Vol. 727 Tuesday No. 147 10 May 2011

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Questions Health: Cancer Arts: Local Provision Children: Adoption Bahrain Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Nitrous Oxide) Regulations 2011 Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010 (Permanent Effect) Order 2011 Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents for Interceptions) Regulations 2011 Representation of the People (Electoral Registration Data Schemes) Regulations 2011 Electoral Registration Data Schemes Order 2011 Taxation of Equitable Life (Payments) Order 2011 Motions to Refer to Grand Committee Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Report (1st day) Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 Motion of Regret Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 Motion to Annul Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 Motion of Regret Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Report (1st day) (Continued)

Grand Committee Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) (Amendment) Order 2011 Libya (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011 Considered in Grand Committee

Written Statements Written Answers For column numbers see back page

£3·50 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/index/110510.html

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

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

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2011, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; email: [email protected] 767 Health: Cancer[10 MAY 2011] Health: Cancer 768

much else is available, because radiotherapy is generally House of Lords not terribly helpful in renal cell carcinoma and other cancers of the kidney. The National Institute for Health Tuesday, 10 May 2011. and Clinical Excellence has to look, with these often quite expensive drugs, at how much benefit is being 2.30 pm achieved for the cost of the drug. It is not an easy decision, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Davies, Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich. raised the question of some non-approved drugs. Is the Minister satisfied about the judgments being made Health: Cancer by NICE about the benefit as against the cost? They Question are difficult judgments, but is he satisfied with the judgments being made? 2.37 pm Earl Howe: I am grateful to my noble friend. He is Asked By Lord Davies of Coity absolutely right; these are very difficult decisions to To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps make. NICE issues final guidance on the use of a drug they are taking to improve outcomes for kidney only after very careful consideration of the evidence cancer patients. and wide consultation with stakeholders. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and, I am sure, my noble friend will be aware that one particular drug has been refused The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, or not recommended by NICE. However, we have Department of Health (Earl Howe): My Lords, our established the cancer drugs fund, which will enable cancer strategy sets out a range of actions to improve individual clinicians on a patient-by-patient basis to outcomes for all cancer patients. It shows how we apply to access drugs even though they have not been intend to tackle preventable cancer incidence, improve recommended by NICE. the quality and efficiency of cancer services and deliver improved outcomes. We are providing £450 million to achieve earlier diagnosis of cancer, and we are working Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the with a number of rarer cancer charities to discuss Minister look at the problem of neuroblastoma, which current barriers to early diagnosis of rarer cancers and is an aggressive type of child cancer? I have to declare possible solutions. an interest as I had a small cousin who had his kidney removed at five with a tumour. He had to go to America for treatment. Will the Minister ensure that Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I thank the Minister the UK, which does not have a good survival rate for for that Answer. Is he aware that each year more than these children, looks with America at the research 8,000 people in the United Kingdom learn that they needed for them? There are only about 100 a year in have kidney cancer? That is approximately 22 people a the UK who have neuroblastoma. day. Is he aware, too, that some of the treatment options contained in the UK guidelines for the systemic treatment of renal cell carcinoma have not been approved Earl Howe: The noble Baroness raises an important by NICE? Finally, will the Minister meet the James issue, because these conditions are devastating even Whale Fund for Kidney Cancer and leading clinicians though they affect only a comparatively small number. to explore methods and systems to improve the diagnosis There is a good deal of research going on into cancer, of kidney cancer at the early stage? some of it funded by my department. I do not have details of whether that condition is the focus of any such programme but I will take away her concern and Earl Howe: My Lords, I pay tribute, first of all, to write to her if I have further information. the James Whale Fund for Kidney Cancer, which is an organisation that I know quite well, as the noble Lord is aware. It is doing tremendous work, not least in the Baroness Thornton: My Lords, today the Cancer field of specialist cancer nursing but also as regards its Campaigning Group, which represents dozens of cancer care line, on which I congratulate it. The noble Lord organisations including Kidney Cancer UK, has launched asked whether I would agree to meet the fund. For my a survey of GPs in which 71 per cent agree or strongly own part I would be very happy to do so, but it may be agree that they will require specialist advice effectively more appropriate for my colleague in the department, to commission cancer services. Given that the cancer who deals with cancer services, to do so as well. We networks’ funding is not guaranteed beyond 2011-12, recognise that more needs to be done to raise awareness how will that commissioning support be provided? On of the signs and symptoms of rarer cancers such as an individual basis, how will support be provided to kidney cancer. Our strategy for cancer sets out our GPs when they have to tell a kidney cancer patient commitment to work with a number of cancer-focused that they will not be able to afford to offer Afinitor? charities. Officials have already met such charities and That is the drug the Minister referred to, which is not more meetings are planned over the summer. approved by NICE and which costs £200,000 per course of treatment. Lord Alderdice: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised the question of National Institute Earl Howe: My Lords, there are drugs which NICE for Health and Clinical Excellence approval of has recommended for kidney cancer, so Afinitor is not chemotherapeutic drugs. After a nephrectomy, not the only drug on the menu. GPs have a crucial role to 769 Health: Cancer[LORDS] Arts: Local Provision 770

[EARL HOWE] take the decisions which are most appropriate for their play if we are to achieve earlier diagnosis of cancer area, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all model of and meet our ambition of cancer outcomes that are cultural provision. among the best in the world. The National Cancer Director, Professor Sir Mike Richards, is working with Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, does the pathfinder GP consortia to understand how we can Minister agree that Arts Council England, to which support them in commissioning services that deliver she referred, has made a pretty good effort through the best outcomes. He is clear, as are we, that cancer the creation of its new national portfolio to ensure networks will have a central role in the reformed NHS that there is coverage across England of arts organisations as a place where clinicians from different sectors come at all scales, as she mentioned? I should, perhaps, together to improve the quality of care across integrated register an interest as the author of a report, three pathways. years ago, on its last effort, which was, perhaps, slightly less successful. Does she not agree, however, that the Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, has my random nature of the way in which funding has been noble friend made any assessment of the difficulties of withdrawn by local authorities makes the Arts Council’s treating cancer patients, when the trouble is with the job a great deal more difficult and means that the kidneys, because of lack of spare parts? available funds are used less well? It would be in the interests of the Government, as well as those of arts communities, for local authorities to be more consistent Earl Howe: I think I shall need to clarify with my in the way they apply their funding to the arts and culture. noble friend what she means by spare parts in this context. I am aware that if we look at treatment options for kidney cancer, neither chemotherapy nor Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the noble Baroness radiotherapy is generally appropriate. Usually, surgery is absolutely right. The arm’s-length principle means is the preferred course of treatment. If my noble that individual arts funding decisions are taken at friend will allow, I will speak to her afterwards and arm’s length from government. To go back to the main investigate as appropriate. part of her question, on 30 March Arts Council England announced its new national portfolio organisations. These are bodies which will receive regular funding Arts: Local Provision over the next three years. As for the geographical Question breakdown, the spending will remain largely the same, so it will cover all areas. 2.44 pm Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, we hear a Asked By The Earl of Clancarty lot about National Lottery funds and the fact that the lottery gives money to the arts. Will the Minister say To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps how that compares to the amount given by DCMS to they are taking to encourage the provision of arts at the arts? a local level. Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Baroness, Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, Her Majesty’s Lady Gardner, for that. While grant in aid, just one Government will invest more than £2.2 billion in the part of the Arts Council overall income, is being arts over the next four years via Arts Council England. reduced, we are reforming the lottery so that more This money will support artists and organisations money will go to the arts. An additional £80 million working at every level, from small community arts will go to the arts from the National Lottery each year groups to our major national institutions. from 2013.

The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I declare an Minister for her reply. However, in view of the fact interest as the patron of the wonderful Docklands that we already have unacceptable levels of funding to Sinfonia. In terms of the Cultural Olympiad planned the arts locally—100 per cent cuts have been made by for 2012, will we be picking up local arts activities some local authorities—and that we are just at the within schools in the East End and also all the musical beginning of this, does the Minister agree that what is possibilities, rather than just going for stilt walkers urgently required is the introduction of a statutory and things like that—not that I have anything against obligation on local authorities to provide proper funding stilt walkers? of the arts and cultural services, since these are such a necessary part of the life of local communities? Baroness Rawlings: The noble Lord brings up a very good point regarding the Cultural Olympiad, Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I understand fully with which we in the department are all deeply involved. the thrust behind the Question of the noble Earl, Lord He is absolutely right and that is what we hope to Clancarty, but we feel that imposing a statutory duty continue to do. would also place added burdens upon local government at a time when deregulation is a priority. We want to Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, is it right that the continue to give the funding responsibility to local Department for Communities and Local Government communities and local authorities so that they can is preparing guidelines to assist local authorities in 771 Arts: Local Provision[10 MAY 2011] Children: Adoption 772 deciding what approach to take to proposed cuts in package of new measures to support a drive towards the fields of the arts, heritage and sports? If it is right, greater charitable giving, worth around £600 million is it right also that these are proposed to be given to charities. We would all like still more, and perhaps statutory effect? Will the guidelines, once produced, we should follow the American route a little more. come before Parliament for approbation?

Baroness Rawlings: To return to the actual funding, Children: Adoption the Department for Culture, Media and Sport feels Question strongly that individual arts funding decisions must be taken at arm’s length through Arts Council England. 2.53 pm Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, there is Asked By Lord Waddington immense talent throughout the United Kingdom. What To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps is being done to encourage the exchange of art collections they propose to take to ensure that children do not between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England? lose the chance of being adopted as a result of the It is not just Arts Council England that is involved in closure of adoption agencies following the Equality this. Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. Baroness Rawlings: Decisions in the Welsh Assembly regarding the Arts Council, for example, are devolved. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for It is a devolved issue and does not come under Arts Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): My Lords, the Council England. Government are committed to adoption where this is in a child’s best interests. We have been monitoring the effect of the introduction of the regulations, and have Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: Does the Minister made it clear to local authorities that they should agree that in practice the situation facing local arts work with the voluntary sector to maximise the number organisations is made much worse by the fact that, in of successful adoptions. My honourable friend addition to the 29.6 per cent cut in Arts Council Mr Loughton is leading a drive to speed up adoption funding over the next four years and the reductions in and remove potential barriers—for example, for children local authority funding, about which we have just from minority ethnic backgrounds. heard, the RDAs , which significantly supported our creative industries and the arts right across the country, have been abolished? What progress are the Government Lord Waddington: I thank my noble friend for his making in replacing those lost funds before too much reply, but in light of the Times report of 2 May that damage is done? five of the remaining Catholic adoption agencies have gone out of business rather than abandon their Christian beliefs, with the likelihood that this will make it harder Baroness Rawlings: The Department for Culture, for some of the most vulnerable children to be found a Media and Sport has negotiated a substantial settlement home, should not common sense and tolerance come for the arts, and it is not true that they are facing before political correctness? With gay couples able major cuts. As your Lordships know, though, we need to go to any number of agencies specialising in gay to contribute, like others, to reducing the deficit. In the adoption, should not the law allow the Catholic agencies longer term, our areas that rely on several different the same freedom of conscience as was allowed to sources of funding will benefit, like elsewhere, from a conscientious objectors during the war? strong economy and stable public finances. It is simply not an option to protect arts funding while cutting public spending in other areas, but in time much more Lord Hill of Oareford: I understand the point made money will be coming from the lottery, as the noble by my noble friend and know the strength of feeling Lord knows. that he brings to bear on this. The department has approached adoption from the point of view of what Lord Grade of Yarmouth: My Lords, however is in the best interests of children by trying to have as a regrettable and inevitable the cuts in funding for the wide a pool as possible of potential adopters. No one vital arts in this country, unlike other sectors that are on this side of the House is keen to do things that are susceptible to cuts, the arts sector has the opportunity driven by political correctness. That is one of the to find a new source of funding from charitable giving, reasons why we are looking, for example, at the adoption which is the foundation of the thriving arts in the of minority ethnic children. I understand the points United States where there is no public subsidy whatever. that my noble friend makes, but at the moment we It is time that we worked harder at finding incentives have no plans to respond directly to them. for charitable giving. Does the Minister agree? Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, in Baroness Rawlings: I thank my noble friend Lord welcoming the Munro report today, which talks about Grade for that question, which he knows is very near some aspects of social work but has implications for to my heart. We have announced a package of measures the whole field, does the Minister agree with me that to boost charitable giving, including an £80 million the complexity of the task that Mr Loughton is taking matched funding pot. In the Budget of 23 March, the on involves improving social work practice and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a significant practice of panels, reviewing the court processes, and 773 Children: Adoption[LORDS] Bahrain 774

