. Otherwise, we Commons. It was not discussed by the Pre-Legislative are cutting corners, as my noble friend Lord Rooker Scrutiny Committee, as we have heard, and there has said. We simply cannot be certain that what we are been no real opportunity to call those who drafted it doing in this process is not allowing infelicities, injustices to account. A blow for better government: that is what and other things to happen in areas where it would be I am appealing for to the noble and learned Lord, wrong for Parliament to take things forward. Lord Wallace. I said I would not go through them, but I cannot resist just one more example. In paragraphs 14 and 15, The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace there are proposals to excise Sections 6 and 7 of the of Tankerness) (LD): My Lords, I thank my noble Atomic Energy Act because they are no longer of any friend Lord Sharkey for moving his amendment and use. I could quote the whole of the Explanatory Notes, allowing us to have this opportunity to discuss Clause 82 but I shall jump to the end. They state that the and Schedule 20, which provide for a number of measures define “prescribed substances” that include, legislative measures to be repealed or revoked. I am “uranium, plutonium and other substances prescribed by order grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part. I get which can be used for the production of atomic energy or the general message and I hope that I can respond to research”. the points that have been made. Then they state—I do not know how to judge this The conditions that are proposed in my noble friend’s statement—that, amendment would include the need for the Law “the United Kingdom no longer needs to search for these substances Commissions of Scotland and of England and Wales—to as it has a steady supply from politically stable countries”. report, before commencement, on whether or not the Need I go on? What sort of judgments are implied in legislation to be removed still has a practical use. The that? To whom and to what Minister has that been put amendment, as my noble friend would acknowledge, up as a submission? Which Minister has signed off in does not require the Law Commissions to undertake his or her mind that we no long require for our future this work. Rather, it indicates that it would not be energy sources for the longer term to have the right to possible to move forward with regard to the repeal or search for uranium, plutonium and other substances removal of these provisions from the statute book which we need to keep our atomic energy systems until such time as the Law Commissions had reported going because we can get them easily on the open on the legislation contained in Schedule 20. In the market from politically stable countries? Okay, Lord absence of any report from the Law Commissions, Copper, I get what you are at, but this is not sufficient the obsolete law would simply remain on the statute to make a decision of that nature. I may be extending book. to make the point, but it is typical. I hope that there is common ground in this Committee I signed up to this amendment because I thought it that it is a worthwhile objective to make the statute was the right thing to do. Having listened to the book simpler to use for practitioners and those in persuasive arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, different walks of life when they run up against the the detailed criticisms made by my noble friend law. It is better if it is easier to navigate for the end Lord Rooker and the points made by the noble Lord, users of the law. My noble friend makes the point, Lord Skelmersdale, about how neat and necessary it is which I agree with, that the Law Commissions do not to have a proper system here, it seems to me that we have a political agenda. While it is true that many of need to think very hard about this. the provisions in the schedule are a product of the Red I appeal to the Government; they would not lose Tape Challenge in the sense that they come from a this clause if they decided to accept what is proposed political origin, the purpose of this is to repeal redundant here. They could take credit for making sure that the legislation and legislation that is no longer of practical standards that we set in this Parliament are for the use. The selection of this particular obsolete legislative long term and for the good. That would be something list may have had a political element in its origin, but that we would all applaud. in the end the purpose is to ensure that redundant legislation is not on the statute book. Again, I hope that that is a politically neutral statement to make and 5.45 pm something that we can all subscribe to. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and I As my noble friend fairly observed, and as the were members of a group that met on a regular noble Lord, Lord Rooker, acknowledged, there are basis—a large and rather expert group—under the clauses that caused considerable offence to the Joint acronym BGI: the Better Government Initiative. It Committee. The Government have accepted that particular was mainly led by a number of ex-Permanent Secretaries, recommendation. Those clauses that contained future but it had distinguished members such as the noble order-making powers for pieces of legislation that Lord who were brought together because it was felt were considered to be redundant were removed. The that, in the period that did not coincide with but was argument that was made by my noble friend and by certainly coterminous with the previous Labour the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Stevenson, Government, standards of legislation preparation had would have had greater force if the Government were fallen. I remember weighty tomes being circulated still trying to defend an order-making position. That is about various processes that had to be gone through. not the case. We took into account the evidence submitted Things have got worse rather than better under the during pre-legislative scrutiny and in the Joint Committee’s coalition Government. I am sure that no individual is recommendations, and the Government removed this to blame for that, but this Bill is an example. Material power from the Bill. GC 145 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 146

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] I believe that good housekeeping of the statute The origin of this amendment is, of course, that the book is good governance. When we bring forward Joint Committee also recommended that the various legislation in the normal course of events, a Bill often items contained in Schedule 16—I think it was at that has a schedule attached to it that will have repeals. time—should be referred to the Law Commissions for They have never gone anywhere near the Law confirmation that they were indeed no longer of practical Commissions, unless it happens to be one of the Law use. As has already been alluded to by my noble Commissions Bills, which now use the fast-track friend, the Government did not agree with this procedure. It is quite usual for Bills to have a whole recommendation. However, I begin by pointing out series of amendments and repeals because they are no that one of the main criticisms of the order-making longer going to be of any use, given the new legislation power was that there was an inappropriate level of that is coming through. What we are doing here is parliamentary scrutiny. bringing together a number that one might say were not picked up at the time when other pieces of legislation This schedule, both in the form that it is in today were brought forward. Nevertheless, Parliament has and in its original form, has gone through pre-legislative been invited to accept, as we do on many other occasions, scrutiny. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that they will no longer be useful. says—that he did not think that it was an adequate or long enough opportunity—but it has had pre-legislative Although it is true that some of the pieces of scrutiny and Parliament has considered the Bill up to primary legislation contained here are repeal candidates this point, and no evidence has been brought forward for one of the Law Commissions’ Statute Law (Repeals) that the items contained within it are not redundant. Bills, I also make three particular points. The Law There is an important exception to that, which we are Commissions tend to focus their resources on certain about to debate in the upcoming group of amendments themes for each repeals Bill. If a repeal candidate does in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester not fit within the theme of a Bill, it is uncertain and Lord Trees, where there was an issue identified by whether it would be accepted by the Law Commissions those with a particular interest in dog breeding, and for inclusion. The Law Commissions confine their we as a Committee will have an opportunity to consider repeals work to primary legislation. A number of the this. paragraphs—I think that my noble friend said that there were eight—relate to secondary legislation, which As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, the report has not historically been within the purview of the and legislation that comes forward from the Law Law Commissions when they do repeals work. Although Commissions takes about three minutes of parliamentary secondary legislation can be revoked using the parent time. This—particularly these provisions—has taken Act, this Bill provides an ideal vehicle to revoke these up far more than three minutes of parliamentary time. regulations in an efficient manner. That is not the point that I wanted to make. It is not Secondly, many of the provisions contained within just that Parliament has had the opportunity; it is the schedule came out of the Red Tape Challenge. The that—and we know this through all the work that we noble Lord, Lord Rooker, clearly made the point that do in Parliament, not just in this Bill but in a whole none of these had in the past been referred to the Law host of Bills—we are informed in our debates by a Commissions. I do not think that we are running away whole host of outside bodies that are more than happy from the fact that many of them do come out of the to give us the benefit of their experience, expertise and Red Tape Challenge. However, many of the themes knowledge on these issues. were launched after the Law Commission for England The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to and Wales invited submissions from government paragraphs 14 and 15 regarding the Atomic Energy departments in June 2011 on what should be included Act 1946. In the 31 years since I was first elected as a in what was its last statute law repeals report, published Member of Parliament, I have never known the nuclear in April 2012. industry to be backward in coming forward if it thought The next repeals Bill will not be introduced until there was a problem with something that Parliament 2016, and it is my understanding that the focus of the was about to propose. There was also a reference to Law Commission’s repeals work will be on laws relating paragraph 28, omitting Section 10 of the Sea Fish to overseas territories and churches. The Government (Conservation) Act 1992, which requires that a report do not see why the removal of redundant legislation on the operation of the Act be laid before Parliament should wait when the Bill that we have before us within the period of six months beginning 1 January provides a legislative vehicle for doing so. 1997. Clearly that had to be done by 1997. Having represented for 24 years, both in the other place and in Finally, it is worth noting that government departments the Scottish Parliament, a constituency that had very are key consultees for the Law Commission in seeking strong fishing industry interests, I make the point that to make these kinds of repeals. As the Law Commission the fishing industry was never slow in coming forward for England and Wales states on its website: either. It had very good people working for it who “Sometimes it is impossible to tell whether a provision is would spot important issues. With the exception of repealable without factual information that is not readily ascertainable the amendment that we are about to come on to, in the without ‘inside’ knowledge of a Department or other organisation”. whole time that these measures have been out there—since, I know that my noble friend said that the Government I think, the summer of 2013—no interested bodies were answering a question that they were not asked have come forward and said that these pieces of legislation but it is important to make it clear that this is not still have a purpose and should be kept on the statute arbitrary work and that we have within the departments book. a considerable amount of expertise. One of the examples GC 147 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 148 that was given in, I think, the response to the Joint he wants to bring forward to addend rather than Committee’s report is in this Bill. I think that it was amend Schedule 20 before Report stage, and if he one of the other clauses which drew the short straw in gives us sufficient time, they could be looked at to see having to deal with part 1 of Schedule 6 to this Bill. It whether they would be worthy of inclusion. repeals the Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914 as part of a package of insolvency measures. Research, conducted 6pm by departmental lawyers, indicated that there was still one person who had a deed of arrangement under the Lord Sharkey: I am grateful to all the noble Lords 1914 Act, and a decision was made to include a special who have spoken and to the Minister for his reply, saving provision in paragraph 3 of Schedule 6. apart from his reply to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale in the last sentence. It is the case, despite the Minister’s The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was not here to assertions, that the items in Schedule 20 have not move his Amendment 90 but my noble friend Lord really been subject to scrutiny in any meaningful sense. Sharkey referred to paragraph 40, which relates to I agree, of course, that we have now taken up more Section 13 of the Defamation Act. I accept and than three minutes of parliamentary time by discussing acknowledge that it is not what I would call a redundant the items in Schedule 20, but we have not actually provision; it can be argued that it continues to have discussed or examined the items themselves in any legal effect. However, the position is that it was a detail. What we have discussed is whether they should non-government amendment—one that was accepted be there in the first place, which is of course not the by the Government due to a previous commitment to same thing. remove Section 13 of the Defamation Act when an ideal legislative opportunity presented itself. I think The argument that interested parties essentially would that, left to the Government’s own devices, it would have complained if they had found any faults—a kind not have appeared in Schedule 20, but that is where it of way of saying “The dog did not bark, so clearly was moved and that amendment was accepted by the these are okay”—makes me wonder, in a way, why we House authorities as the case was made that it fitted need any kind of parliamentary scrutiny or scrutiny within the scope of the Bill. That is why it finds itself by the Law Commission at all. We could just say “The here and I think that generally it is a provision that is dog has barked” or not and carry on that way. I do not much welcomed. In those circumstances, I invite my think that that would work. On waiting for interested noble friend to withdraw his amendment. dogs—or interested parties—to bark there are, of course, interested parties but the difference between them and the Law Commission is that the Law Commission is Lord Rooker: What is the Minister’s answer to his precisely not an interested party. noble friend Lord Skelmersdale? In closing, there are some questions that the Minister did not answer. Perhaps I could persuade him to write Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I do not think that to me, in particular about departmental processes, there is a perfect answer to the earliest one being in the which are at the heart of the matter, the processes that 19th century. If the purpose of this is to try to remove these proposals have gone through and how those redundant legislation, it can be redundant if it no processes in fact impact with the processes that the longer serves any useful purpose. An example is the Law Commission itself would use. It would be very Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, which is very recent— helpful to know how those compared. indeed, I remember taking part in the debates on the The real question, however, and I do not think that Bill that became that Act in the other place. But the the Minister touched on this at all, is one that I asked purpose of this provision is to remove from the statute twice, which is: “Why the rush?”. I do not understand book measures which, for example, may have expired why we have to rush this when we know that the Law or served their purpose, which have been superseded Commissions could do this in between four and by other legislation or which are simply no longer 12 months. relevant because they relate to an activity that no longer takes place. I accept that flying kites still takes Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am grateful to my place, but it takes place in a legitimate way. The fact noble friend for giving way. First, the amendment does that there was no provision identified prior to the not make any requirement on the Law Commissions 19th century I do not think in any way detracts from to do this, so there is no guarantee that it will be done the ones which have been included, which I would within the next six to 12 months. Secondly, these are certainly argue that Parliament has had a proper matters which have been out in the public domain opportunity to consider. since the summer of 2013. By the time that this Bill proceeds to Royal Assent, it will be the best part of Lord Skelmersdale: Surely the noble and learned 18 months, if not longer. I do not consider that a rush. Lord will appreciate that the statute book is far, far too long. Therefore, if you can get rid of legislation Lord Sharkey: To answer my noble and learned from between the 14th century and the 19th century, friend’s first point, I will certainly alter the amendment somebody ought to jolly well have a go at it. to make sure that the Law Commissions are required to do it in the appropriate time, and I am grateful for Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am in sympathy with that advice. I do not propose to go any further on the what my noble friend says: the statute book is far, far issue of rush because I do not think that our minds are too long. There is probably someone behind me sweating meeting on this. I meant the rush to do it without as I say this but I am sure that if he has candidates that certification, not just getting it done. That seems to me GC 149 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 150