[BARONESS HOWARTH OF BRECKLAND] Lord Hill of Oareford: I very much agree with that. ensuring that guardians move quickly? All of those As we have said in previous debates and exchanges things will take time and are much more significant about adoption, the role of the voluntary adoption than the matter being raised. agencies is extremely important in this. One of the issues that my honourable friend Mr Loughton is Lord Hill of Oareford: I very much agree with the looking at is encouraging the take-up of the services point about the complexity of the issue and the need provided by the voluntary adoption agencies. Some to look at all the issues in the round. The points that local authorities seem more resistant than others to have been raised to do with court processes, finding using those services. One would want to tackle that suitable adopters, speeding up the process and tackling because the range of different performances from one obstacles are all extremely important. As the noble local authority area to another is very wide. It would Baroness will know, in responding to Munro my be good to narrow it. The role of voluntary adoption honourable friend Mr Loughton will take advice from agencies in that is an important part of coming up an expert group on precisely these issues. He will come with a solution. back later in the year to pull the various strands together and, I hope, come up with solutions. The Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, does the whole House, irrespective of from where we are coming Minister agree that the application of the Equality on some of these issues, will share the view that we Act, far from resulting in children losing the chance of need to find more good adoptions for the children being adopted, will open up new opportunities for a who need them most. much more diverse group of prospective parents to offer a stable and loving home to children in care? Baroness Benjamin: My Lords, voluntary adoption Lord Hill of Oareford: I reiterate my point that all agencies such as Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as a sides of the House would agree that having a wide vice president—welcome the Government’s focus on number of potential adopters—those with strong religious adoption. However, for adoptive places to succeed beliefs and those without—who can help children and there needs to be long-term commitment. Are there provide loving and stable homes for them is what we any plans to ensure that specialist therapeutic services would all seek to encourage. and multi-agency support for adoptive families are made more widely available so that adoptive placements succeed, especially for older children who come from a Bahrain traumatised or abused background? Question

Lord Hill of Oareford: I agree with my noble friend 3pm about the importance of support services and specialist Asked By Lord Ribeiro support services. Part of a good solution to the problems of adoption is finding a bigger supply of adopters, To ask Her Majesty’s Government what speeding up the process and supporting those families representations they have made to the Government who have adopted children. On her specific point of Bahrain following the arrest of doctors and about what support might be available, I will follow nurses charged with crimes against the monarchy. that up with my honourable friend Mr Loughton and respond to her in more detail. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My Lords, we are Lord Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister recognise deeply concerned about reports of the severe charges that the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord brought against a large number of doctors and nurses Waddington, may well be the position taken by the by a Bahraini military tribunal. It is essential that majority of people in this country? Should we not be medical personnel can treat their patients free from listening to people? political interference. Our ambassador raised the case with the Bahraini Minister of Justice on 4 May.

Lord Hill of Oareford: My Lords, as I said, I Lord Ribeiro: I thank my noble friend for his considered understand the point of view expressed by my noble response. He has a list of 17 doctors who are currently friend Lord Waddington and always listen to him detained, the majority of whom are surgeons. The most carefully, as I do to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell- accounts of torture and beatings reported in the Savours. However, there is not much that I can add to Independent today confirm that the Government of my previous reply to my noble friend Lord Waddington. Bahrain are failing in their duty of care to protect doctors and medical staff. The International Code of The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, a significant Medical Ethics, adopted in 1949 and amended in 2006, number of faith-based children’s agencies are still providing states: adoption services in compliance with the Equality “A physician shall give emergency care as a humanitarian Act, while others are now restricted in that area to duty”. providing services after adoption. Does the Minister Will my noble friend join the leaders of the medical agree that, taken together, all these faith-based children’s profession in condemning the attacks—as he has done, agencies provide a key service to vulnerable children—one but more forcefully—and in seeking independent that could be further extended? monitoring of any future trial? 775 Bahrain[10 MAY 2011] Taxation of Equitable Life Order 2011 776

Lord Howell of Guildford: The feelings of the evidence of deliberate maltreatment or withdrawal of Government are largely in line with those of my noble treatment by medical personnel from people on religious friend. The arrest of doctors and nurses seeking to grounds would be appalling. Any interference with perform their duties is clearly an appalling situation. I those who are trying to dispense treatment—if they have to tell my noble friend that not all aspects of this are arrested and treated as criminals—would be appalling. case are clear at the moment, but we take the view that All those matters need very close investigation. Whether it is very important that the accused have proper it is the right moment to raise them in all the bodies access to legal counsel and be tried by impartial and that the noble Lord mentioned, I am not yet convinced, independent courts. We take a strong view on that but they are matters which we are watching very matter. Other aspects have been raised, and will continue closely, and that time may come. to be raised, by our ambassador, but not all aspects of this case are clear at the moment. Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am sure that the statement made by the Minister about the intervention in respect Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree of the medical staff will be welcomed by the House. that these arrests of doctors, nurses, ambulance workers Can he tell us of other instances of intervention in and paramedical personnel are part of a massive Bahrain and whether the Government believe that sectarian purge of intellectuals throughout Bahrain they have been successful in any of them? that includes university teachers, journalists, the editor Lord Howell of Guildford: I do not totally follow of a newspaper and two MPs? Should not the Government the generality of the question. If the noble Lord means call in the Bahraini ambassador and inform him that, to ask whether we have constant contact with Bahrain unless these detainees are released and the UN High and whether we are putting considerable pressure on Commissioner for Human Rights is permitted to carry those with whom we have had close contact—because out an impartial investigation, we will impose a travel Bahrain remains a close ally and good friend of the ban on leading members of the regime and ask the United Kingdom, and vice versa—those interventions prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to are going on all the time. Have they had effects? They consider charges against the leaders of the regime for have not had the effects we want by any means so far. crimes against humanity? On the contrary, we have seen a deterioration in the situation, which is very disappointing. The issue now is Lord Howell of Guildford: At this present stage, we how we handle it: whether we put even bigger barriers do not consider travel bans or other charges and between ourselves and the Bahraini authorities, or whether moves of that kind to be a proper way forward. We are we use our former links to work very hard with them in constant contact, not merely with the ambassador to change their ways and develop a dialogue—which here but, through my right honourable friend the earlier they said they wanted, in contrast to other countries Foreign Secretary, with the Foreign Minister of Bahrain where there has been a tendency towards civil war, and other Ministers, including the Minister of Justice. mass killings and other violent and hard-line activities. We continue to believe that the aim is to have a national dialogue to meet the problems of what my Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading noble friend rightly calls an appalling situation of inter-regional strife between the Shia majority and the Scheme (Nitrous Oxide) Regulations 2011 Sunni minority that represents the ruling group. This is an intense tension. Its effects are in danger of Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act spreading to other parts of the Middle East, with all 2010 (Permanent Effect) Order 2011 kinds of results that we do not want. Therefore, for the moment, we stick to the view that we must urge these Regulation of Investigatory Powers countries, the ruling family and the leaders on both (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents sides—the opposition and the ruling group—to move for Interceptions) Regulations 2011 towards a national dialogue. That is what they say they want and that is what we are urging them to do as hard as we can at the moment. Representation of the People (Electoral Registration Data Schemes) Regulations Lord Owen: Will the Government ensure that, besides 2011 making very strong bilateral representations, we use our position in all the international bodies available, Electoral Registration Data Schemes including the Security Council, the WHO and all the Order 2011 humanitarian bodies, to raise this issue at the very highest level? There is now very clear evidence of Taxation of Equitable Life (Payments) targeted action against individuals who are caring for people who come into hospital as a result of Order 2011 demonstrations. The Bahrain Government, who have Motions to Refer to Grand Committee had good relations with this country over many years, 3.07 pm must now listen to those representations. Moved by Lord McNally Lord Howell of Guildford: The representations we That the draft regulations and orders be referred are making are strong. I have to repeat what I said to to a Grand Committee. my noble friends: not all aspects of this issue and this whole case are entirely clear at the moment. Any Motions agreed. 777 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 778