[LORD SHARKEY] As the Committee will know, fisheries is now largely the heart of the matter. Given that we are in Grand a devolved matter for Scotland, Wales and Northern Committee, I beg leave to withdraw and may return to Ireland and the Government are working with the this at a later stage. devolved Administrations to secure legislative consent Motions to repeal these three Acts. I beg to move. Amendment 89 withdrawn. Amendment 91 agreed. Clause 82 agreed. Amendment 92 Moved by Lord Wallace of Tankerness Schedule 20: Legislation no longer of practical use 92: Schedule 20, page 201, line 10, at end insert— “Sea Fisheries Act 1868 and other fisheries legislation Amendment 91 28B The following Acts are repealed— Moved by Lord Wallace of Tankerness (a) the Sea Fisheries Act 1868, including so far as it extends outside the United Kingdom by virtue of section 70 of 91: Schedule 20, page 201, line 8, at end insert— that Act; “Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (b) the Fisheries Act 1891; 28A The following Regulations are revoked— (c) the British Fishing Boats Act 1983, including so far as it (a) the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) extends outside the United Kingdom by virtue of an Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988/1241); Order in Council under section 10 of that Act. (b) the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) 28C (1) The following amendments are made in consequence Regulations 1994 (S.I. 1994/1002).” of paragraph 28B. (2) In the Fishery Limits Act 1976, in Schedule 2, omit paragraph 7. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, Amendments 91 (3) In the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, in Schedule 6, omit and 92 add to Schedule 20, which—as we have just paragraph 24. debated—makes provision for legislation that is no (4) In the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, in Schedule 13, omit longer of practical use to be removed. I will start with paragraphs 2, 9 and 68. Amendment 91. Both the 1988 and the 1994 Highways (5) In the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1998, in Schedule 2, omit (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations paragraph 9. inserted a new Part 5A (Environmental Impact Assessments) (6) In the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, in into the Highways Act 1980. These provisions have Schedule 13, omit paragraph 67.” now been superseded by the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999, which inserted Amendment 92 agreed. a replacement Part 5A. Amendment 92 seeks to repeal the Sea Fisheries Act 1868, the Fisheries Act 1891 and the British Amendment 92A Fishing Boats Act 1983 in their entirety. The 1868 Act Moved by Lord Grantchester implemented a fisheries agreement between the United 92A: Schedule 20, page 201, line 29, leave out paragraphs 31 Kingdom and France and amended UK law on sea and 32 fisheries. Much of the Act has already been repealed and the remaining provisions relate to requirements on the carriage of fishing vessel registration documents Lord Grantchester (Lab): My Lords, I declare my and to the enforcement of those requirements. Such interest as a dairy farmer, but I no longer have a dog requirements are now set out in directly applicable and do not use a dog on the farm. Paragraphs 31 and provisions in European Union law. The Fisheries Act 32, to which these amendments refer, arise from Part 6 1891 implemented the International Declaration on of Schedule 20, “Animals and Food”. Schedule 20 is North Sea Fisheries, made by the United Kingdom entitled, and Belgium, and amended UK law on sea fisheries “Legislation no longer of practical use”. and on salmon and freshwater fisheries. Again, much These paragraphs state that under the Breeding of of the Act has already been repealed and its extant Dogs Act 1973 and the consequential Breeding and provisions relate principally to the declaration. The Sales of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, and their regulations, subject matter of the declaration is now regulated by a local authority need no longer have regard to requiring EU law, under the common fisheries policy, which is dog-breeding records to be kept when granting a dog- implemented other than under this Act. breeding licence. The British Fishing Boats Act 1983 prohibits the When introduced in the Commons stages of the fishing for and trans-shipment of sea fish by or from Bill, it was explained that these requirements, to which British fishing boats, unless those boats satisfy conditions we shall come shortly, will no longer be required relating to the nationality of the crew prescribed by because as from 6 April 2016 all dogs will need to be order. The British Fishing Boats Order 1983 requires identified with a microchip. First, however, the legislation at least 75% of the members of the crew to be British cannot be said to be no longer of practical use. The citizens or other EU nationals. The Act and the order Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2014 are no longer enforced and nationality requirements have yet to be examined in either House; I have yet to are set out instead in immigration legislation. examine the regulations in detail. Are they the silver GC 151 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 152 bullet to negate the need for the requirement to keep it be concerned about the removal of requirements of records? Can the Minister guarantee that the the Acts concerning dog breeding? Perhaps the Minister Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations will be can explain the extent of any consultation undertaken right first time, so that we do not need a period of time and its relevance in regard to my earlier remarks to determine from evidence that they are working concerning the welfare issues in the dog-breeding Acts. effectively without further adjustment? Wouldthe Minister Lastly, there is concern that a period may open up not agree that these paragraphs are being introduced between the enactment of the Bill and the operations prematurely? They give the impression that the Minister’s of the provisions on microchipping. At the very least, department was given a target of provisions to be cast the paragraphs need a guarantee that they will not aside into this Bill as a vehicle as it passed by. How become operable before the necessary databases, believed foolproof the microchipping regulations are going to to be increasing to six, are all fully tested and successful be needs to be determined before any consequential in the integration of records from microchipping. action is taken. Enforcement authorities could be left without any Secondly, the Committee can ask these questions method by which they could trace dogs, assess the because the information required to be kept by the welfare of breeding dogs or protect other dogs and provisions of the Acts already stated is not the same the public from the risk of the spread of disease or the information required to be kept on a microchip. I trafficking of illegal dogs. hasten to add that we on these Benches are greatly in Those are grave charges against the introduction of favour of the microchipping of dogs, but that is about these provisions into the Bill. I ask the Minister in his identity, whereas the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 is reply to this probing amendment to clarify that these concerned with the welfare of breeding dogs. Under paragraphs do not delete the full panoply of requirements the Act, a licensed dog breeder must ensure suitable concerning the issuing of dog-breeding licences by accommodation, exercise facilities and adequate provision local authorities. I beg to move. to prevent the spread of disease. There are also other provisions. Under the 1999 Act, accurate records must 6.15 pm be kept in the prescribed form and be available for inspection concerning the mating of dogs, number of Lord Trees (CB): My Lords, I am all for getting rid litters and so on. That information is entirely different of rules and regulations that have served no purpose from the information that will be recorded on microchips and are redundant, but when we take a scythe to the and, crucially, it is in a standard format that is convenient deep undergrowth, we risk cutting down some very for licensing authorities. By contrast, the details on a useful plants. I contend that that is happening here in microchip will be restricted to the name and address reference to Part 6 of Schedule 20, which amends the of the owner at the time of microchipping; the name Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding and Sale of the dog; and its breed, colour, gender and date of of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999. What the provision would birth. Can the Minister confirm that Paragraphs 31 do, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has explained, and 32 categorically do not affect the welfare elements is to remove a critical requirement for the licensed in the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and that the prescribed breeder to maintain records to a prescribed form with form of information will still be required? respect to the breeding of their bitches. Thirdly, the welfare of dogs is an important matter I contend that to remove this requirement is a of concern to many people and organisations. I have retrograde step at this time. What we are talking about received expressions of concern from the Advisory here is animal welfare and puppy farming. We are Council on Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding, the British witnessing a huge, unprecedented growth in the Veterinary Association and CARIAD—Care and Respect commercial breeding of dogs purely for financial gain. Includes All Dogs. The Minister’s department has In many cases, animals are kept under very inappropriate recently published updated guidance to support local conditions. This is a matter of considerable concern to authorities in the interpretation of the dog-breeding the public, to the animal welfare charities and to regulations, particularly the Breeding of Dogs Acts politicians. We had a debate on dog welfare in this 1973 and 1991 and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs House about a year ago, in which puppy farming was (Welfare) Act 1999. That has been produced in conjunction dealt with, and there was a debate in the other place with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, on this issue as recently as early September. the Kennel Club, the RSPCA and the Dogs Trust. We have laws in place to safeguard the animal Indeed, the Government commissioned the independent welfare of breeding bitches: the aforesaid Acts of 1973 inquiry on dog breeding and welfare standards by and 1999, which laid down limitations on the number Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, which also supported of litters that a bitch can be allowed to produce per those concerns. The Local Government Association year and in a lifetime, the minimum age for breeding has also written to state that it does not support the and so on. However, the Bill proposes to dismantle the paragraphs. very tools that will allow local authorities to ensure Fourthly, the Government do not appear to have that those important laws, which we all agree that we conducted consultation on the issue. Consultation is still need, are being obeyed. So the current regulations accepted as necessary for new legislative proposals, are relevant and all that removing them will do is to but does it not also need to be carried out on deregulation? provide meat and drink for unscrupulous dog breeders Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny to exploit their breeding bitches. Committee will be particularly concerned to ensure As I mentioned, this matter was debated in another that there has been adequate and meaningful consultation place on 4 September, when the Parliamentary Under- on the future microchipping statutory instrument. Will Secretary of State’s attention was drawn to this issue. GC 153 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 154