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill the House of Lords in its present form? If he cannot Report (1st Day) answer those questions reasonably positively, it would make sense to have a period of reflection before we go 3.07 pm on with constitutional Bills in which there is no public interest and for which there is no public support. Motion Lord Cormack: My Lords, I will briefly but thoroughly Moved by Lord Wallace of Tankerness endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said. That the Report be now received. When one talks to people in the country, they say that they are desperately concerned about matters of health, Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we consider the education, taxation and all of those things. At the Report of the Bill, I should like to put a couple of moment, they are deeply concerned about events in points to the Minister. We are about to embark on a the Middle East and in other parts of the world. They major constitutional reform at Report, but since we find it quite incredible that the two Houses of Parliament, considered the Bill in Committee, a matter of considerable and this one in particular, should detain themselves by constitutional significance has taken place. That is to debating measures that are of no possible benefit to say, there was a referendum on the alternative vote the public good, are diversionary and—to most people, system which, I am delighted to say, was overwhelmingly whether it be in the club or the Dog and Duck—are of defeated by the British public—including, I might say, very little interest or relevance. a 72 per cent no vote in Telford and a Labour-control Along with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I urge gain from the Conservatives in Telford. that we have a period of reflection. We should recognise It is normal, if significant national events occur that the constitution is the most important part of our after Committee or between any stages of the Bill, that democratic heritage. It should be the plaything of there be some reaction and, perhaps, amendments to nobody, and certainly the consolation prize of nobody. the Bill. I see the Minister looking a little startled and, Therefore, I hope that the Minister, who will shortly I am sure, thinking, “What is the significance of the address the House, will recognise the strength of feeling referendum to this Bill?”. not only in the House but in the country, and will discuss I put it to him that there is considerable significance. with government business managers how the House Many of us on this side of the House spent a lot of can more properly and sensibly address issues that are time, when we debated the Bill that set up the referendum, of real importance to the people of this country. arguing strongly that this was not an issue that the British public wanted put to them in a referendum, Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will and that it was certainly not at the top of their list of the Minister confirm that there is nothing at present, priorities. I suggest that the read-across ought to be without the Bill, to prevent the Conservative-led that the Government, rather than concentrating on Government from serving a term of five years? The constitutional Bills for which there seems to be very Bill is not necessary to achieve that end, unless the little public support, should concentrate on bread and Government were to implode from within. butter issues. The Deputy Prime Minister has repeatedly said 3.15 pm that the three Bills that we will consider—the Fixed-term The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace Parliaments Bill, the constituency boundaries and of Tankerness): My Lords, I have heard the comments referendum Bill, which we have already considered, of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, my noble friend and the Bill to reform the House of Lords—are part Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. of the greatest reform package since 1832. Therefore, I am sorry to disappoint, but it is worth pointing out if one plank is shown to be fallible, one would assume that this Bill was introduced in the other place on that, even in the view of the Deputy Prime Minister, 22 July last year. It had its Second Reading in the other parts would be as well. I do not know what the other place on 13 September and was introduced in Minister’s experience was when he canvassed, but your Lordships’ House on 19 January this year. I do after the canvassing that I did my judgment is that not think that, by any stretch of the imagination, it there is as little public support for, or interest in, the could be said that the Bill is being rushed through. Fixed-term Parliaments Bill—and I predict the same There has been plenty of opportunity for scrutiny, and for the Bill to abolish the House of Lords and replace there will be further opportunity today and on a second it with a Senate—as the yes campaign garnered in the day on Report in your Lordships’ House. This in no referendum. way diminishes the Government’s attention to the I will put two questions to the Minister. First, what important issues facing this country—not least addressing is the urgency to consider the Bill on Report, in the deficit that we inherited from the party opposite. particular as the Government have decided very wisely Report received. that a period of three months’ reflection is sensible between Committee and Report for the health Bill? Clause1:Polling days for parliamentary general That is a welcome development and—I think the elections Minister will agree—a clear precedent for doing a similar thing with this major constitutional Bill. Secondly, does the Minister, with his long political experience, Amendment 1 have any grounds for thinking—perhaps I have missed Moved by Lord Falconer of Thoroton something—that there is strong public demand for the 1: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out from “election” to end of Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and for the Bill to abolish line 5 and insert “shall be 8 May 2014” 779 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 780

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the opportunity proper public consultation or an adequate response has not been taken, so we must now build on the work from the Government to the particular issues raised. done by this House. I am very disappointed in the lack So I preface my remarks by indicating our support for of interest in this rather staggeringly important that amendment. It does not stop us going into the constitutional Bill—which confirms that this House Bill’s detail or—in the context of a Bill with this seems to have the same view as the people in the Dog provisional aspect—seeking to improve it. and Duck to whom the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, The first three groups of amendments concern the referred. I will leave it to noble Lords to get to the Dog length of a Parliament, the issue being whether it and Duck. should be four or five years. We have evidence on this: This is an important Bill: it will have an impact I refer to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, constitutionally. It is a Bill to take seriously in the Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in Committee. He completely course of this scrutiny at Report stage, which will last demolished the argument that it is a matter of two days. I am grateful to the usual channels for judgment—the implication being that if it is a matter providing two days, which seems entirely appropriate. of judgment, any period would do. If it is a matter of It is time for this House to take decisions, building, I judgment, it is all the more important, as the noble would respectfully submit, on the work that this House and learned Lord pointed out, to analyse what the and the other place have done. When I say building on “good judges” have been saying about what the right the work that has been done, I include the work done conclusion is. The first judge, I would respectfully ask by the Select Committees in both Houses—the one the Government to bear in mind, is the person who chaired by Mr Graham Allen in the other place, and introduced the current arrangements, namely Herbert the one chaired by my noble friend Lady Jay. I am very Asquith. When introducing them in 1911, he rightly glad to see my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith said that a maximum of five years was likely to produce and other members of the committee in the Chamber Parliaments lasting about four years, which is close today. enough to the previous election or the coming election We as a party support fixed-term Parliaments. However, to ensure that Parliament remained properly accountable the investigations done by both Houses, including to the people. both Houses’ Select Committees, have increased The weight of academic evidence given to both Parliament’s doubts about fixed-term Parliaments. Our Select Committees was overwhelmingly of the view own committee, the House of Lords Select Committee that a fixed-term Parliament should be four years on the Constitution, said that the case made by the rather than five. Professor Robert Hazell told the Government for fixed-term Parliaments had “not been Commons Select Committee: made out” to its satisfaction. A similar view was “The balance between four and five years is more even than expressed by the House of Commons Select Committee. folk memory might suggest. But those parliaments which lasted There were three specific anxieties that underlay for five years did so because the government had become unpopular and did not want to hold an earlier election. The Prime Minister that view. The first was the length; both Select Committees stayed on hoping that his or her party’s luck might change. It did concluded that four years was better than five. Secondly, not, save for the case of John Major, who scraped through with a both Select Committees concluded that the provisions narrow majority in 1992”. could be abused by a Prime Minister who, with a Professor Blackburn, who has done a lot of work on majority in the House of Commons, could go for an this, was quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord election whenever he wanted. Thirdly, the Houses of Lloyd of Berwick, in his speech. The Select Committee Parliament were seeking to include in legislation the in the Commons reported: House conventions in determining when a Government lost the confidence of the House of Commons, which “Professor Blackburn suggested to us that when governments is a critical part of our constitution. have lasted five years between elections, ‘the last year of every one has been pretty awful’”. These anxieties were well expressed in good debates The Bill seeks to make it the norm that we should on Second Reading and in Committee in this House. have five years. I would respectfully ask this House, if In today’s Report stage we on this side of the House it wishes to have a proper process of scrutiny, to intend to try to address those specific anxieties, and to acknowledge where the weight of evidence is from all support the Government and other Members of the those who have looked at the issue, including Members House who have tabled amendments to try to resolve of this House. I also pray in aid the following people: them. However, resolving these specific problems will Mr Tony Wright, who introduced a Bill saying four not deal with the underlying sense of anxiety which years; my noble friend Lord Rooker, who is greatly still exists in this House about the Bill. respected in this House, and who introduced a Private In those circumstances, the opposition party—the Member’s Bill in the House of Commons saying four Labour Party—intends to support the amendment to years; and Mr David Howarth, no longer an MP, who be introduced by a number of Cross-Benchers, including introduced a Bill for fixed-term Parliaments which the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Butler of Brockwell said four years and had the support, as co-sponsors and Lord Armstrong, and the noble Baroness, Lady of the Bill, of Mr Simon Hughes, Mr Chris Huhne, Boothroyd. The effect of their amendment is that if Mr Nick Clegg, Mr Danny Alexander, Mr David there is to be a fixed-term Parliament after each subsequent Heath, Ms Lynne Featherstone and Mr Paul Burstow. election, it will have to be approved by a resolution of I mention these names only because every single one both Houses. That seems to us a suitable response to a of them, with the exception of Mr Simon Hughes, is constitutional Bill which is of such importance but now a Minister in a Government proposing five years. which has been introduced without pre-legislative scrutiny, Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Plant, who is not 781 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 782

[LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON] third to fourth year would not be remotely as bad as in his place, conducted an inquiry into our constitution the awful fifth years that we have had on previous in 1991 and 1992 and he recommended that there should occasions. be fixed-term Parliaments. He also said four years. We in the Opposition are going to vote for The Liberal Democrats, as they proudly point out, Amendment 1, which alters the date of the first election have said for many years that there should be fixed-term from five years from the date of the last election to Parliaments and that they should be four years. four years, and we are then going to vote for four years Perhaps I may say with respect that if you are thereafter. We are going to vote for what might be responding to a proper analysis of the evidence, the called the “Baroness Boothroyd, Lord Pannick, Lord conclusion would be four years, not five years. If it Butler of Brockwell, Lord Armstrong” amendment should be four years, should it be four years for this because we do not think that the Government dealt Parliament or should it be five years for this Parliament effectively with the fundamental criticisms of fixed terms. and four years for subsequent Parliaments? In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said—I suggest with a 3.30 pm heavy heart—that it should be five years to give this Government their coalition agreement, but four years Lord Rennard: The previous Labour Prime Minister thereafter. As I made clear on 21 March at cols. 505 of course went for five years. If this legislation is and 512, I do not support that siren song. I have three passed in its current form, would a future Labour reasons for not supporting it. Government amend it to change back the fixed term First, if five years is wrong for the future, it must be from five years to four years? wrong for this Parliament. Secondly, if the reason that five years is wrong is that you end up with an “awful” Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I cannot commit a fifth year, to quote Professor Blackburn, imagine the future Labour Government, but people should form circumstances that we are currently facing. We have a their own view about whether fifth years have been number of politicians, the Liberal Democrats, who are good years. We should look at this in a non-partisan greatly respected by all in this House. Let us assume way. Do Mr Major or other Labour Prime Ministers that they do what every other politician in their position— in the past who have gone a fifth year fit the rubric of that is, facing defeat—does; namely, they cling on until Professor Hazell; namely, people hanging on to the the last moment. If we pass a Fixed-term Parliament last moment and ending up in a situation where there Bill of five years, we will allow the Liberal Democrats is a pretty awful year? Four years is good, because it to do what MPs have done since time immemorial—to means that you are accountable to the electorate much cling on to the bitter end. We are going to have an more regularly. It would probably have meant three or awful fifth year. I strongly recommend not succumbing four more general elections since 1945. Let us remember to the siren song of five years for this Parliament and what the much revered Deputy Prime Minister told four for the next. the Select Committees. He said that the reason for The third reason that we should not succumb to the which these provisions were being introduced was to argument is this. I can imagine no worse precedent make politicians more accountable to the electorate. It than a Government coming into power and setting in is quite hard to see how you make politicians more place special arrangements for how long the first accountable to the electorate by reducing the number Government should be and then changing the constitution of general elections. In those circumstances, we will for everyone else thereafter. vote for four years for this Parliament, for four years for the future and for the Boothroyd/Butler/Armstrong/ Pannick amendment. I beg to move. Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I commend the noble and learned Lord on the eloquence and persuasiveness of what he has been saying so far, but might it be the case The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman): Ihaveto that the fifth-year syndrome he has described, and to inform the House that if Amendment 1 is agreed to, I which Professor Hazell referred—that the fifth year is cannot call Amendment 2 by reason of pre-emption. always difficult—might just be a final-year syndrome? Might it not then become the fourth year that would Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I support four be misery hereafter? years rather than five years for the reasons which I spelt out in Committee and to which I had intended to Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, I do not think it return when we reached Amendment 3, but maybe would. Can you identify a third or fourth year which I should address that a little earlier in view of certain has been as been as awful as the fourth or fifth year? I observations made by the noble and learned Lord, also refer to what was said during debates in Committee Lord Falconer, with which I agree. by the professor and noble Lord, Lord Norton of I put my name to Amendment 3 last week because Louth, who sadly is not in his place. He said that it was it followed very largely the amendment which was extremely unlikely that any Government would have debated at length in Committee. I was therefore surprised something proper to fill in their fifth year. So there is to receive an e-mail over the weekend informing me no historical precedent for the fourth year being as that the noble and learned Lord was seeking to withdraw bad as the fifth year, nor do I think that if the fixed Amendment 3 and to substitute Amendments 1 and 2, term were four years would the third to fourth year which we now have, and asking me whether I would become awful. But that is a matter of judgment for support them instead. I say at once that I cannot this House to make. My own judgment of it is that the support Amendment 1. 783 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 784

At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord that in paragraph 17 of our report we distinguished accepted that it is open to any Government at any between the long and the short term. That was in the stage to indicate the date of the next election. That can context of the broader discussion of the relevance of be done within existing constitutional arrangements, fixed-term Parliaments. But when we came to draw up as I believe everybody accepts. It did not require an our conclusions, we said that, Act of Parliament to establish May 2015 as the date “the majority of the Committee consider that a four year term for the next general election, but that is the course that should be adopted for any fixed-term parliamentary arrangement the Government have chosen to take. There is nothing at Westminster”. as such that is wrong with that course; it is the date We went on to write to the Minister, Mr Mark Harper, that they have chosen and have put in the Bill. to say that our first conclusion stated that: If, therefore, May 2015 was to be challenged by the “We acknowledge the political imperative behind the coalition Opposition, surely it should have been challenged in Government’s wish to state in advance its intent to govern for the Committee and not left to the 59th minute of the 11th full five year term, but this could have been achieved under the current constitutional conventions”. hour before Report. Far from challenging that date, the amendment in Committee built on Clause 1(2). It The noble and learned Lord has already drawn attention assumed May 2015 and then substituted in Clause 1(3) to that point. We did not get a response from the “fourth” for “fifth”, and that is the amendment which Government on it and I understand that there has I supported and still support. been no particular response forthcoming. But I emphasise that the conclusion of the committee was that a four-year It is true that, in response to the noble and learned term was preferable. Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on 21 March at col. 508, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that it had always been the Opposition’s intention Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I certainly had not read the to challenge the date in Clause 1(2), but that was not report, which I read carefully, as having drawn the what they did. It is true also that at the end of the distinction that I am seeking to draw between what debate in Committee, it was argued that if four years this Government are going to do now and what future was to be the norm for future Governments, it should Governments should do. I had certainly not understood be the norm for this Government. I do not agree. The the report as suggesting that the committee would Select Committee pointed out in paragraph 17 of its support four years for this Government. Thus, I am report the crucial, setting aside what we all accept—that any Government “distinction between ‘the immediate concern of the Government’”— can choose when they wish to go to the electorate. this Government— That is all I have to say on Amendment 1. If it is put to the vote—and it appears that it will be—I shall vote “‘that it should continue for five years’ and ‘the long-term issue’”, against it. of what should be the norm for future Governments. Those are distinct issues and it is the long-term issue Since the noble and learned Lord has gone on to to which all the evidence given in the Select Committee develop the whole argument in relation to Amendments 1 was directed. and 3, perhaps it would be convenient for the House for me to develop my reasons for saying why I agree It is the same as the distinction that was drawn very with him that for subsequent Parliaments the norm clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. He accepted should be four years rather than five. That was, as he May 2015 as the date for this Government because said, the clear conclusion, which has been confirmed, that is the date that any Government could have fixed. of the Select Committee. The reason it gave was an He thought that it was unnecessary to include it in an obvious one: that five years, Act of Parliament, but there it is. Nevertheless, he “would be inconsistent with the Government’s stated aim of favoured four years thereafter. making the legislature more accountable”. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Is it not right that the With that, I wholly agree. Indeed, it is obvious. same restrictions apply to this Government in this It is not surprising that the Select Committee reached Parliament up to 2015 as would apply after 2015? If that view, since it was the unanimous view of all the the same restrictions on having a general election experts who gave evidence before the committee, including apply in this Parliament, why is five years okay for this such acknowledged experts as Professor Dawn Oliver Parliament but not the next? and Professor Vernon Bogdanor. Exactly the same was true of all the experts who gave evidence in the Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I am grateful for the noble Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the and learned Lord’s intervention, but he is ignoring the House of Commons, including Professor Robert Hazell crucial distinction between the two issues. One is the and Professor Blackburn. As has been pointed out, issue as to what this Government are going to do. He Professor Blackburn is particularly important because accepts as we all accept that this Government can he has made a specific study of this issue. choose 2015 if they want. The issue that we ought to If some of this evidence had been one way and be discussing is not for this Government but for future some the other, or indeed if it had been subjected to Governments. It is entirely consistent, if I may say so, any sustained challenge when it was given, one could for us to accept May 2015 for this Government yet to understand the Government sticking with their five say that the norm hereafter should be only four years. years. However, the evidence was all one way and was virtually unchallenged. That evidence simply cannot Baroness Jay of Paddington: I wonder if I could be brushed aside or disregarded, otherwise there is draw the noble and learned Lord’s attention to the really no point in having Select Committees, or them conclusion of the Select Committee report. He is right listening to evidence, because the witnesses would all 785 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 786

[LORD LLOYD OF BERWICK] Government had the good sense to subject the Bill to be wasting their time. I cannot help thinking that if the such scrutiny, all the evidence to which the noble and Government had been aware of the expert evidence learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has just referred that was subsequently given, both in the House of would have been heard and perhaps Mr Harper would Commons and here, they would not have chosen five have made up his mind rather differently. He might years in the first place. Indeed, the point was almost even have concluded by asking what the point of this conceded—as your Lordships may remember—by the exercise is. Minister in charge of the Bill. When he was asked by The point of the exercise is that the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Powell, in the course of his oral having brought themselves together as a coalition—I evidence, he said: admire the courage of all the parties in doing that and “If we had been starting with a clean sheet of paper, we might I support the coalition, as I have made plain on many have reached a different conclusion, but we started from our occasions—wanted to try to reinforce that position by existing position where the length of a Parliament is up to five making a statement or declaration that they would years”. serve for five years. That declaration would of itself I simply cannot understand the logic of that reasoning. have been quite sufficient, and I am glad to see the The question is what the norm is, not how it relates to noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, nodding assent at the existing maximum. this point. We did not need to take up time with this Alongside all that weight of evidence, many noble legislation—a point already referred to by the noble Lords also spoke at Second Reading in support: the Lord, Lord Grocott, and by me—and I regret that it is noble Lords, Lord Hennessy, Lord Grocott, Lord taking so much time. However, if we are to fulfil the Norton and Lord Morgan, and the noble Baroness, constitutional duty of this House, we must try to put Lady Taylor, were all in favour of four years. To that the Bill into somewhat better order than it was in list we must now add the noble and gallant Lord, Lord when it came to us. That has not been an easy task Stirrup—I do not know whether he is in his place—who with any of the Bills that we have recently had the made a most impressive speech at Committee in favour privilege of examining, and the same will apply tomorrow. of four years; as well as my noble friend Lord Martin, Therefore, I will take the same line in the Division and of course the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, himself. Lobbies, if it is necessary so to do, as the noble and All these noble Lords were well aware of the only learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I do not think argument that I know of in favour of five years, which that the position to which I referred at an earlier stage is roughly as follows: it takes an incoming Government of the Bill was illogical or unsound, and I shall stand a year to get going and the last year is spent in by that, but I shall certainly vote for the sunset clause preparing for the election, which leaves only three that stands in the name of the noble Baroness and her years of a five-year Government for implementing noble friends on the Cross Benches. policy. If there is anything in that argument at all—and I suggest there is nothing—it is surely outweighed by Lord Tyler: The noble Lord has been a doughty the need to make Parliament more, rather than less, defender of the constitution for many years in both accountable to the electorate, The electorate should be Houses. I respect him very much for that and I have able to get rid of Governments who are tired and expressed that view previously. Can he explain to your unpopular, for whatever reason, after four years Lordships why he now thinks, after 100 years of rather than five. That is why, while I will support the experience of a quinquennial maximum for Parliament, Government on Amendment 1, I hope that they will we should suddenly make a radical change to a maximum accept Amendment 3. of four years? What particular experience over those 100 years has changed his attitude? 3.45 pm Lord Cormack: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord Cormack: My memory does not go back Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will hardly be surprised throughout the whole of that century, as the noble that I find myself very much in agreement. I am sorry Lord knows. In a sense, I have already answered that that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, suggested question because I do not think that we should be that I sang a siren song; I do not think that I did, but I wasting our time with this Bill at all. I consider it to be will risk a siren encore. The noble and learned Lord, unnecessary but, as the Government have determined Lord Lloyd of Berwick, demonstrated with impeccable that we should have fixed-term Parliaments, it is right logic that there is nothing contradictory in the present that we should address the term. It is perfectly reasonable Government, having said that they wish to serve for a to say, “All right, you’ve made your statement that you full five years, doing that, and, having sent a piece of wish to have five years. Please have them, but we legislation to this House and asked for our opinion, in believe, having weighed the evidence placed before our saying, “Okay, if you want to do that, do it, but committees of both Houses, that for the future it thereafter we believe that it should be four years”. That should be four years”. However, I know as well as the seems to be an entirely reasonable position to take. noble Lord and every noble Lord present today that Every moment of our debates on the Bill—and I no Parliament can bind its successor, and the first Act have been present for almost all of them—has illustrated of a new Parliament could be to repeal the whole to me that this is an unnecessary and unfortunate shooting match—it might be the best thing that it exercise. I also think that every word uttered by the could do, but that is another matter entirely. noble and learned Lord, as well as the intervention of The point that I was about to make when the noble the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, underlines the need for Lord intervened was that I believe there is a lot to be pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill of this sort. Had the said in almost every constitutional measure for a 787 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 788 sunset clause. It would provide the opportunity to take made quite a good double act. I intended to come to stock, to reflect and to say, “Is this really what we want that very point shortly but I do not blame him for to do? Is this really the way forward?” Therefore, trying to get in first. As an advocate, it is important unless my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of always to make a point that you think is a good one Tankerness, who is a very fair-minded man, is able to before the other advocate does so. meet us on that point, I would find myself in the On the point about pre-legislative scrutiny, it is not illustrious company of the noble Baroness, Lady only a question of having an opportunity to scrutinise Boothroyd, and her friends at the appropriate time, in this House; the committee asked the Minister but not before. responsible, “What do the people think about this? Have you asked the people what they think not only Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, but for one point, I about the principle but also the term?”. As noble entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lords will see in the evidence, that has never been Lloyd of Berwick. On the principal question of the done; there has been no attempt to consult on that term, he and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer kind of question. The Minister drew attention to two of Thoroton are right: all the evidence points one newspaper polls and a survey by the Scottish Youth way—the evidence of international experience and of Parliament, which were no doubt very worthy, but, as the experts who were before the Select Committee on far as I am aware, they were not on the question of the Constitution, on which I also had the privilege to term but simply on the question of fixed-term Parliaments. serve—and all the history points in favour of four years. So the Government had nothing to support their The principle points are in favour of it as well. As view other—and we come now to the evidence to has already been pointed out, the constitutional which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has programme put forward by the coalition is supposed drawn attention—than a political decision, a political to be a programme of empowering the people, not compromise, that this Parliament was going to last for disempowering them. It is worth reminding ourselves five years. We all agree in this House that that could of what was said by the Deputy Prime Minister in his have been done by a statement by the Government evidence to the Select Committee that, that they were going to do that and sticking to their “it is an unambiguous judgment on our part that reducing the guns. It did not need a Fixed-term Parliament Bill power of the executive, seeking to boost the power of the legislature, at all. making the legislatures more accountable to people … collectively introduces the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater That brings me to the point made by the noble and control over politicians”. learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that we should Increasing the term of a Parliament so that it necessarily allow the Government to have five years this time lasts for five years cannot conceivably meet those round and four years thereafter. With respect, that objectives, and I have never heard any explanation makes no sense to me at all. The recommendation in given by the coalition as to how it does. Nor, indeed, the report from the Select Committee on the Constitution have we heard any explanation from the coalition as to was not that it should be five years this time and four why five years was chosen. The noble and learned years thereafter. It was very clear in saying at paragraph 62 Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, pointed to the evidence that, that was given to the committee which illustrates that “the majority of the Committee consider that a four-year term the figure was chosen before the evidence was there. should be adopted for any fixed-term Parliamentary arrangement”. It is worth also spending a moment more on the When I put my name to this, I did not for a moment purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is not an answer, think that the report was saying that we should let the as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Government have five years this time and four years Tankerness, said, to say, “We are scrutinising it”. thereafter. They could have achieved that if they had done what the committee wanted, which was to spend Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise for interrupting the time during this Parliament to consult properly, my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith but he is reach a view, legislate for hereafter but not to rush this obviously unaware that there is evidence as to how the through in this way. So I have no hesitation at all in five years came in. Mr David Laws’ book states that rejecting the shabby compromise that ended up with a Andrew Stunnell pointed out that, five-year term in the discussions to which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has referred, and I “trust and confidence was very important to us, and that we wouldn’t want to find the PM calling an election at a time that did would reject any compromise on four years. If it is to not suit us. ‘That works both ways!’ said William Hague. We be four years for a fixed-term, it should be four years mentioned that our policy”— now and hereafter. this is the Liberal Democrats— “was for four-year, fixed-term parliaments. George Osborne made Lord Lloyd of Berwick: The noble and learned Lord the point that five-year parliaments were better, as they allowed will not have overlooked paragraph 17 of the report, governments to get into implementing their plans … We made no objection to this, and Britain was on its way to five-year, fixed-term which explains the important distinction between the parliaments for the first time in its history”. Government’s immediate concern that they should I thought my noble and learned friend would like to continue for five years and the long-term issue of the know what the evidence was. fixed-term Parliament.