[LORD TREES] but as it is in Scotland it will not be affected by However, in summarising on that debate he made no paragraphs 31 or 32 of Schedule 20, covered by the reference to this problem but did reference the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. recommendations of the Chartered Institute of I should say at the outset, and quite properly as I Environmental Health on the sorts of conditions which am sure the Committee would agree, that the welfare should be included in any regulations. It is made quite of dogs is vital. We have been described as a nation of clear in the chartered institute’s guidance that maintaining dog lovers and we would want nothing less. I understand complete and accurate records is regarded as essential. that the provision in paragraph 31 relates, as has been The current requirements are not onerous. There is a said, to questions of the keeping of records and does simple pro forma to fill in and you keep a record every not impinge on other parts of the legislation dealing with time that the bitch breeds. To remove that will not see welfare. Paragraph 32 is consequential on paragraph 31. a surge in the gross domestic product of the United That is an important concern to the noble Lord. There Kingdom, so why imperil animal welfare for no obvious are many other provisions that seek to secure the welfare purpose? of dogs. I acknowledge from the concerns expressed, I suspect that the answer will be that these current not least in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord requirements are redundant because it is proposed to Trees, that some of these records are important for bring in mandatory microchipping in 2016. I am totally welfare. in favour of mandatory microchipping but as was As has been identified, the underlying reason for explained by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the including these paragraphs in the schedule is because microchipping regulations do not cover the areas of most of the information held on paper records will, as concern that I am expressing. Microchipping is there from April 2016, be held on a microchip database. It is to link a human being with a dog. I have looked at the also the case that any information that is not held on a draft regulations, which require no more than certain microchip database, and which a local authority considers details of the owner and certain details about the a particular licensed dog breeding establishment should dog—its colour, breed and so on. The microchipping record, can be made an additional condition of the regulations do not include any information about the licence, so there is provision if there is concern about a sire or dam of the dog in question or, if it is a bitch, particular breeding establishment. However, we recognise whether it has bred at all, how many litters it has had, that the repeal of these paragraphs is not intended to when it has had those litters and so on, so they do not commence until the microchipping is in place. The substitute for the requirements which it is proposed to relevant commencement provisions are at Clause 90(2)(n). abolish. Subsection (2) states: Removing the current requirement is opposed by “The following provisions come into force at the end of the the Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is Breeding, the Dogs Trust, the British Veterinary passed”, Association and indeed, by the Local Government and receives Royal Assent. Association. Removing the requirement will hardly Paragraphs 31, 32 and 37, the subject of the next benefit the economy and will certainly not benefit amendment, are excluded from coming into effect animal welfare, but it will benefit unscrupulous dog after two months but rather, as I read it, will come into breeders in their attempts to exploit their dogs. I force on such a date as the Secretary of State may by contend that the current regulations are relevant and statutory instrument appoint. There was concern about not redundant. I ask the Minister to reconsider. this being introduced before the microchipping provision. That will not be the case, but I can go further than that Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD): Given the noble because the Government have been aware of some of Lord’s great knowledge on this issue, can he comment the concerns and have decided to consult the key on the problem of dangerous dogs and interbreeding, stakeholders on this issue. If there is enough evidence and whether this will weaken our controls in that to support retaining the requirement for licensed dog area? breeders to keep records, the Government will not commence the repeals contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of Schedule 20. Lord Trees: It might conceivably in the sense that breeders need to record the details of the sire as well as the bitch in the prescribed form. It could have an effect Lord Grantchester: Will the Minister clarify that the on the matter raised by the noble Lord. Clearly certain Clause 31 reference to Section 4(i) refers only to the breeds are proscribed, so they would not—or should identity of any dog and that there is nothing else not—be used for breeding, and presumably would not involved, such that it entirely mirrors the provision be entered here. That may have some bearing on the that a microchip will provide? matter. The primary concern is the exploitation of bitches in general and overbreeding because of the financial advantages. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I will be told by those sitting behind me if I am getting this wrong, but my understanding is that what is required under the 1999 Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I thank the regulations, which I assume are made under the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for giving the Committee registration provisions that we are talking about, is an opportunity to consider these important matters, the name of the dog, the date of birth, the address, the and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who brings considerable breed, the description, the sale details, the weight of experience and expertise to such issues. I have a dog, the dog, the mating date, the sire details and the GC 155 Deregulation Bill[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Deregulation Bill GC 156 number in the litter. The microchipping database covers of this Act after the regulations on microchipping but all but four of these. The four it does not include are to a period of time to ascertain that this is all working the weight of the dog, the mating date, the sire details smoothly. and the number in the litter. I think that that is as full I imagine that most people have very limited an answer as I can give the noble Lord. information on any tag on a collar: perhaps just the dog’s name and a phone number. This, at least, is likely Lord Grantchester: I am very grateful to the noble to be up to date. If a dog becomes lost, then anyone and learned Lord for being so helpful. I am very who comes across the dog can ascertain the present grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, owner—should the dog still have the collar, I grant in this short debate. I levied five charges in terms of you. Members of the public will not be able to read a anxiety and concern on this legislation and I have microchip and take the initiative to reunite dog and listened carefully to what the Minister said. I think it owner, which can only increase the likelihood that will need a period of reflection. Most notably, I ask people will deliver dogs to councils. Councils will find him to provide details of the consultation exercise that it increasingly burdensome to deal with the consequences has been conducted so that we can have a look at it of this. Does the Minister’s department intend to fund before Report. Having said all that, I am very grateful fully this new burden of looking after and aiding the that the noble and learned Lord is content that the identification of dogs and tracking their owners? border is secure in respect of dogs moving across Of more significance, as I have alluded to, is the jurisdictions and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. potential gap between the successful operation of microchipping of dogs and the removal of the Amendment 92A withdrawn. requirements under paragraph 37. There should certainly be a much longer requirement for the new regulations 6.30 pm to work through the likelihood of sales of dogs as they mature than there is in the prior amendment. I very much look forward to looking at the regulations Amendment 92B concerning microchipping. I am certain that microchipping Moved by Lord Grantchester will improve the situation. However, the regulations cannot be seen to be the panacea that can allow these 92B: Schedule 20, page 202, line 12, leave out paragraph 37 present provisions to be disregarded. They should continue to operate alongside the development of Lord Grantchester: This amendment removes microchipping. I beg to move. paragraph 37 of Schedule 20 concerning the requirement for a dog to wear a collar with an identifying tag at sale under the provisions of the Breeding and Sale of Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Once again, I thank Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999. This provision is also predicated the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for moving his on the successful introduction of microchipping. Many amendment and raising an important issue. The of the points mentioned in the previous amendment amendment would have the effect of continuing to on dog breeding welfare are also relevant here concerning require licensed dog breeders to identify any dog which whether the future introduction of compulsory is sold to a licensed pet shop or Scottish rearing microchipping will necessarily be proven to render the establishment with a tag or badge. various Acts’ provisions to be no longer necessary, As has been acknowledged, the underlying reason bearing in mind the comments we have just exchanged for paragraph 37 is that from April 2016 all dogs will concerning whether the exact provisions mirror the need to be identified with a microchip and therefore microchipping possibilities. Under the Breeding and there will be no need for dogs sold from licensed dog Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, which amends and breeding establishments to pet shops, or indeed to extends the 1973 Act, a puppy may be sold directly to Scottish rearing establishments, to be identified by a a future owner or, if to a third party, only if the owner tag or badge. It is important to make clear that there possesses a pet shop licence. will still be a requirement for all dogs in public places A licensing officer can assess whether or not a to have an identifying badge. That requirement is not breeder is meeting the conditions only if the details of removed by this paragraph. It is considered appropriate the sale and the purchaser are recorded. The to retain that, even after compulsory microchipping is microchipping of breeding dogs and puppies does not introduced, because if a member of the public finds a enable checks on whether puppies have been sold by a dog loose in the street, they are not likely to have a breeder to dealers who do not have a pet shop licence. scanner in their possession to know where to return The information on a microchip, limited as it is, the dog. merely records hoped-for accuracy at the time of Because these repeals are not intended to commence implant. Thereafter, any new keeper must ensure the two months after Royal Assent, but instead not until records on the database are updated accordingly. I April 2016, when the microchipping provisions come understand—although I have not studied this—that in, the Government have decided to consult key the requirements of the microchipping regulations stakeholders on this issue, as I indicated on the previous that are shortly to be introduced will deem a dog to be amendment. If there is enough evidence to support not microchipped if these databases are not correctly retaining the requirement for licensed dog breeders to updated. Surely, the successful working of this must identify any dogs sold to pet shops or Scottish rearing be evidenced before this clause is implemented. In this establishments with a tag or badge, it would not be regard, I am not just referring to the implementation our intention to commence the repeal contained in GC 157 Deregulation Bill[LORDS] Deregulation Bill GC 158

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] that the Government will not bring any new material paragraph 37 of Schedule 20. Paragraph 37 is also forward for Schedule 20 at further stages of the omitted from the more general commencement with Bill? regard to Schedule 20. I have no doubt—indeed of course the noble Lord Lord Wallace of Tankerness: As I am not the Minister has mentioned it—that points can be made during in charge of the Bill, I am not sure I can give that that consultation about, as he indicated, the gap in commitment and am wary of doing it, having just time between microchipping becoming a requirement invited the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, perhaps to and seeing how it works in practice. Obviously, it will suggest candidates—although I did qualify that invitation also be an opportunity to have proper scrutiny of the by saying that he should give plenty of time so it could microchipping regulations, which I think he referred be properly looked at and considered. to in his earlier amendment. Again, I just repeat that there will be a consultation Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I can say that it is not our and the responses to that consultation will be weighed intention. We will take the warning. up with regard to the very specific point about the tagging badges when licensed dog breeders pass on Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am advised that it is dogs to pet shops or Scottish rearing establishments. not the Government’s intention to bring forward further In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to pieces of legislation into this. We take heed of the withdraw his amendment. warning that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has very effectively delivered.