Lord Goldsmith: Noble Lords will notice from this Lord Goldsmith: That is the point. The Government that over many years, both in this House and at the could have said that they had decided that they wanted Bar before, my noble and learned friend and I have the term to last for five years, that they would do that 789 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 790

[LORD GOLDSMITH] effect. In the fourth year, you are quite simply back by making a commitment now for it to last for five thinking, “How are we going to win the next one?”. years, unless there are unforeseen circumstances, and That is wrong. that they would legislate for future fixed-term Parliaments From my experience, five years would therefore give of a different level. It was not at all a question of the a Government at least three years in the middle to committee recognising that five years, as a legislative think what they want to do and how they will put it fixed-term as opposed to as a result of the exercise of over, so that is the right way to go. To those who do prerogative, was right for this Parliament. not know me well—there are quite a few present today who do—the reason I came to that in our debate, Lord Pannick: My Lords, I, too, support these which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, chaired very well, amendments. If we are to have fixed-term Parliaments, was that I was in Parliament in the Commons for a change to the constitutional practice over the past 23 years and have been in this House for 11 or 12. I 100 years advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, served in three Governments and I therefore got a then four years is manifestly preferable to five. The fairly and inevitably tough view of how difficult it is Constitution Committee, of which I, too, am a member, being in Government and getting on with your policies. heard evidence from a vast number of witnesses who I was also then a Government Chief Whip but that is advocated four years. Almost all of them did so on another story—it is not like being a Minister at all. one simple, fundamental ground: you do not enhance the accountability of Parliament to the people, which Lord Cormack: Would my noble friend give way? is the aim stated in the coalition agreement, by reducing in practice the length of time between general elections. There was a further piece of evidence, which I add Lord Renton of Mount Harry: After my personal to that cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord experience through those years, I therefore think that Falconer of Thoroton, which came from the Deputy four years fixed for a Government is not enough. I Prime Minister himself. At paragraph 57 of our report, would much rather see it for five years, whether it is we quote the extraordinary evidence given to us by the fixed or can be changed by the next Parliament. I beg Deputy Prime Minister last October, when we considered the pardon of my noble friend, who is someone I the Government’s programme for constitutional reform. know very well. Mr Clegg told us that he did not accept that, “people are straining at the bit to vote in elections more frequently”. Lord Cormack: Indeed, and I remember my Chief He added that he had never met anyone who had said Whip with great affection, but would my noble friend to him, not accept that the two most successful periods of Conservative Government in recent history were both “‘Well, I kind of like voting every four years.’” of four years? I can introduce the Deputy Prime Minister to many people in the Dog and Duck referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who are very keen to exercise a Lord Renton of Mount Harry: That is the start of a right to vote in general elections at least every four very good argument as to whether they were the most years to determine who represents them in Parliament successful. It much depends, obviously, on who is the and what the policies of their Government should be. Prime Minister and who is the Chancellor. That will It is quite bizarre that the Government’s response have an enormous effect and will make one Government to the diminution in public respect for Parliament and better than the other, simply because the Ministers at the search for methods of making Members of Parliament the top are better. more accountable to their constituents should be to propose to insulate Members of Parliament so that Lord Lea of Crondall: Would the noble Lord like to there will be a longer period, in practice, before they reflect again on the doctrine that Governments tend are answerable at the ballot box. When the Minister to do nothing in their first year? Would he like me to responds to this debate, will he please tell the House enumerate how many major Bills—not just any little how a five-year term promotes accountability? old Bills to do with the upkeep of the Battersea dogs’ home—have been done in this Government’s first 4pm year? Perhaps he has that in a list or perhaps the Chief Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I must Whip would like to enumerate it. It is exactly one year confess that I was in the minority on the report of the and I am sure it has been quite a busy one. committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, chaired. I was one of two people who felt that it would be Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Yes, that is true and incorrect to move towards always having four-year we know very well at the moment that this Government, Parliaments. My reason for this was much as the noble despite having to be a coalition, have lots of thoughts and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, a very old friend of planned, but there is a great deal of difference between mine, expressed it. It is just that if you only have four planning in advance and getting on with the really years for a Parliament, you spend your first year in difficult problems when you have got to know what power finding out what it is all about, getting to know the Treasury is promising you for money in the future, your civil servants and how the Treasury works—how et cetera. I am not going to go on repeating myself, but you squeeze a bit more money out of it and so forth. I would very much like colleagues in this House to In four years, you then have just two years in which to think carefully about the real advantages of having a put your thoughts, policy and plans for the future into five-year Parliament over a four-year one. 791 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 792

Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord is dealing that in the discussions that took place—perhaps we with this great difficulty of Governments coming in, should call them negotiations—the person who was in getting to know their civil servants and all the rest of favour of five years was the present Chancellor of the it. That, of course, assumes that there has been a Exchequer, according to the report we have had. I change of Government at the election. If there has not think that was a very reasonable assessment of how been a change of Government at the election, surely long it would take to deal with the economic problems. you do not need that initial year. Given the present situation, where the Government’s forecasts are already not fulfilling the growth which Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I am sorry, but I do they themselves predicted, we may well find that this not really follow the point that the noble Lord is goes on for longer than five years. making. The political reality is that coalitions like fixed-term Parliaments. Why? Because they know that, unless Lord Richard: The noble Lord says that you need a there is a restriction on a Prime Minister’s right to call five-year Parliament because you spend the first year for an election, which by common precedent the Queen getting to know your civil servants, finding out what or monarch grants after a period of six months of the Treasury is going to say and generally getting your government, in order to curb that one of the coalition tackle in order. If there has not been a change of partners, namely the most junior or smaller coalition Government, if it is the same Government coming in partner, wants to be sure that the Prime Minister as was governing before the election, surely none of cannot cut and run when the opinion polls are in that applies. favour of the majority part of the coalition at the disadvantage of the minority part of the coalition. You can have all the legal arguments that you like but Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I think that is a this seems to me purely practical, sensible politics. It perfectly fair point; I cede the point, but the fact is that would be quite wrong to deprive the coalition—if it Governments do change a great deal. We have seen it wished it, which is what this is predominantly about—of in recent years and it will go on. Others will win; they the ability to exercise its right to go for five years, will come in for the first time. Without wishing to go which is the constitutional precedent. It wishes to lock into detail, I totally agree with the description by the itself into a situation where only under rather exceptional noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, of what a five-year circumstances can an election be called during the Parliament could do, but I think that that is the right five-year period. That is perfectly legitimate. I am in way to go and that this House should be very careful favour of five years, as the Government wish, and in before backing a four-year Parliament. favour of a fixed-term Parliament as a mechanism for making coalitions successful. In Europe we have seen Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, would that coalitions can be successful but they need certain the noble Lord care to ponder on the thought that the parameters, one of which is knowing how long they British public might wish to have a Government that is are likely to last. taking into account public opinion once every four The wider question, which is really the issue of years as opposed to once every five years? His argument debate, is: should the period be four years or five? I am is that the fifth year is the year when the Government not sure. The great advantage of the British constitution of the day is having regard to the next election and has been its flexibility. Most people consider five years public opinion. In my experience, the public form an the limit but, for a variety of very good reasons, Prime opinion about Governments fairly quickly and to ask Ministers with large majorities, both Margaret Thatcher them to wait for five years before expressing that view and Tony Blair, have chosen to go after four years— is rather long. broadly speaking, for the benefit of the country as a whole. I am against putting restrictions on this, so I Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I only make the am open-minded about trying to retain some flexibility point, before I give way to others, that it is very within a fixed-term Parliament. I am therefore not interesting to see just how many people voted on the convinced by the argument that we should choose four AV matter and all that a few days ago: just 42 per cent. years. I am attracted to an interesting amendment that One may think that most of the public are longing and is to be moved later, although I do not want in any way waiting to have a vote; it is not true. Most members of to pre-empt it. the public are very difficult to interest in politics and My fundamental point about fixed-term Parliaments, many members of the public would much rather only if we are making this legislation for the future, is that have to vote once every five years rather than every this is a profound constitutional change. It deserves a four. referendum—a proper referendum. What we have just experienced was not a proper referendum but a rigged Lord Owen: My Lords, I would like to inject, not one. If we had had a proper referendum, there would legal points, but a few raw political questions. Why are have been three options on the ballot paper. I do not we being asked for this legislation? It is because a know what the right choice is for a referendum on coalition was formed. If we go back to the circumstances fixed-term Parliaments; some people may say that it is in which that coalition was formed, the general view three years, others four or five. Maybe there should be was that the purpose of that coalition, above all else, only two options. However, if there is a body of was to deliver a programme, over a fairly long period, opinion in the country that thinks that, like Australia, to deal with the very serious economic situation, namely, you should have only a three-year term, that should be a structural fiscal deficit. It seems to me not an accident represented in a referendum. 793 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 794

[LORD OWEN] for it being so. However, I agree with what the noble Referendums are not to be part of a political fix; and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said at they are part of our constitutional future. If we are to Second Reading: whether a term should be of four or have fixed-term Parliaments—I hope that eventually five years is in the end “a question of judgment”. That we do; I would support them—then let us have a judgment should be informed by principle. I have proper referendum, let the period be something that struggled hard to find any principle advanced by the people can reflect on and make their judgment, and let Government in favour of the Bill. Indeed, the noble it not be handed down to them as a political fix. There and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, at Second Reading is a big warning in the referendum that we have just seemed to base the argument primarily on precedent—on gone through. The country spotted a manipulative what had happened in our recent history, in several political fix of a referendum. People knew and felt countries in the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and so on. that they ought to have been given the choice of However, there is a principled argument for the whether there should be proportional representation. Government’s position. It was put forward, for example, Furthermore, they also spotted something else: they from the Cross Benches, by the noble Lords, Lord should have been given that choice after the coalition Armstrong and Lord Butler, from all their experience had been in office for at least a period of three to four of serving the state over many years. It is an argument years so that they could make a judgment on coalitions. rooted in the importance of stability for the governance Let us have an end to rigged referendums. Let us of this country. This is not a negligible argument, but accept referendums on major constitutional questions, it comes up against the argument that accountability and let them be open and proper choices. Since I think should be paramount. That is a judgment that I support. that ultimately we will have to have another referendum More importantly, it is a judgment that almost all on European entry—I do not particularly relish it, but noble Lords who have so far spoken in these debates I suspect that it is coming—let us learn that that have favoured. It is overwhelmingly, as we have heard, referendum must be a proper choice too. the view of all the experts who have given evidence On the question of sunset clauses or anything like to both Houses of Parliament. The search for an that, I see great flexibility when an incoming Government accommodation between the principles of accountability are formed. I like the idea that when they are formed and stability is fundamental to the constitutional they choose under what restriction they will operate. If arrangements of all modern democracies. The question they are a coalition, as likely as not they will choose that still has not been adequately addressed in all the that they wish to have the rigidity, if you like, of a parliamentary scrutiny of this legislation is: who should fixed term, and let them choose whether it will be make the decision about how best to make that three years, four years or five. That seems to me to be accommodation? their choice. If they come in with a large majority but Today we have heard the case for greater consultation. do not want to have the inability to call an election Even if the Government did not take the decision in earlier, I am not sure that that should not be part of favour of five years quite as casually and self-interestedly the flexibility of the constitution. If they have a full as the account given by Mr David Laws MP suggests, majority, they can legislate for it anyhow. We might do it is still a fact that there has been no public consultation better to recognise this. on this fundamental issue. This legislation seeks to determine the shape of future Parliaments, yet those 4.15 pm most affected by it—the voters of this country—have When the noble and learned Lord speaks at the end not yet been asked what they think about the judgment of this debate, I urge him to think hard about this, and that the Government have made. They should be maybe go away and consult before taking a final asked. We have heard a great deal about the views of position. The Government have got themselves into academic experts and politicians; what about the people quite a mess and alienated a lot of their friends over we all serve? I am not in favour of referendums in some of these constitutional provisions. The case for general. I am certainly not in favour of a referendum pre-legislative examination has been made very strongly. on this point. However, I am in favour of the Government Above all, the Government should recognise that they embarking on one of the many forms of public are entitled to put this box around their own negotiations. engagement that already exist—exercises in deliberative They had to listen to some people who said, “You democracy and so on. They are available to the can’t possibly give up the right of the House of Commons Government, who should now take advantage of them. to pass a vote of no confidence”. That was, again, a Listening to all the rhetoric of the Deputy Prime foolish suggestion but they moved away from it. Any Minister and the Prime Minister, you would think pre-legislative committee would certainly have exposed they believed in the greater engagement of the public that that was not workable. The more flexibility that is in policy formation between elections. Here is an put into fixed-term Parliaments, the more likely they opportunity for them to put some substance into all are to get general acceptance, and the more likely they this airy rhetoric. If your Lordships support this are to win support in a referendum. amendment, I fear it will not change the Government’s mind on how long a term should be. This Government Lord Wills: My Lords, I rise briefly to support this have shown very little inclination to listen to your amendment, primarily because it will give the Government Lordships’ House on all their measures of constitutional a chance to reconsider a key part of the Bill. The case reform. However, the amendment will at least provide for a fixed term of four years is not beyond argument, an opportunity for taking a pause. My noble friend although my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer Lord Grocott made this case persuasively at the start and many other noble Lords have made a good case of this debate. 795 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 796

If the Government can take a pause to consult begin five-year terms, and this is likely to become the widely on measures such as NHS reform—profoundly norm for future elections to the Scottish Parliament important as they are—surely they can do the same and Welsh Assembly. There is no appetite at all in with this important measure of constitutional reform. Scotland and Wales— I hope that your Lordships will give the Government an opportunity to do so. Lord Martin of Springburn: I thank the noble Lord, but it is my understanding that the five years was a Lord Rennard: My Lords, I set out in Committee facility given by this Government so that there would three reasons why I felt strongly that a fixed-term be no clash with other elections. Four years was the Parliament of five years was more appropriate than norm. The five years was an accommodation that one of four years. I shall not repeat those arguments at suited this Government. length. However, since I made the first argument there has been even more discussion about the principle of Lord Rennard: In response to demand from the pre-legislative scrutiny, and there has been a considerable Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly not to demand in this House and elsewhere for more pre- have a clash in 2015, the Government said that they legislative scrutiny. A five-year fixed-term Parliament would facilitate whatever was required to postpone in many ways incentivises a Government to have more the elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh pre-legislative scrutiny than has previously been the Assembly for a five-year, rather than a four-year, term. case. If a Government feel that they may be in for only My understanding is that that will now become the four years, and there was a four-year fixed-term norm in Scotland and Wales, and that people in Scotland Parliament, we would have rather less pre-legislative and Wales have no desire for their parliamentary and scrutiny than would happen if they knew they would Assembly elections to coincide with Westminster elections. last for five years. A year ago, in the general election campaign, both I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who said the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats said in earlier that there is a clear danger that a four-year manifestos that they wanted fixed-term Parliaments, Parliament would not provide much time in the first but neither of them said for how long they should last. year for pre-legislative scrutiny, and we all know that David Cameron said before the general election that in the last year of almost any Parliament there is he would seriously consider the principle of fixed-term perhaps more attention on campaigning than on Parliaments, but again did not say how long the period legislating. This would mean that in a four-year fixed-term should be. So none of the three main parties specified Parliament perhaps only two years would be devoted a year ago during the general election campaign what to serious legislative work. Many people believe that in period would be appropriate for fixed-term Parliaments. the model of the United States, which has a four-year For all the reasons I have given—the fact that there fixed-term, there are only two years of effective governing will be more pre-legislative scrutiny; we will tie in and two years of campaigning. constituency election expenditure; we will tie in the Secondly, I pointed out in Committee—I thought boundary reviews; and we will tie in processes with the that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wills, would have said Scottish and Welsh Parliaments—I think that a fixed-term something about this—that there should be consistency Parliament of five years is most appropriate. in the way in which you conduct elections in terms of how you regulate constituency election expenditure. Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the noble The previous Labour Government brought in rules that Lord sits down, I hope that he will forgive me for kick in four years and seven months after a general election feeling that he might be using a slightly cynical argument. and last for 60 months after the previous general I have listened carefully, because I know how experienced election. In other words, the rules last to control he is in politics, but given that the coalition Government expenditure at constituency level in general elections came in and announced that there would be a five-year only for the final six months of a five-year Parliament. term and then produced major constitutional change As we said in debates a year or two ago, it is not logical legislation without pre-legislative scrutiny, I find that to have rules controlling constituency expenditure in argument hard to take. The noble Lord referred to his that last six months of a five-year Parliament unless experience in the referendum campaign. My experience there is a five-year fixed-term Parliament. was that more people were saying, “When can we have My third argument relates to our recent debates of a general election?”than even were fired up on AV.Those great controversy. However, we decided in legislation who claim that the number of people turning out in that reviews of parliamentary constituency boundaries the referendum on AV is an indication of how strongly would take place every five years. The principle of people feel about the Government may be wrong. revising constituency boundaries to take into account shifting population is recognised by all parties. However, Lord Rennard: With great respect to the noble Baroness, the frequency with which that takes place is the subject I did not refer in my remarks to the events of last week of some dispute. Revising constituency boundaries in the referendum. I was simply making the point that more frequently than every five years would have so many people here argue for more pre-legislative many disadvantages and would certainly be unpopular scrutiny. I believe that there would be more pre-legislative in another place. The reviews of constituency boundaries scrutiny in a five-year fixed term Parliament than should be synchronised with general elections. there would in a four-year one, because in a four-year There is, however, an additional argument that one, the Government would be so anxious to do so points in favour of a five-year fixed term. The Scottish much that they would not have as much pre-legislative Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are about to scrutiny. 797 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 798