Lord Grantchester: I am grateful to the Minister for Lord Rooker: It is not a warning; it is just the fact clarifying that dogs will still be required to wear an that it is quite clear that people inside the government identity tag and that a lot of the concerns on that machine—I do not blame them—are now looking at score can be laid to rest. I am grateful that he has what is going to be changing in the future that will further clarified, under this amendment, that consultation make legislation redundant before the action takes is proceeding with necessary stakeholders on the place. This is a very suitable vehicle for piling other introduction of these provisions. With that in mind, stuff in, which is clearly the implication of what we I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. have just heard about dog chipping. It is something that is coming in the future that will require this Amendment 92B withdrawn. change—here is a nice vehicle. I just wonder what else is around. It would be very unwise from a parliamentary scrutiny point of view. Debate on whether Schedule 20, as amended, should be agreed. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Lord’s point is well understood. Lord Rooker: I have one last, general question on Schedule 20, as amended, agreed. this, which comes as a result of listening to these last two debates. Can the Minister give a commitment Committee adjourned at 6.38 pm. WS 11 Written Statements[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Written Statements WS 12

residents are coming together to protect pubs, libraries Written Statements and leisure centres against sell off, creating neighbourhood plans to decide on new local development and deliver Tuesday 18 November 2014 local jobs and improved local services. The total number of uses of the rights has now hit 3,000, with more than 1,500 much loved buildings, assets and green spaces Department for Communities and Local listed and 1,200 neighbourhood plans well underway. Government: Recess Business On 14 November, we announced grants to six schemes Statement to help them reopen to the public or transform their existing use enabling them to provide leisure, cultural The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department and care facilities, create local jobs, and help build a for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad stronger economy. Each scheme will receive between of Wimbledon) (Con): My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary £130,000 and £440,000 funding which will pay for of State for Communities and Local Government repairs and refurbishment for the new community use, (Eric Pickles) has made the following Written Ministerial and will help provide practical case studies for other Statement. communities. I would like to update hon. Members on the main Promoting fire safety items of business undertaken by my Department since On 17 November, we launched a number of measures the House rose for the Autumn Recess. to boost the safety of e-cigarettes in response to Increasing house building and supporting the housing increasing concerns over the number of fires caused market by faulty charging units. Official statistics of housing supply released on This included new consumer guidance as part of 13 November showed that the numbers of new homes the Fire Kills campaign and Electrical Fire Safety in England has risen by 10% over the past year – the Week. In addition, the Department for Business, highest percentage increase in 12 years. Since 2010, the Innovation and Skills has commissioned a number of Government has delivered a net increase in housing local authority trading standards departments to supply of over 530,000 additional homes across England. investigate whether current e-cigarette safety information New figures also showed the numbers of repossessions is sufficient and widely available enough to consumers. are now at their lowest since records began in 2008, Commemorating the Great War thanks to the Government’s long-term economic plan; My Department continues to support events to our deficit reduction programme is keeping interest commemorate the centenary of the First World War rates down and making mortgages more affordable. to help promote united communities. Across the country, Figures published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders community groups including schools, libraries, museums anticipate repossessions falling further in 2015 and and places of worship to community centres, football 2016. clubs and pubs are active participants in commemoration On 18 November, my Department published a events researching their own local First World War consultation paper on the next step to zero carbon heritage and holding musical recitals, such as the Last homes. New homes built today are saving people Post. Ministers supported a series of events to mark around £200 on average on their energy bills compared Armistice Day, which has a particular resonance this to homes built before the 2010 General Election and year given the Great War commemorations. cutting carbon emissions. From 2016, we are going I am placing in the Library of the House copies of even further by making all new build homes zero the press notices and documents associated with these carbon, and we are now consulting on how to apply announcements. this to small house builders to ensure they continue to play their part in building much needed new homes, without them being priced out of the market. Creating jobs through Enterprise Zone Ministerial Responsibilities Enterprise Zones are playing a vital role in driving Statement forward England’s growing economy. On 12 November 2014, we announced that that the 24 Enterprise Zones have created an estimated 12,530 jobs, attracted 434 new businesses and generated over £2 billion worth of Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): My Right Honourable private investment since opening for business. friend the Minister for Cabinet Office and Paymaster The government-backed sites are providing top-class General (Francis Maude) has made the following Written fiscal incentives and world-class infrastructure, promoting Ministerial Statement: growth across a range of key industries, including the The new List of Ministerial Responsibilities has automotive, aerospace, pharmaceutical, and renewable been published today. Copies have been placed in the industry sectors – and also boosting the UK’s construction Vote Office and the Libraries of the House. Copies industry and wider supply chain. will also be sent to each Hon. Member’s office in this Empowering local people with new community rights House. On 11 November, we noted millions of people The list can also be accessed on the Cabinet Office across England are now benefiting from the Coalition website at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ Government’s community rights programme; local government-ministers-and-responsibilities WS 13 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 14

Pensions: NEST Corporation consent more difficult. The vast majority of police Statement officers behave appropriately and conscientiously, which makes it even more important to root out misconduct and malpractice and hold those responsible to account. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department I want to ensure that the systems and processes that for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con): My right deal with misconduct by police officers are robust, honourable friend The Minister for Pensions (Steve independent and transparent to the public. In July I Webb MP) has made the following Written Ministerial commissioned Major-General Chip Chapman to review Statement. the police disciplinary system. His report has been I am pleased to announce that Mr Otto Thoresen completed and I will consult on his recommendations has been appointed as the next Chair of NEST for wide ranging reform shortly. That consultation will Corporation, the body that runs the National Employment also include proposals to fundamentally reform the Savings Trust (NEST). Mr Thoresen will take up the police complaints system and further protections for appointment from 1 February 2015. police whistleblowers. NEST was established as a low-cost, occupational The consultation I am launching today focuses on pension scheme to support automatic enrolment. It is specific reforms that can be made in the short term focussed on a target market of low to moderate earners that will have a significant impact in making the and smaller employers who the market served inefficiently. current system more robust, independent and transparent Through delivery of its public service obligation, NEST until such point when more fundamental reforms can ensures that all employers have a suitable pension be implemented. arrangement through which to fulfil their automatic To improve justice, I am consulting on a power enrolment duties. for disciplinary hearing panels to remove or adjust NEST already has around 1.6 million members and the compensation payments due to chief officers on is working with over 9,000 employers. From June termination of their appointment where a disciplinary 2015, 1.2 million small employers - those with fewer finding is made against them. than 50 workers - will start to engage with automatic To introduce greater independence into the way enrolment. NEST will be critical in ensuring that these police disciplinary hearings are conducted and ensure small employers are able to access low-cost pension judgements are legally sound, I am consulting on the provision for their workers. introduction of legally-qualified chairs to conduct Mr Thoresen brings with him a wealth of knowledge police disciplinary hearings. and experience of pensions to this challenging role To strengthen protections for police whistleblowers and has a distinguished career of operating at the and ensure they can come forward with confidence, I highest level in large and complex organisations. He is am consulting on proposals to ensure whistleblowers currently Director General of the Association of British will not be subject to disciplinary action for taking the Insurers (ABI) and has held senior posts at Aegon, necessary steps to report a concern and that any Abbey Life, Royal Life Holdings and Scottish Equitable. reprisals against them will be taken seriously. He is a Trustee of Young Enterprise; an adviser to the Citizens Advice Board Edinburgh; a Governor of the Finally, to improve transparency and accountability Pensions Policy Institute; and a Trustee of Step Change, to the public and ensure that the robust response that a debt charity. His appointment as Chair demonstrates the police take to misconduct is both visible and open our commitment to recruiting people with a proven to public scrutiny, I am consulting on holding police track record and the expertise to get the job done. disciplinary hearings and appeals in public. I hope that all those with an interest in these matters will respond to the consultation. Police Reform A copy of the consultation document will be placed Statement in the Library of the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con): My rt hon Friend the Prisons: Competition and Efficiency Secretary of State for the Home Department (Theresa Statement May) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement: The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord On 22 July, I informed the House that I intended Faulks) (Con): My right honourable friend the Lord to reform elements of the police disciplinary system to Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris improve transparency and justice and to strengthen Grayling) has made the following Written Ministerial protections for police whistleblowers. Today I am Statement. launching a six week public consultation on these “In November 2012 the Government announced measures. Subject to the consultation I intend to the start of a new programme of work to drive down implement these measures before the end of this costs across prisons in order to deliver value for money Parliament. for the taxpayer, accelerate cost reductions, maximise The integrity of the men and women who work in savings and to improve outcomes without compromising the police service of England and Wales is critical to public safety. The programme included applying a new public trust in policing. Real or perceived misconduct public sector staffing benchmark that had been developed or corruption dents that trust and makes policing by by the Prison Service in competition with private WS 15 Written Statements[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Written Statements WS 16 sector bidders during Prison Competition Phase 2 and Over the last twelve months, we have continued the the competition of ancillary and through-the-gate cultural change needed in order to achieve our aims, resettlement services in public sector prisons. spanning not only families and individuals, but also This approach allows HM Prison Service to focus public services and the way the Government funds on core custodial functions, with private and third them. sector partners adding their expertise and experience As today’s progress report sets out, delivering this by delivering efficient and innovative ancillary and aim has required a complete shift in how the Government resettlement services. tackles social problems: an unrelenting focus on preventing In June 2013 we announced a competition for the problems arising in the first place; giving people the management of a range of works, maintenance and support they need to make transformational changes facilities management services in public sector prisons. to their own lives when problems arise; and spearheading The competition was formally launched in January new multi-agency, outcome-focused approaches in order 2014, and included: maintenance; works and building to address problems in the round. projects; management of prison stores; waste disposal The achievements set out in this report show how and collection; energy and environmental management; much can change in two years, and what this change cleaning; and escorting of contractors and their vehicles. means to individuals. We have made substantial progress I can today announce the outcome of the competition. against the commitments set out in the original Social After a rigorous evaluation of bids, Amey and Carillion Justice: transforming lives document, but we have not have been selected to run the services across four stopped there, and this report outlines what further geographical areas. These are: action is required and how we should keep up the Lot 1 – Amey – North East, North West, Yorkshire pressure on what we have created, which carries the and Humberside profound theme of making meaningful life changes to Lot 2 – Amey – East Midlands, West Midlands, the most vulnerable in our society. Wales By restating our commitment to transforming lives, Lot 3 – Carillion – East of England, London and continuing to drive change in government, at a Lot 4 – Carillion – South West, South Central, local level and across the voluntary sector, in how we Kent and Sussex help families and individuals in need, we will make Social Justice a reality for everyone in the United We intend to award five year contracts, with expected Kingdom. savings from these contracts in the region of £115m over that period. This represents an impressive saving Let us continue to work together to build on this for the taxpayer. We expect the new providers to start promising work. Our aim is not just about Social delivering these services on 1st June 2015, following a Justice in this Parliament; it is about Social Justice for period of mobilisation. Robust arrangements will be years to come. in place to manage the new contracts.”

Social Justice: Transforming Lives Progress Report Social Security Advisory Committee Statement Statement

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con): My right honourable friend The Secretary of State for Work The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department and Pensions (Iain Duncan Smith MP) has made the for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con): My right following Written Ministerial Statement. honourable friend the Minister for Employment (Esther In 2012, we published Social Justice: transforming McVey) has made the following Written Ministerial lives, a landmark document setting out a new vision Statement. for supporting the most disadvantaged families and Today I am launching a review of the Social Security individuals across the UK. The strategy outlined how Advisory Committee (SSAC). As part of the family breakdown, low educational attainment, Government’s continuing drive for efficiency and worklessness, problem debt, and addiction combine to effectiveness, all departments are required to review cause the entrenched poverty affecting many of our their arms length bodies at least once in every three communities, highlighting the complexity of the issues year review cycle to challenge whether the functions that many people face. they perform are still necessary and if so whether it is To meet this challenge, the strategy signalled that a still appropriate for them to be delivered in the same new approach was needed – putting early intervention way. The review of the Social Security Advisory first, whilst tackling the root causes of poverty to give Committee will look at the Committee’s functions and those experiencing disadvantage a meaningful second whether it needs to continue to exist. If the review chance. determines that the Committee should continue, it will Today, I wish to inform the House that later today I go on to examine the potential for delivering more am laying the Command Paper Social Justice: transforming effectively and efficiently and the corporate governance lives – progress report, which shows what this Government mechanisms. I will inform the House of the outcome has achieved in turning that vision into a reality, but of the review and place a copy of it in the libraries of also renews our commitment to this important agenda. both Houses when it is completed. WS 17 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 18