Lord Goldsmith: Before the noble Lord sits down, timing, have rarely been known to touch the fair brow as I think that he is the first Liberal Democrat who has of Principle, let alone grab her by the waist. Rather, spoken on Report, is it his party’s position that fewer getting Prime Ministers to give up office is rather like general elections increases democratic accountability? asking a squirrel to give up his nuts. The Bill gives us stability and certainty. They are Lord Rennard: It is the position of my party that very powerful principles. This is a rare example of a general elections in which people get what they vote Prime Minister giving up powers: no longer able to for is the most fundamental democratic reform. I manipulate the electoral system for his own personal agree with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that if those benefit. No other Prime Minister has had the courage people who support other systems, such as first past to do that. Yet the new system is not as fixed and rigid the post, really had the courage of their convictions, as the title of the Bill suggests. There are safety valves. they would have allowed proportional representation Every one of what we might call the early elections of to be on the ballot paper last week, as I believe that the past 75 years—in 1951, 1966, and two in 1974—could one day it will be. have taken place under the provisions of the Bill. The Bill does not mean five years inflexibly, unnaturally and no matter what. Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my recollection is that the noble Lord’s party voted against What are the arguments for four or five years, alternatives being put forward in the referendum alongside which is essentially what we are arguing about here? AV. Many of us felt very strongly that the public were The arguments that I have heard for four years have being given about one-third of a question in the been desperately thin. All sorts of statistical averages referendum rather than the whole question, which have been offered to us, but that is all that they are: would have given them a choice. For the noble Lord statistical averages. There is nothing natural in the now to claim that somehow the Liberal Democrats are figure of four, apart from the natural inclination of in favour of the widest possible consultation is a bit Prime Ministers not to get unnaturally caught out by hollow. events or to run out of options. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord wants his party to meet the electorate sooner rather than later. Perhaps he is being Lord Rennard: We are rather going off the subject more romantic than ruthless or calculating, but that of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. Briefly, I remind does not make it right. the noble Baroness that her party’s manifesto promised Of course, the fifth years of previous Governments a referendum on AV but no other subject. The have been pretty terrible under the present system, but Conservative Party promised as part of the coalition that is precisely what the Bill, with its certainty, is negotiations to have a referendum on AV but on no trying to put behind us. Four years or five years? There other subject. The Liberal Democrats won only 57 out is no magic in either figure. Either way, the world will of 650 seats and were therefore not in a position to not crumble, nor democracy disappear down an abyss. insist on what we really wanted, which was a referendum Let us put aside the pretence that this is a matter of on proportional representation. principle; it is a matter of practicalities. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wills, Lord Dobbs: I have listened to this debate and the talk about accountability to the people and about previous one with fascination. We have gone today what the people want. That is what we should be from Herbert Asquith in 1911 to Mr Chris Huhne and worried about. However, people never complained Mr David Laws—and other notorious parliamentary when Mrs Thatcher or Mr Blair chose four years double acts. We have been from the dog to the duck rather than five because they thought that they might and all the way to Battersea Dogs Home. We have win. Neither did they complain when John Major, heard that this is a matter of high principle. Perhaps Gordon Brown and Alec Douglas-Home chose five that is right. I can just imagine the scene when Mr Gordon rather than four years on the basis that they might not Brown in 2007 was urged to go for an early election. win after four. People seem to be happy, in this instance Did he say, “No, Miliband. Get behind me with your at least, to leave decisions to the politicians. temptation. It has been only two years since the last Should it be four or five? Noble Lords must forgive election and I must soldier on to the end as a matter of me if I am not entirely swayed by the argument that principle?”. It might have been like that, but I thought four is right simply because it was in the Lib Dem that it was my task in my other life to ask for the manifesto of an earlier era, and least of all because suspension of disbelief. Certainly it was not like that Mr Chris Huhne recommended it. I am inclined to five with John Major in 1996. The question then was rather than four because it is the present system; we simple; can we win in four? “No? Okay, we’ll try five”. have a five-year term, so why change? If there is to be Of course, I was not with Jim Callaghan in 1978 or change from five to four, there must be a real and Alec Douglas-Home in 1963, but I suspect that the compelling reason rather than just a recitation of conversations in No. 10 were along much the same lines. statistical averages. I also think that five rather than four will have advantages because we live in an increasingly 4.30 pm short-term world of Twitter, Facebook and rushing to The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, talked judgment. Five years might give us in this country the earlier of the possibilities for abuse by Prime Ministers advantage of being able to lay foundations that might that might be brought in by the Bill. Perhaps I have a be properly assessed and will have a chance to endure. surprise for him; it is under the present system that Of course, a five-year term encourages those vital twin Prime Ministers, when they have decided on election pillars of success: stability and certainty. 799 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 800

We have had much discussion on the need for more took today. He seemed to have two arguments for not pre-legislative scrutiny on matters such as this, and supporting the amendment moved by my noble and that is a point that I respond to—but that is not the learned friend Lord Falconer. The first was, in a sense, issue at this point. The issue is simply four or five, and a debating tactic: that he was going to support I see absolutely nothing wrong with five. Amendment 3 and was now being asked to support Amendment 1. I did not think that was sufficient to Lord Morgan: I listened with great fascination to reject the important case made by my noble and the entertaining speech we just heard, which included learned friend. the argument, “Why should we change? The present Then there was the important distinction made by system works perfectly well”. That seems to be an many noble Lords made about this Parliament and interesting litany on the entire programme of future Parliaments. It was said, quite correctly, that constitutional reforms, which have been introduced on this Government have the right, as any Government very thin intellectual foundations time and again. I have, to determine their own length. The question is am, however, glad to hear a voice for continuity on the not whether the Government have the right to determine Conservative Benches. their own length, but whether they should do it by statute. I am driven very much to the view, after listening to That is what we are debating. This Bill lays down in very interesting speeches, that there is an overwhelming statute at the beginning of a Parliament, for purely case for flexibility. It would be highly desirable, in my party-political reasons which David Laws’s book exposed, view, to allow circumstances to develop without a that it was determined at a very early stage that there fixed term being announced. One could think historically should be a Parliament whose length would be determined of a large number of instances where, long before four by statute. Furthermore, it is not only this Parliament. years let alone five, the useful work of a Government This Parliament is deemed to be setting the template has been done and there should be recourse to the for future Parliaments, and it follows logically one people. Such was the case with the Eden Government, from the other. I therefore think that the case goes who lasted only two years and were—mercifully, in a together, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer sense—terminated by the Suez invasion, which let the said, with whether this Parliament and future Parliaments Government off a very nasty domestic predicament. should or could be considered differently. So I think there is a case for flexibility, but historically, The main point about this proposal goes beyond in recent decades, the argument has been overwhelmingly that. This is a very disreputable Bill. It purports to for four years. All Governments who have actually strengthen the power of the legislative over the Executive. gone on for five years—the Callaghan Government in It does not. Like many of the Bills we have had, it 1978, the Major Government in 1996, the Gordon weakens the power of Parliament. Later, we are going Brown Government in 2009—have been Governments to debate when a general election could be held, but who were struggling, where their continuation led to here we have the Executive laying down by statute at economic and other difficulties, was a sign of weakness the beginning of a term that a Parliament should last and led to significant parliamentary malaise. That is for five years and no longer. It weakens the control of something on which we might want to reflect. Parliament, as many noble Lords have said. It also Much has been made by the noble Lord, Lord weakens popular involvement and popular control. Rennard, and others—and I respect the point—about Every inquiry we have had—the Power inquiry chaired the very long time it takes to get things going, meet the by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and others—has civil servants and organise things. Many of these testified to the evidence from people that they want arguments rest on the experience of this coalition. regular control and authorisation of what is being This coalition was formed in very curious circumstances: done and that the Government and the House of it was not the result of success at the general election; Commons should be truly accountable. This is a way the voters did not vote for it. They certainly did not of obstructing that and making Parliament very much vote for the Liberal Democrats being in coalition with less accountable. At a time when the repute of Parliament the Conservatives. The coalition was a result of a has, by general consent, degenerated and when people coalition agreement concocted in hectic circumstances, feel that politicians are doing things of which they and that is why we have had so many measures that strongly disapprove politically and perhaps morally have required legislative scrutiny—not only on the and that their control over Parliament is diminishing, constitution, but as we have seen very spectacularly, this is exactly the wrong way to do it. Therefore this on health and other matters currently being considered Bill—it purports to be on the basis of high principle in the House of Commons. but has, like all these other constitutional Bills, been produced for disreputable, partisan reasons—is the I feel there is a strong case for flexibility, but I also strongest reason why we should support the amendment feel there is a very strong case for the argument put moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. I believe it is entirely possible to accept the general principle of flexibility but to say that, if there is a Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, I support choice—and nobody has argued for Parliaments lasting the principle of fixed-term Parliaments and, since the beyond five years, as they did before 1911—then there start of scrutiny of the Bill, I have supported terms of has to be a terminal point and there is a good case for five years, not because five-year terms or fixed-term four years. I normally listen to the noble and learned Parliaments themselves offer some kind of trendy Lord, Lord Lloyd, with great approval, and I frequently radical change but because it offers the electorate have voted and spoken with him on issues in your certainty. Right now, people elect a Government for Lordships’ House. I was disappointed in the line he up to five years, but a Prime Minister gets to decide 801 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 802