Ukraine This package will be funded by the Government’s Statement Conflict Pool fund (FCO, MoD and DFID). It is in direct response to a request from Swiss Federal President and OSCE Chairman-in-Office Didier Burkhalter, who The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth has written to OSCE Foreign Ministers requesting the Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con): My Right provision of people, money and equipment. Honourable Friend the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington), has made the following written Ministerial The Departmental Minute sets out the proposal to statement: gift 10 armoured vehicles and associated communications The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has today equipment worth £1,169,006 to the OSCE. The proposed laid a departmental Minute proposing a gift to Ukraine. gift will consist of the following UK sourced equipment: The United Kingdom is committed to supporting 1. 10 Armoured Vehicles (8 x LC200,2xLC105): Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.Throughout £1,120,000 the crisis that has unfolded during 2014, the Organisation 2. 10 AV Spares kits: £11,266 for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has played a crucial role in monitoring events on the 3. 10 Motorola DM4601 VHF Radio plus ground and facilitating dialogue between Ukrainian ancillaries: £4,740 and separatist factions in the east of the country. The 4. 10 Codan Envoy X1 HR Radio: £33,000 OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission has been operating in Ukraine since March 2014, and the UK has been a The proposed gift has been assessed against the strong supporter of its role, providing nearly £2 million consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing in funding and seconding a number of UK nationals Criteria. The proposed gift has been scrutinised and into the Mission. approved by a senior, cross-Whitehall Conflict Pool Approval Board, which has confirmed that it fits with The Minsk Protocol, the peace plan and ceasefire the Government’s strategic and delivery objectives. agreed between Ukraine and Russia on 5 September Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials also assessed has tasked the SMM with significant additional the project for human rights risks, using the Overseas responsibilities, notably monitoring and verifying the Security and Justice Assistance guidelines established ceasefire and monitoring the Ukraine-Russia border. by the Foreign Secretary in 2011. They concluded that The ceasefire is just about holding but with continued the risk of human rights violations arising from the outbreaks of violence, and fatalities. It is therefore project’s delivery could be successfully mitigated. vital that the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission receives the funding and equipment it needs to expand to its The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. full capacity of 500 international monitors and be If, during the period of fourteen parliamentary sitting enabled to fulfil its mandate while operating within an days beginning on the date on which this Minute was often very challenging environment. As part of a laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies package of enhanced support to the OSCE, the UK an objection by giving notice of a Parliamentary Question therefore intends to provide 10 armoured vehicles to or of a Motion relating to the Minute, or by otherwise the Mission, which have been identified as being crucial raising the matter in the House, final approval of the to allowing monitors to operate securely in the more gift will be withheld pending an examination of the volatile eastern parts of Ukraine. objection. WA 93 Written Answers[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Written Answers WA 94

are monitored according to the objectives set out in Written Answers the grant award letter in line with terms and conditions set out in the Act. ASH provides the Department with Tuesday 18 November 2014 an end of grant report for each grant. Africa Action on Smoking and Health Question Questions Asked by Lord Boateng Asked by Lord Palmer To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment To ask Her Majesty’s Government what meetings they have made of the use of European Union took place between the Department of Health and funding to promote science, technology and innovation Action on Smoking and Health in each of the last in Africa in partnership with African institutions of three years; and, for each meeting, who were the higher education. [HL2771] attendees, including job titles, and what were the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department nature, location and minutes or outcomes of each for International Development (Baroness Northover) meeting. [HL2649] (LD): an institutions are substantial recipients of EU To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much funding for promoting Science, Technology and Innovation. funding Action on Smoking and Health received Funds come from a diversity of EU funding instruments, from the Department of Health or Public Health the most significant of which are the framework programme England in each of the last five years; and on what for research and innovation, the European Development basis any funding was made available including Fund, and the Development Cooperation Instrument. performance agreements or measures. [HL2650] UK research institutions are Africa’s number one partner To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans in EU framework programme funded collaborative they have to review the funding they provide to research projects. Action on Smoking and Health. [HL2651] Armed Forces: Credit Unions Question The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con): The Department holds Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark regular meetings with ASH to monitor delivery according To ask Her Majesty’s Government when servicemen to the terms of the grant awarded under Section 64 of and servicewomen will be able to access credit the Health and Social Care Act. union facilities through payroll deduction. [HL2413] Ministers and officials meet a range of organisations on a regular basis to discuss tobacco control. Identifying The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry the notes taken at these meetings would involve a of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): I refer the noble disproportionate cost. Lord to the answer given in the House of Commons on 6 October 2014 to Question 208271. We fully Details of Ministerial meetings with external endorse existing, strong credit unions expanding their stakeholders are published quarterly in arrears on the membership to include the Armed Forces community. Gov.UK website at: As the noble Lord will be aware, when he met my https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ hon. Friend, the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare ministerial-gifts-hospitality-travel-and-external- and Veterans (Anna Soubry) on 15 October, she confirmed meetings-2014 that the facilitation of payroll deduction for Credit Details of the amounts awarded to ASH under Unions is technically possible and that our payroll Section 64 of the Health and Social Care Act are provider is engaged with officials to scope and cost below: such deductions. Further work is underway to determine the criteria for access to this facility, and to develop an Year Project name Award education campaign for our personnel so they may 2010-11 Capitalising on Smokefree: the way £220,000 make informed choices. forward. Any payroll changes need to be delivered in one of 2011-12 Supporting the Tobacco Plan for £150,000 the three releases per year of the intranet-based personnel England 2011-2012 administration system we use. It is now too late to 2012-13 Supporting the Tobacco Plan for £150,000 deliver in November 2014. March 2015 is dedicated to England 2012-2013 the new pension scheme, therefore the most likely 2013-14 Supporting the Tobacco Plan for £175,000 delivery date will be July 2015. England 2013-2014 This Answer included the following attachment: Hansard 2014-15 Supporting the Tobacco Plan for £200,000* Extract 6 October 2014 (HOC 208271 6 October 2014.doc) England 2014-2015 *Awarded but not yet paid. Asylum ASH has not received any funding from Public Question Health England. Asked by Lord Hylton The applications for grants provided under Section To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many 64 of the Health and Social Care Act are considered applications for refugee status are outstanding from individually on their own merit. Any grants awarded Syrian and Iraqi nationals; what is their estimate of WA 95 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 96

the number of outstanding applications for persons practical obstacle to departure, for example because of working age; and what is the annual cost to the the person is too sick to travel or needs time to apply United Kingdom of maintaining those applicants for the necessary travel document. The number of and their dependants. [HL2675] people who have been on section 4 support for more than 6 months is 4,395. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno Office (Lord Bates) (Con): As at the end of June 2014, the total number of outstanding asylum claims from To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the nationals of Syria is 884 and from nationals of Iraq is total amount of unspent credit which has been 646. The total number of outstanding asylum claims removed from Azure card users as a result of the from people over the age of 18 stands at 21,633. These card’s £5 carry-over limit. [HL2657] figures include both main claimants and their dependants who are waiting for either a decision on their claim or for a further review. Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con): Approximately The Home Office publishes quarterly and annual £850,000 of credit has not been used since the card statistics on the number of asylum claims that are was introduced in December 2009 for this reason. outstanding in the UK within Immigration Statistics Release. The data on nationals of Syria and Iraq that are outstanding are available in the latest release, Immigration Statistics: April – June 2014, table as.01q Broadband and table as.02q from GOV.UK on the statistics web Question pages at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ home-office/series/immigration-statistics-quarterly- Asked by Lord Blencathra release. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they In the financial year of 2013-2014, the Home Office plan to make it compulsory for internet service spent £265.2 million on asylum support. This expenditure providers to publish, as prominently as “up to” includes, but is not exclusive to, the provision of broadband speeds, a guaranteed minimum speed accommodation and cash support as well as support for their services. [HL2807] provided to unaccompanied asylum seeking children.

Asylum: Finance Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con): The Government Questions has no plans to regulate the way in which broadband Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno speeds are advertised. Ofcom, the independent regulator, has already carried out a significant amount of work To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many to improve the performance of Internet Service Providers people have been on support under section 4 of the (ISPs). Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for a period in The Voluntary Code of Practice on Broadband excess of (1) six months, (2) one year and (3) five Speeds was introduced by Ofcom in 2008 and which years. [HL2457] the majority of ISPs have now signed up to. The Code requires ISPs to make clear and accurate information The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home on the broadband services available to consumers at Office (Lord Bates): The information requested is the point of sale, including speed, so that they can shown in the following table: make an informed decision before purchasing. Since the Code was strengthened in 2010, ISPs have been Length of time people have been on Section 4 support required to give consumers broadband speeds estimates Period on support Number of People in the form of a range rather than as a midpoint 6 to 12 months 684 estimate where there was large variation in achievable 1 year to 5 years 3013 speeds. Consumers must also be allowed to leave a 5 years or more 698 contract without penalty if they receive speeds significantly below the estimate. Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno Under the Code ISPs are expected to manage To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many customers’ problems when they report that they are people for whom return is not possible have been in not receiving the speeds that they had expected to receipt of support under the Immigration and Asylum receive when they purchased the broadband service. Act 1999 for longer than six months. [HL2656] This includes the ISP investigating any technical problems and in certain circumstances offering a different broadband Lord Bates: Support is provided in some circumstances package without charging the customer the cost of to failed asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute migrating to the new package. under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act Ofcom is currently discussing with industry and 1999. consumer groups its proposals to revise the Code to Although no specific records are kept, only a small reflect significant changes in the broadband market number of people seek support because they claim since the Code’s introduction, with the increased take they are permanently unable to leave the UK. Support up of superfast packages. An updated Code is due to is provided because there is a temporary legal or be published in December. WA 97 Written Answers[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Written Answers WA 98

Climate Change long-term goals on conflict, stability and security. The Questions UK will continue to invest in upstream prevention in fragile countries to help develop strong, legitimate Asked by Lord Krebs institutions capable of managing tensions so as to To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much reduce the likelihood of instability and conflict, as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural well as being able to respond to more immediate Affairs has spent on communicating to the public developments. The new Conflict Stability and Security the future risks, opportunities and impacts of climate Fund will be a mix of Overseas Development Assistance change on the well-being and economy of the United (ODA) and non-ODA resources which will allow for a Kingdom. [HL2662] range of interventions, including the security sector reform and peace keeping support which are crucial to The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department building stability and paving the way for sustainable for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De peace. Mauley) (Con): Defra spent £8.3 million in 2013-14 Asked by Lord Chidgey under its core adapting to climate change programme. This included £1.6 million to the Environment Agency’s To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Climate Ready Support Service (CRSS) to help organisations countries are now being considered by the National across England adapt to a changing climate, through Security Council for possible interventions under targeted engagement with key sectors and their representative the Building Stability Overseas Strategy; how many bodies. Adaptation is mainstreamed across Government, of those countries are seen as posing a terrorism-related and other Defra programmes also communicate climate threat to the United Kingdom; and how many are change and impacts to their respective partners and seen as failed or failing states that might, in the sectors. Defra also participates in a DECC-led cross- future, harbour or assist internationally active Government communications group promoting unified extremists. [HL2788] and consistent messaging on climate change. Defra continues to help build the nation’s resilience to a changing climate primarily through the Lord Astor of Hever: The Government has a strong implementation of the first National Adaptation cross-departmental approach that draws on the most Programme report published last July, the implementation effective combination of defence, diplomacy, development of our Strategy for the second round of the Adaptation assistance, security and intelligence to achieve the Reporting Power and improving our understanding of National Security Council’s priorities and long-term climate risk through the second Climate Change Risk goals on conflict, stability and security. The new Conflict Assessment due in 2017. Stability and Security Fund will continue to focus on those fragile and conflict-affected countries or regions Asked by Lord Krebs where there are risks to the UK’s interests, including To ask Her Majesty’s Government which from terrorism, and where we know we can have an Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs impact. The Fund will be a mix of Overseas Development Minister has lead responsibility for communicating Assistance (ODA) and non-ODA resources which will to the public the future risks, opportunities and allow for a range of interventions, including the security impacts of climate change on the well-being and sector reform and peace keeping support which are economy of the United Kingdom. [HL2663] crucial to building stability and paving the way for sustainable peace. Lord De Mauley: Dan Rogerson, hon. Member for North Cornwall, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, is the Minister responsible for communicating information about, and adapting to, the risks, Convention on Preventing and Combating opportunities and impacts of climate change on Violence against Women and Domestic the UK. Violence Question Conflict Prevention Asked by The Lord Bishop of St Albans Questions Asked by Lord Chidgey To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to ratify the Istanbul Convention To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they now that the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and expect the National Security Council to shift the Policing Bill 2014 has received Royal Assent. focus of the Building Stability Overseas Strategy [HL2559] from promoting longer-term peace and security initiatives to pursuing more immediate interventions based on national security imperatives. [HL2787] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con): The Coalition Government The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry signed the Istanbul Convention on 8 June 2012 signalling of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): The Government its strong commitment on tackling violence against has a strong cross-departmental approach that draws women and girls. The UK already has some of the on the most effective combination of defence, diplomacy, most robust protections in the world against violence development assistance, security and intelligence to towards women and we already comply with the majority achieve the National Security Council’s priorities and of the articles to the convention. WA 99 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 100

One of the key components was the criminalisation The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools of forced marriage which has now come into force (Lord Nash) (Con): The new core maths qualification is following Royal Assent of the Anti-Social Behaviour, designed for students who have already achieved a Crime and Policing Act 2014. However government GCSE grade C and wish to continue studying maths departments and the devolved administrations continue but not necessarily at AS/A level. to rigorously examine whether we are doing everything Qualifications are already available for students necessary to be able to ratify the convention. In particular, that have not achieved a GCSE C grade in either this includes considering the extent to which we first maths or English but are not yet ready to retake their need to take extra-territorial jurisdiction in respect of GCSE. offences established in accordance with the convention. A list of 263 stepping stone qualifications for teaching from September 2014 was published on 17 July and is updated regularly. 178 of those qualifications are Cycling specifically for English, 79 for maths and 6 combined. Question Asked by Lord Laird Electoral Register To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Questions have any plans to make cycling road rules more Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark enforceable; and if not, why not. [HL2660] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what powers The Minister of State, Department for Transport local authorities possess to improve the accuracy of (Baroness Kramer) (LD): The enforcement of cycling the register of electors in their own locality.[HL2822] offences is an operational matter for individual chief To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the powers officers of police. Depending on the offence officers of an Electoral Registration Officer differ from can issue verbal warnings, fixed penalty notices or those of a local authority in the regulation of report the road user for formal prosecution. We support electors. [HL2823] any action taken by the police to deter and reduce the number of cycling offences. Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): Local authorities in Great Britain are required to appoint and fund Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), who are legally distinct Cycling: Helmets from the authority which appoints them. The role and Question powers of EROs is set out in statute. They are responsible Asked by Lord Laird for compiling and maintaining registers of electors for their areas. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Electoral registration in Northern Ireland is the have any plans to make it a legal requirement for responsibility of the Electoral Officer for Northern cyclists to wear helmets; and if not, why not. Ireland. [HL2659]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport EU Immigration: North Africa (Baroness Kramer) (LD): We have no plans to make it Questions a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets. Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno Government policy is that the cycle helmets offer a degree of protection for cyclists in the event of a fall To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support, from a cycle and some types of collisions. In line with if any, they are offering to North African governments the Highway Code rule 59, we encourage their use by to help tackle the criminal gangs trafficking people all cyclists and in particular by children. However across the Mediterranean into Europe. [HL2596] people and parents are free to choose whether to To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps follow this advice and we have no plans to legislate to they are taking to expand safe and legal channels introduce mandatory enforcement of cycle helmet wearing. for people fleeing North Africa to access sanctuary in Europe. [HL2598]

Education The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Question Office (Lord Bates) (Con): Her Majesty’s Government Asked by Lord Quirk has an extensive programme of work underway with North African partners to address the criminal activities To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to of people smugglers and human traffickers in that the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 23 October region. For example, we are working with partners in (HL2026), why students without grade C maths North and East Africa to address the maltreatment of and English whose school leaving age was raised in Eritrean migrants in the Sinai, and in March of this 2013 will have to wait until September 2015 for the year, the Home Secretary also signed an EU ‘Mobility new core maths level 3 and will be without a special Partnership’ with Tunisia, which is intended to bolster “stepping stone” qualification in English. [HL2619] cooperation with that country, including joint efforts WA 101 Written Answers[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Written Answers WA 102 to tackle illegal immigration and trafficking in human The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home beings. We have also made clear our intention to join a Office (Lord Bates) (Con): The French Interior Ministry ‘core group’ of Member States and African partners issued a correction to Associated French Press on leading the new ‘Khartoum Process’, due to be launched 5 November saying that M. Cazeneuve was in fact at a Ministerial Conference in Rome on 28 November, making reference to British “officials” and not police. which will focus on new, concrete actions to combating The UK will not be posting any British police in people smuggling and human trafficking in the Horn Calais. of Africa. We also support the EU’s proposals for sustainable protection in North and East Africa under EU Regional Development and Protection Programmes In Vitro Fertilisation (RDPPs). We intend to work with our EU partners to Question deliver them, as we have already done with the Syria EU Regional Protection and Development Programme Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool alongside our provision of £700 Million in humanitarian To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they aid. will place in the Library of the House a full copy of In the Government’s view the only sustainable response the correspondence between the Human Fertilisation to the scale of the situation in the Mediterranean is to and Embryology Authority and the authors of ensure sufficient protection is available in the region “Pregnancy derived from human nuclear transfer” and work with third country partners to combat the published in Fertility & Sterility (2003, Vol. 80, facilitators and traffickers. We do recognise there will Supplement 3). [HL2644] be some refugees for whom regional protection does not offer a viable solution, which is why the UK The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department continues to number among those offering the greatest of Health (Earl Howe) (Con): The Human Fertilisation number of resettlement places in the EU, and has and Embryology Authority has advised that neither its developed our Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme members nor its executive have been in correspondence to specifically address the needs of vulnerable migrants with the authors of the abstract referred to. fleeing the Syrian conflict.

Government Departments: Sick Leave International Organization for Migration Questions Question Asked by Lord Laird Asked by Lord Hylton To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their employees are currently on sick leave from the annual payment to the International Office for Northern Ireland Office for stress; and how that Migration. [HL2840] compares with the same period last year. [HL2802] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Lord Bates): In the 2013/14 financial year (the Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD): The Northern Ireland most recently-completed year), on 25th June 2013, the Office currently has no employees on sick leave due to Home Office paid the International Organisation for stress. There were no employees on sick leave due to Migration (IOM) £189,920.25. stress in November 2013. This was a grant payment, relating to 25% of the Asked by Lord Laird agreed budget for the 2011 Gateway programme. The IOM makes all the arrangements on the United To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Kingdom’s behalf for pre-arrival costs for the Gateway employees are currently on long-term sick leave programme, and we reimburse them in line with the from the Northern Ireland Office; and how that grant agreement. This represented the final payment compares with the same period last year. [HL2803] for that period, which was due to the IOM, and was paid after their cost reports had been audited. Baroness Randerson: The Northern Ireland Office currently has no employees on long-term sick leave. One employee was absent on long-term sick leave Iraq during November 2013. Question Asked by Lord Hylton Illegal Immigrants: France Question To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the ability of refugees and displaced Asked by Lord Condon people in Iraq to survive the coming winter; and To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their what additional international efforts are being made response to the request from the French Interior in that respect. [HL2677] Minister for British Police to be posted to Calais to assist with dissuading people from seeking to enter The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department the United Kingdom illegally by secreting themselves for International Development (Baroness Northover) in vehicles travelling to Kent ports. [HL2671] (LD): In the latest Strategic Response Plan for Iraq, WA 103 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 104 the UN estimates that 1.26 million internally displaced Lord Bates: The applicant must satisfy the Entry people are in need of assistance in order to be prepared Clearance Officer (ECO) that they meet the requirements for winter, with 800,000 people in need of immediate of the immigration rules. The immigration rules apply shelter. to all non-EU nationals. For most visit visa categories, The UK government has responded by funding there are is no requirement to have specific levels of £23 million of humanitarian assistance in Iraq. wealth or assets in order to be granted a visa. The ECO £17.5 million of the funding has gone to the UN, is required to make an overall assessment of the NGOs and the International Committee for the Red application which takes into consideration the personal Cross for projects which include winterisation assistance circumstances of the applicant, and the ability of any such as shelter kits for people living in collective sponsor to support them whilst in the UK. Affluence shelters and unfinished buildings. In addition we have is not a specific consideration. Amongst other supplied some 1,500 winterised tents and more than considerations, the ECO assess the overall genuineness 4,500 thermal blankets for various UN agencies and of the applicant, whether they are likely to leave the NGO partners to distribute across affected areas. UK at the end of their visit, whether they are able to be maintained and accommodated without recourse to working or taking public funds. In Points Based Malawi System categories (covering work and study categories) Questions and Family Migration routes (covering applications to join family in the UK), there are specified financial Asked by Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale requirements. These are set out in the immigration To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many rules, which are published at: applications for visas, broken down by month, were https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ received from citizens of Malawi in (1) 2013, and immigration-rules (2) 2014 to date; and how many of those applications Marriage were rejected. [HL2719] Questions Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con): The information requested To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they is shown in the following table. will consider making the payment of dowries by brides’ families unlawful. [HL2550] Number of Malawian visa applications from January 2013 to June To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they 2014 plan to consider introducing legislation in England Year Month Applications Refused and Wales similar to India’s Dowry Prohibition Act 2013 January 103 20 1961 so as to prohibit the giving or taking of a February 154 31 dowry, and India’s Domestic Violence Act 2005 so as to treat demanding a dowry as domestic violence. March 159 24 [HL2604] April 187 28 May 198 26 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home June 241 40 Office (Lord Bates) (Con): The Government is clear that domestic violence and abuse does not just mean July 232 24 physical violence. It can also involve coercive and August 200 33 controlling behaviour, including dowry abuse and other September 226 34 forms of financial abuse. The cross-Government definition October 170 31 of domestic violence and abuse encompasses, but is November 175 22 not limited to, psychological, physical, sexual, financial December 115 18 and emotional abuse. This definition is used by Government departments to inform policy development, 2014 January 79 10 and other agencies, such as the police, to inform the February 80 9 identification of domestic violence cases. March 83 11 We have recently consulted on strengthening the April 96 12 law around domestic violence and abuse and are May 177 16 considering our response. Our consideration will include June 256 26 whether there should be a specific offence of domestic Total 2,931 415 abuse and if so, what patterns of behaviour should constitute such abuse. The statistics provided are the latest available. Source: Mediterranean Sea Home Office Performance Reporting and Analysis Unit. Questions Asked by Lord Hylton Asked by Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions To ask Her Majesty’s Government what level of they have had or plan to have with the governments wealth or assets a citizen of Malawi has to have in of Egypt and Tunisia regarding methods of preventing order to be granted a visa to visit the United unseaworthy vessels carrying refugees and migrants Kingdom. [HL2721] leaving their shores. [HL2543] WA 105 Written Answers[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Written Answers WA 106

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Lord Bates: The decision to phase out the Mare Office (Lord Bates) (Con): On 10 October, the Justice Nostrum search and rescue arrangements in the and Home Affairs Council unanimously agreed Council Mediterranean was taken by Italy with support of all Conclusions on better managing migratory flows into EU Member States, including the UK. the EU. Those Conclusions place particular emphasis While the situation is complex, the doubling in on work with the Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan numbers attempting the crossing this year has included authorities to find ways to curtail the supply of vessels a rise in numbers from countries with no major current from Tunisia and Egypt. conflict. There is also clear evidence of the exploitation The EU and Member States are already developing of Mare Nostrum by people smugglers and traffickers a ‘Mobility Partnership’ with Tunisia. The UK signed who are sending migrants to sea without sufficient fuel the political declaration of this Partnership in March or resources to make the crossing. We have seen the 2014. This Partnership is intended to lead to concrete Italians draw closer and closer to the Libyan coast, work with Tunisia the area of migration, including with migrants in some cases using a satellite phone efforts to address the current situation in the shortly after setting sail to call the Italian Navy to Mediterranean. rescue them. We have also seen a recent trend of The EU and Member States are also seeking an migrants now flying from Turkey to North Africa in enhanced migration dialogue with Egypt, possibly order to make the sea crossing to Italy. Since Mare leading to the development of a similar ‘Mobility Nostrum began, UNHCR estimates that over 3,000 Partnership’. To date, however, Egypt has expressed migrants have died in the Mediterranean Sea in 2014, no interest in a Partnership of this kind. compared to 600 for the whole of 2013. We also hope to work with both Egypt and Tunisia The EU’s previous experience of a surge in crossings, under the new EU ‘Khartoum Process’, due to be following enhanced Frontex operations in 2008, also launched at a Ministerial Conference in Rome on suggests that a withdrawal of enhanced maritime 28 November. This new initiative will focus on combating operations may lead to a decrease in numbers attempting people smuggling and human trafficking in the Horn the crossing. On that basis, the Government believes of Africa. that the JHA Council was right to conclude that we need to pursue a different approach.

Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno Military Decorations To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actions Question they are taking to ensure that the withdrawal of search Asked by Lord Tyler and rescue services for migrants in the Mediterranean is well publicised and well understood. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they [HL2597] will award the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal retrospectively to retired members of the armed forces who served for 15 years or more. Lord Bates: We are working with EU partners and [HL2629] with international organisations, including UNHCR, on information campaigns in North and East Africa The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry as part of broader efforts under the EU’s ‘Task Force of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): Although Mediterranean’. This includes sharing our expertise in work continues to determine how to implement the this area and assisting work with diaspora communities recommendations of Sir John Holmes’ independent to dissuade migrants from risking dangerous Military Medals Review, it has already been decided Mediterranean and Saharan crossings and to counter that the Long Service and Good Conduct medal will the narrative of criminal facilitators. The Government not be awarded retrospectively to retired officers. A has also continued to make clear to EU partners our significant factor in this decision is the difficulty which view that the withdrawal of Mare Nostrum must be would be encountered in gaining access to the records accompanied by an information campaign, aimed at of all those who have left the Armed Forces when ensuring migrants in North Africa are aware of the considering eligibility. end of this operation. We have recently reminded the Italian authorities of our view on this matter. Oral Questions Question Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno Asked by Lord Avebury To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what evidence to ask the Leader of the House whether she will they base their assessment that removal of support propose to the Procedure Committee a review of for rescue operations in the Mediterranean will the system for tabling oral questions in the House deter or reduce the number of migrants attempting of Lords in respect of the requirement for members the crossing. [HL2595] to queue. [HL2628] To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what evidence they have based their assessment that the increased The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) numbers of migrants attempting a Mediterranean (Con): The process for tabling oral questions was crossing is due to the Mare Nostrum operation considered in detail in the 2012-13 session. In response rather than the worsening of conflicts in North to concerns raised about the current “first-come-first- Africa and the Middle East. [HL2599] served”system - including a concern about the requirement WA 107 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 108 to queue raised by my Noble Friend, Lady Sharples - Parliament Square the Procedure Committee proposed the introduction Question of a ballot in its place (Procedure Committee, 3rd Report, Session 2012-13). The House remitted the issue back Asked by Lord Berkeley to the Procedure Committee for further consideration To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they (HL Deb 9 Jan 2013, cols 145-172). expect the fence around Parliament Square to be That further review did not identify a clear consensus removed. [HL2827] as to whether a ballot was preferred to the “first-come- first-served”system (see Procedure Committee, 5th Report, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Session 2012-13; see also HL Deb 24 April 2013, Office (Lord Bates) (Con): The fence around Parliament cols 1406-1417). Square is the responsibility of the Greater London I know that strong views persist on both sides of Authority. the argument about this issue. I will write to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on my Noble Friend’s behalf to suggest that the matter might be Passports discussed at a future meeting of the Procedure Committee. Questions Asked by Lord Noon Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Questions United Kingdom passports have been removed during Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool the last 12 months from British citizens thought to To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to be involved in the support of ISIL and other extremist the Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under- groups in Syria and Iraq. [HL2703] Secretary of State for Public Health, Jane Ellison, on 12 September (HC Deb, col 750W), what evidence The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home would be required to predict the cohort of patients Office (Lord Bates) (Con): Persons may be refused a that may develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; British passport or may have their existing passport whether the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation withdrawn on a number of grounds, including that syndrome would be part of any such evidence base; their grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities and, if not, why not. [HL2640] is contrary to the public interest. Public interest grounds To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to include seeking to harm the UK or its allies by travelling the Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under- on a British passport to, for example, engage in terrorism- Secretary of State for Public Health, Jane Ellison, related activity. on 12 September (HC Deb, col 750W), whether From November 2013 to 11 November 2014, the data regarding the cohort of patients that may Royal Prerogative power to withdraw or refuse a British develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome as Passport has been exercised 21 times on public interest described in the journals Human Fertility (volume grounds against British citizens thought to be involved 10, issue 3, pages 183–7) or Fertility and Sterility in the support of ISIL and other extremist groups in (volume 101, issue 4, pages 967–973) were shared Syria and Iraq. with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Asked by Lord Hylton Authority (HFEA); and what assessment the HFEA To ask Her Majesty’s Government what conditions has made of those studies. [HL2690] must obtain before a person’s passport can be confiscated or revoked. [HL2778] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con): The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that, Lord Bates: The criteria for the issue, withdrawal or with regard to the Human Fertility journal article, it refusal of a British passport are set out under the has nothing to add to the answers given to the noble Royal Prerogative, which is put before Parliament Lord on 22 October 2008 (Official Report WA110), from time to time (https://www.gov.uk/government/ 9 July 2012 (Official Report, cols. WA 202-3) and speeches/the-issuing-withdrawal-or-refusal-of- 8 January 2013 (WA23). Data regarding the cohort of passports). A passport may be confiscated or revoked patients described in Fertility and Sterility (volume if a person did not or no longer meets those criteria or 101, issue 4, pages 967–973) were not shared with the if the passport is being used or suspected of being HFEA. However, the HFEA has access to the published used for purposes which may be unlawful. article. It would be for clinicians and professional bodies to Politics and Government decide on the evidence required to predict the cohort Question of patients that may develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and to treat symptoms in accordance with Asked by Lord Norton of Louth guidelines. To ask Her Majesty’s Government which of the As outlined in the answer given on 23 Jan 2013 proposals contained in the section “Political Reform” (Official Report WA217), the HFEA would refer to of The Coalition: our programme for government evidence based guidelines, produced by the National have been fully implemented, partially implemented, Institute for Health and Care Excellence, on these are in the process of being implemented or remain matters. unimplemented, respectively. [HL2653] WA 109 Written Answers[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Written Answers WA 110

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): In January 2013, the Refuges Government published The Coalition: Together in the Question National Interest, which was a mid-term review providing an update on the progress of proposals contained Asked by Lord Harrison within “The Coalition: our programme for government” including those relating to political reform. To ask Her Majesty’s Government , further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Since the publication of this document, a fair and on 31 October (HL2419), why they do not centrally decisive referendum has taken place in Scotland, legislation record the number or location of refuges in England; has been brought forward to introduce a power of and what consideration they have given to collecting recall and the Electoral Registration and Administration such records as a means to developing nationwide Act 2013 has received Royal Assent. policy. [HL2780]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department Prerogative of Mercy for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con): My Department funds Question UKRefugesOnline a UK-wide database of domestic Asked by Lord Rogan violence services which supports the national 24 hour free phone domestic violence helpline. This service To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many enables those working with victims of domestic violence times the royal prerogative of mercy has been exercised to identify appropriate services and potential refuge in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vacancies around the country so that victims can get respectively in the past five years; and of that the help they need as quickly as possible. number, how many, if any, in each of the countries In terms of government records, such information have been without consultation with the relevant has never been centrally held. Refuges are not police authorities. [HL2637] commissioned at a national level, and are generally either provided by local authorities or by independent voluntary sector organisations. To start recording the The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord number and location would involve creating a new Faulks) (Con): The exercise of the Royal Prerogative of monitoring and data reporting regime on local Mercy may currently take one of three forms: government. It is the broader policy of the Coalition Government to try to reduce the burden of data i) The grant of a Free Pardon; reporting on local government, as it costs taxpayers’ ii) The grant of a conditional Pardon; money and diverts resources away from frontline services. iii) Remission of all or part of a penalty by either More broadly, this Government has secured £6.5 billion a) a pledge of public faith, which most commonly investment to help vulnerable people through housing occurs when an offender’s release dates are incorrectly related support. This forms a key element of refuge calculated or b) for meritorious conduct, such as funding through local authority commissioned services. saving the life of another offender/member of staff We have also allocated £40 million of funding for or coming to the aid of a member of staff. specialist local domestic and sexual violence support By Constitutional convention, the Lord Chancellor services until 2015. This funding is used to part-fund and Secretary of State for Justice (in succession to the 54 multi-agency risk assessment conference co-ordinators Home Secretary) is responsible, in England and Wales and 144 independent domestic violence advisers. We (and the Channel Islands), for recommending to Her have piloted and rolled out Clare’s Law and domestic Majesty the Queen the exercise of the prerogative of violence protection orders; extended the definition of mercy to grant a Royal Pardon. In Northern Ireland domestic abuse to cover controlling behaviour and the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State for teenage relationships; run two successful campaigns to Northern Ireland for reserved matters and the Justice challenge perceptions of abuse; and placed Domestic Minister for Northern Ireland for devolved matters, Homicide Reviews on a statutory footing to make sure and in Scotland it is devolved to the First Minister. lessons are learned from individual tragedies. The Secretary of State for Defence also has the We are keeping this matter under review, and are responsibility in relation to members of the armed keen to support best practice and greater joint working. forces. In the past five years, only two free pardons were granted by Her Majesty the Queen in England in 2009 and 2014 respectively. Rights of Accused With regard to Remission Pardons the Royal Question Prerogative of Mercy has not been exercised on this Asked by Lord Beecham basis. However, for England & Wales no records are held for the period prior to 1 February 2013. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they In respect of the two free pardons that have been intend to investigate allegations that the security issued, the Police Authority was consulted in one of services or other government agencies have accessed these decisions while the other pardon was granted client-lawyer communications, in breach of legal posthumously and the Police Authority was not consulted. privilege. [HL2745] WA 111 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 112

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department Office (Lord Bates) (Con): There are strict additional for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De safeguards which apply when there is a possibility that Mauley) (Con): Since April 2014 there have been no interception or intrusive surveillance may obtain legally reductions in the baseline funding for science at RBG privileged material. These are set out in the Interception Kew. of Communications, Property Interference and Covert RBG Kew has a well-deserved international reputation Surveillance codes of practice. and is widely respected for its world-leading collections- Agencies are already required to notify the Interception based science. RBG Kew is developing a new science of Communications Commissioner or Surveillance strategy to enhance its role further and the results of Commissioner (for intrusive surveillance) in cases where this should be publicly available in early 2015. The legally privileged material has been or is likely to be Board of Trustees will need to ensure any new approach obtained and they must make all material available for is affordable within the RBG Kew budget. They will inspection by the Commissioners. announce their proposals shortly. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is able to consider The Government is involved in discussions with cases where an individual believes that they have been RBG Kew to ensure that any changes are affordable subject to unlawful interception or use of surveillance and RBG Kew’s scientific standing is maintained. powers. River Mersey: Wrecks Question Teachers: Recruitment Question Asked by Lord Fearn Asked by Lord Blencathra To ask Her Majesty’s Government which shipwrecks are known to exist in the River Mersey and its To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they estuary taking in the beaches of Formby, Ainsdale, have any plans to accelerate the Teach First programme Birkdale and Southport. [HL2832] so that all teachers are recruited by that method by Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con): There are a total of 2020. [HL2805] 1,141 wreck records in the River Mersey geographical box bounded to the west by the Wirral, to the east by The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Widnes, to the north by Southport, and to the south Schools (Lord Nash) (Con): Teach First is a charity by Ellesmere Port. The majority of these will be part-funded by the Government to raise levels of pupil documented wreck events for which no archaeology attainment in schools facing challenging circumstances. exists or which have only been tentatively identified Teach First’s mission is to recruit high-performing with archaeology. There are 890 records in this category. graduates into schools with significant levels of economic The earliest recorded wreck in this area dates from 1246. deprivation and low levels of educational performance. The remaining 251 records comprise wreck sites, The Government has allocated 2,000 training places including nine recorded hulk assemblages in riverbank to Teach First for 2015/16, a 33% increase on its or estuarine contexts (one or more vessels abandoned allocation for 2014/15. This reflects the importance in an unseaworthy condition, sometimes for environmental the Government places on Teach First’s contribution, purposes). Wreck sites may be positively identified, and will ensure that Teach First operates in all regions tentatively identified with a possible relation to a of the country, including in rural and coastal areas. It documented wreck event, or not identified at all. would not, however, be consistent with Teach First’s The majority of wreck sites will have been dispersed. mission or scale of operation for it to train all of the The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (MDHB) was approximately 36,000 trainees, including at undergraduate active in the River Mersey and Liverpool Bay in the level, required annually to meet the needs of schools dispersal of wrecks from the mid-19th century onwards, of all types in all parts of the country. typically flattening them level with the river- or seabed, and many more were dismantled in situ where they stranded. English Heritage wreck records do not contain Tobacco the dispersal data for every vessel. Question The best source of dispersal information would be Asked by Lord Palmer the MDHB records held at Merseyside Maritime Museum. Further information about specific shipwrecks To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the on the River Mersey and its estuary can be found on legal status in United Kingdom law of the Framework the English Heritage PastScape webpage: http:// Convention on Tobacco Control Protocol and the www.pastscape.org/ Local Government Declaration on Tobacco Control. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew [HL2652] Question The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department Asked by Baroness Tonge of Health (Earl Howe) (Con): The World Health Organization To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) have taken place between the relevant government is an international treaty that the United Kingdom departments concerning the recent cuts in scientific signed on 16 June 2003, ratified on 16 December 2004 research at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. and which entered into force for the UK on 16 March [HL2707] 2005. The UK has therefore consented to be bound WA 113 Written Answers[18 NOVEMBER 2014] Written Answers WA 114 under international law by the rights and obligations The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales set out in the FCTC. More information on the FCTC, Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD): Welfare reform is a including the text of the treaty is at on the web at: devolved matter, and it is for the parties in the Northern www.who.int/fctc Ireland Executive to find a resolution on these issues. The UK Government continues to strongly encourage The Local Government Declaration on Tobacco the parties to implement welfare reform. Control is an initiative of the Smokefree Action Coalition. Local councils are invited to voluntarily sign the Declaration, as “a statement of a council’s commitment West Africa to ensure tobacco control is part of mainstream Question public health work and commits councils to taking Asked by Lord Empey comprehensive action to address the harm from smoking”. More information on the Declaration is on the web at: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial www.smokefreeaction.org.uk/declaration contributions or pledges of financial contributions have been made by the European Union to assist with the fight against the ebola outbreak in West Tobacco: Packaging Africa; and what has been the contribution of each Questions member state of the European Union. [HL2569] Asked by Lord Palmer The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Northover) To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they (LD): The UK is leading the international response to will place in the Library of the House a copy of the Ebola in Sierra Leone and has committed £230 million assessment undertaken by HM Revenue and Customs to help fight the disease. during the recent consultation of the potential effect The European Council, the European Commission of standardised packaging on the illicit tobacco and its member states pledged a total of ¤1 billion to market. [HL2647] the Ebola Response. According to the European To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Commission, as of 28 October the EU and its Member they will place in the Library of the House any States had pledged ¤911 million. This includes ¤100 million correspondence between the Home Office and from France, ¤107 million from Germany, ¤53 million Department of Health regarding standardised from Sweden and ¤46.2 million from Italy. Adding to packaging of tobacco products since 2011; and the Commission’s further pledge of ¤280 million on what were the contents of that correspondence. 6 November for Ebola research, half-funded by the [HL2648] private sector, this takes the current total to well over ¤1 billion. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con): The Government continues Wind Power: Planning Permission to carefully consider all issues relevant to the introduction Question of standardised packaging of tobacco products. Asked by Lord Avebury: The Department currently has no plans to place this information into the Library. Releasing this To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to information at the present time would undermine the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Ministers and officials’ capacity for consideration and on 5 November (HL2193), about planning applications debate, which is required for proper deliberation of for land-based wind turbines, how many planning this developing policy. applications were called in for decision by the Secretary of State in the last 12 months and how they were disposed of in each case. [HL2668]

Welfare State: Northern Ireland The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department Question for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad Asked by Lord Empey of Wimbledon): In the last 12 months three planning applications for land based wind turbine development To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to have been called in for determination by the Secretary the Written Answer by Baroness Randerson on of State for Communities and Local Government. 11 November (HL2678), whether they intend to Following call in, two of the applications were withdrawn legislate to provide for welfare reform in Northern and a public inquiry on the third is due in early 2015. Ireland. All three followed requests by local or neighbouring [HL2843] Members of Parliament to call in the applications.

Tuesday 18 November 2014

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No. Col. No. Department for Communities and Local Government: Prisons: Competition and Efficiency...... 14 Recess Business...... 11 Social Justice: Transforming Lives Progress Report ...... 15 Ministerial Responsibilities...... 12

Pensions: NEST Corporation ...... 13 Social Security Advisory Committee ...... 16

Police Reform ...... 13 Ukraine ...... 17

Tuesday 18 November 2014

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. Action on Smoking and Health ...... 93 Malawi...... 103

Africa ...... 94 Marriage...... 104

Armed Forces: Credit Unions...... 94 Mediterranean Sea...... 104

Asylum ...... 94 Military Decorations ...... 106

Asylum: Finance...... 95 Oral Questions...... 106

Broadband...... 96 Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome ...... 107

Climate Change ...... 97 Parliament Square ...... 108

Conflict Prevention...... 97 Passports ...... 108

Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Politics and Government...... 108 against Women and Domestic Violence ...... 98 Prerogative of Mercy ...... 109 Cycling ...... 99 Refuges ...... 110 Cycling: Helmets...... 99 Rights of Accused ...... 110 Education ...... 99 River Mersey: Wrecks...... 111 Electoral Register...... 100 Royal Botanic Gardens Kew...... 111 EU Immigration: North Africa...... 100 Teachers: Recruitment ...... 112 Government Departments: Sick Leave...... 101 Tobacco ...... 112

Illegal Immigrants: France...... 101 Tobacco: Packaging ...... 113

In Vitro Fertilisation ...... 102 Welfare State: Northern Ireland...... 113

International Organization for Migration ...... 102 West Africa ...... 114

Iraq...... 102 Wind Power: Planning Permission ...... 114 NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. [HL2413] ...... 94 [HL2543] ...... 104

[HL2457] ...... 95 [HL2550] ...... 104 Col. No. Col. No. [HL2559] ...... 98 [HL2663] ...... 97

[HL2569] ...... 114 [HL2668] ...... 114

[HL2595] ...... 105 [HL2671] ...... 101

[HL2596] ...... 100 [HL2675] ...... 95

[HL2597] ...... 105 [HL2677] ...... 102

[HL2598] ...... 100 [HL2690] ...... 107

[HL2599] ...... 105 [HL2703] ...... 108

[HL2604] ...... 104 [HL2707] ...... 111

[HL2619] ...... 99 [HL2719] ...... 103

[HL2628] ...... 106 [HL2721] ...... 103

[HL2629] ...... 106 [HL2745] ...... 110

[HL2637] ...... 109 [HL2771] ...... 94

[HL2640] ...... 107 [HL2778] ...... 108

[HL2644] ...... 102 [HL2780] ...... 110

[HL2647] ...... 113 [HL2787] ...... 97

[HL2648] ...... 113 [HL2788] ...... 98

[HL2649] ...... 93 [HL2802] ...... 101

[HL2650] ...... 93 [HL2803] ...... 101

[HL2651] ...... 93 [HL2805] ...... 112

[HL2652] ...... 112 [HL2807] ...... 96

[HL2653] ...... 108 [HL2822] ...... 100

[HL2656] ...... 95 [HL2823] ...... 100

[HL2657] ...... 96 [HL2827] ...... 108

[HL2659] ...... 99 [HL2832] ...... 111

[HL2660] ...... 99 [HL2840] ...... 102

[HL2662] ...... 97 [HL2843] ...... 113 Volume 757 Tuesday No. 58 18 November 2014

CONTENTS

Tuesday 18 November 2014 Questions Local Authorities: Funding...... 367 Strategic Defence and Security Review...... 369 Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ...... 371 Adoption...... 374 Childcare Payments Bill First Reading ...... 376 Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill Committee...... 377 Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Conversion of Civil Partnership) Regulations 2014 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) and Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2014 Consular Marriages and Marriages under Foreign Law (No. 2) Order 2014 Motions to Approve...... 430 Grand Committee Deregulation Bill Committee (7th Day)...... GC 107 Written Statements...... WS 11 Written Answers...... WA 9 3