[BARONESS STOWELL OF BEESTON] “The disquiet is really about having no say. It is about feeling that the Government will serve for fewer if it means disconnected because voting once every four or five years does that his party has a better chance of serving for more. not feel like real engagement”. If this Bill passes, people will elect a Government in The report does not say that people want more general exactly the same way as before and they will know two elections, but that they want more influence. things for sure: that the Government and their opponents The problem identified by the Power commission will have to face the electorate on a predetermined will not be addressed by an election every four or five date, whatever the political conditions at that time, years. It will be addressed by Governments introducing and that it will happen once every five years. change like that which we are scrutinising in the House Let me expand further on why I support five-year at the moment. I refer to issues such as elected police terms. In my Civil Service career, I spent five years in and crime commissioners, local referenda, referenda 10 Downing Street. I was very lucky that my time in on European matters and so forth. In fact, the Power No. 10 coincided with the tenure of the noble Lord, commission’s analysis of the public is similar to the Lord Butler of Brockwell, as Cabinet Secretary, and I evidence I referred to at Second Reading, that of the am pleased to see that he is in his place. I was never as Populus poll commissioned by the Times in 2009 at distinguished as the noble Lord, but like him and the the height of the expenses scandal. It showed that noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, I have 74 per cent of the public supported fixed-term Parliaments served at the heart of government in periods immediately as a change to improve the political system. The only before elections—in my case, before two general measures ranking higher among a list of 13 possible elections—and I know how Ministers and the machinery reforms were a recall of MPs found to have broken of government become distracted by them. parliamentary rules, national referendums on major The noble Lords, Lord Armstrong and Lord Butler, constitutional issues, and local referendums on local do not support the principle of fixed terms; indeed issues where interest warranted them. In my view, the they are supporting the sunset clause, which we will answer to the noble and learned Lord’s objective is debate later. However, at previous stages in the passage fixed terms which allow time for people to have influence of the Bill they voiced their view that, if we are to have over the decisions that affect them. fixed terms, they should be for five years in order that Five-year fixed-term Parliaments are not a radical the country receives effective government for more change to our constitution. To me, they are a concession than four of those five years. As a former civil servant, made by politicians. If we make it, it will show some I wholeheartedly share that view. real respect for the electorate. If all Governments now and in the future use fixed five-year terms to give the 4.45 pm British people a greater say in the decisions that affect My support for five-year terms goes beyond that. I them, this small concession might start to feel like listened carefully to the arguments for four years put something meaningful to the electorate. I support forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of five-year, fixed-term Parliaments and I do not support Berwick, on the second day in Committee. I agree the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord. absolutely with the point he made at the time about how we should determine the length of a fixed term. Lord Blencathra: My Lords, I rise, as far as it is He said: necessary, to make a few observations on this Bill. I “The objective should be … to make the Government and, support the five-year term. I hope that your Lordships indeed, Parliament itself more accountable to the public”.—[Official will not consider it impertinent of me to speak on this Report, 21/3/11; col. 481.] measure since I was not in the House when it was first He was concerned that five-year terms would reduce debated. I have had an opportunity to read the Select the frequency of elections. I take a different view. To Committee reports and so on, and I can only offer achieve the objective outlined by the noble and learned what is perhaps the doubtful benefit of 27 years’ Lord, Lord Lloyd, we need terms that allow each experience in another place as an elected Member of Government to create new and additional opportunities Parliament. I went through six Parliaments in the to give the public a greater say in the decisions that other place, three Parliaments of four years and three affect them. The noble and learned Lord rejected the of five years. I must say that, at the time, I did not feel view of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the British that the five-year Parliaments were somehow depriving public did not want more general elections, and referred the British people of some fundamental human right him to the Power commission as evidence to the or a great opportunity which they had missed because contrary. we had gone beyond four years. I took it upon myself to read the Power report, Arguments have been made today that four is better which was published in 2006 following an extensive than five. I do not accept that and see no great body of study into declining participation and disillusion in evidence for it. I accept that there is a considerable the political system. It was chaired by the noble Baroness, weight of opinion for it. Some of the opinion which Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I do not agree with all has been given to your Lordships’ distinguished Select the recommendations, but the analysis of why people Committees is learned, some is notable and a lot of it feel disengaged is very interesting. The central point of is tremendously experienced, but it is still opinion. I the report is that what underlines a wide range of would not say that it is firm evidence which this House frustrations among the electorate is this: people feel is therefore bound to follow and pass judgment on. that they do not have enough influence over the decisions Perhaps I may deal with a point raised by the noble that affect them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. He pointed out that summarised in her introduction to the report: the evidence was that every time a Prime Minister 803 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 804 went beyond four years, it was pretty awful. I would Lord Falconer, will not object if, in dealing with his not entirely disagree with that, but it was not the fact amendment, I take account of Amendment 3, to which that the Prime Minister went beyond a magic four-year the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, trigger that made it awful. I was privileged, honoured spoke. It gives a different perspective and a different choice. and proud to serve in John Major’s Government right The position taken by the noble and learned Lord, up until 1997, but the difficulties that the Prime Minister Lord Falconer, is that if you are going to have four-year experienced did not materialise in 1996 because he had fixed-term Parliaments we should start with a four-year passed four years; they materialised after the ERM fixed-term Parliament, whereas the noble and learned problems. From then on, it became difficult for the Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, takes the view that this Prime Minister; indeed, it became a bit bloody for Parliament, elected for five years one year ago, should him. Moreover, he had a low majority. One has to look be allowed to complete its five-year term and thereafter at the majorities that Prime Ministers have to determine move to four years. Clearly there is a distinction. The whether their last year will be difficult. That may noble Lord, Lord Owen, gave a good explanation as to happen after two years, three years or four years. why five years for this Parliament is proper—the fact Where Prime Ministers went to the polls after four that very difficult decisions have to be taken. There years it was not because they wished to give the people is accountability, too, in being able to make a better a chance to make their Government accountable; it judgment at the end of five years than might be was not through some great constitutional issue of possible at the end of four years. principle. In fact, they breached our 100-year, five-year As a Government we believe that it is not just five norm because they thought there was a dashed good years for this Parliament but that there should be five chance they would win, and good luck to them. Margaret years for subsequent Parliaments as well. In saying Thatcher did that exceptionally well and so did Tony that, I was getting slightly confused with the arguments Blair. But let us not pretend that those four-year that I had to address. I understood, and I apologise if I Parliaments came about as a result of some issue of got it wrong, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord principle or great conscience, or moral wish to give the Goldsmith, said that the Government could have five British people more accountability. Therefore, I do not years if they wanted and thereafter four. I may have accept the argument that going beyond four years is misunderstood what he said. somehow bad for the Government and nothing can be done. Considerable things were achieved towards the Lord Goldsmith: That is the position under our end of those five-year terms in office. present arrangements, which do not provide for a There has been discussion on whether the people statutory term for Parliament other than the maximum want four or five years. I was for 27 years the Member term. If that is what the Government had wanted they of Parliament for Penrith and the Border, the largest could have had that without the fixed-term Bill. They constituency in England. I do not a recall a Dock and could simply have said, “This is what we are going to Duck there, but in The George, where I had regular do”. History and time would have told us whether that surgeries, I would constantly meet constituents who, was actually what would happen. That is what I was within weeks of an election, irrespective of who had saying. won, would say to me that it was time to get rid of the Government, or that they wished they would continue Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I apologise. I for 20 years. I never met a single constituent who had misunderstood the noble and learned Lord. I thought a view on whether it should be a five-year term or a that he was arguing for four years subsequently. But four-year term. All they wanted was that, in due the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—as one of course, at some point, not more than five years, they the three key reasons why he said it should be four and would have the chance to express their view and for it four—said that it would be wrong if the Government to be taken into account. had one set of rules for the first Parliament and a I hope that your Lordships do not consider it too different set of rules for the others. Of course the impertinent of me to comment on a Bill where I was Government are not seeking to do that. We are seeking not here for the Second Reading nor able to participate to be consistent with five years both for this Parliament in the early stages, but it was my experience in 27 years and for subsequent Parliaments. Therefore, he cannot in the other place that five-year Parliaments were no hold that argument against the Government. less accountable to the people than four-year ones. I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that if we move to fixed five-year terms, over a period of Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords— many years, the public will have slightly fewer general elections, but I submit once again that having an Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I will just finish the election every five years instead of every four years point and then give way to the noble and learned Lord. does not somehow remove accountability and give the If the Government had come forward with a proposal British public less say in the Government whom they for five years for this Parliament and four years thereafter, want. Therefore, I support the five-year term. I can imagine the criticism that would, with some merit, have been directed at us. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has Lord Falconer of Thoroton: So if this House decided been a very full debate with some thoughtful and that it should be four years for subsequent Parliaments, challenging contributions and strong arguments on the right course would be for the Government to say both sides. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, that it should be four years for this Parliament as well? 805 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 806

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I have made the point of the term, new Governments are understandably that it is not the Government who are proposing four keen to start implementing their ideas, but there is years for subsequent Parliaments; we are proposing increasingly a tension between that and the desire to five years. I indicated that if we had proposed five allow more parliamentary scrutiny. If we go back to years for this Parliament and four years subsequently, the 1970s and 1980s, there was very little pre-legislative that would have been the subject of legitimate criticism. scrutiny.We have come under some considerable criticism But that is not what we propose—we propose a consistency for not having had more pre-legislative scrutiny in our of five years. I will come on to argue why we believe that first year and it is inevitable that we are going to move five years is right for subsequent Parliaments as well. to having more. If that is the case, it will limit the ability of the Government of the day to bring forward Baroness Jay of Paddington: I understand the noble more legislation during the first year of their term of and learned Lord’s point. However, as I tried to ask on office. previous occasions, does he take the point that a Moving to the final year of a term of office, my five-year term for this Parliament and this Government noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry indicated could have been achieved in a way that did not involve that in his experience five years was right, given all the this Bill? pressures that were on a Government, in order to get a legislative programme through. There are real advantages, Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Clearly the Government therefore, to five years. I regret that what we have been could have continued for five years, but the point is asked to do in some respects with four years is to fit a that the Government are seeking to introduce the quart into a pint pot, with a squeeze at both ends. At principle of fixed-term Parliaments. In wishing to the other end of the term, the predictability of the introduce that principle, we believe that it should election date may limit some of the hurly-burly of apply to this Parliament as well. It is not just the anticipation that up until now has inevitably attended length of time; it also involves the trigger mechanisms the speculation as to when an election will be called. for an election other than at the end of the five years. However, at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord In terms of consistency, we are saying that what is Armstrong of Ilminster, albeit opposing the principle right for the future—and we are self-evidently legislating of fixed-term Parliaments, made it clear that if there for the future—is something that this Parliament should were to be a fixed-term Parliament, he thought that a equally be obliged to have regard to and, indeed, to be four-year term would not leave enough room for sensible bound by. I hope that I can make some progress. policy-making and a good parliamentary debate before a forthcoming election began to cast what he described Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, surely as its distorting shadow. the point is that this Government could have determined The noble Lord’s concern was that if we had a and announced that they were going to last for five four-year term, it would start to disrupt the parliamentary years. They could then have produced legislation for business as we approach the end of three years. The the future, were that their wish, on which there could noble Lord, Lord Butler—who is in his place, and I have been pre-legislative scrutiny—which the noble hope I am not misrepresenting him—has also expressed Lord, Lord Rennard, believes, and I share his view, we strong reservations about the principle of fixed terms, would all have been the beneficiaries of. So why on and indicated that his experience also lends him to the earth are we doing this Bill now, dealing with the view that five years would be more effective than four. future? That experience was shared by my noble friend Lady Stowell, when she was in government as an official. 5pm Clearly, if we have four years, it shrinks the time Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The answer is the available to Governments to deliver their programme; same as I gave a moment ago to the noble Baroness, especially if we are going to have even more pre-legislative Lady Jay—we believe there should be fixed-term scrutiny. Some of the arguments against five years Parliaments for the future and that this Parliament insist that precedent in our own system favours a should be subject to the same rules, including of four-year term. In fact, if we exclude the elections course the rules that would trigger an early election. since the war that took place after less than two years, Of course, there is no guarantee that either of the the average, I think, is between four and a quarter and coalition parties will be in power after 2015 and that is four and a half years. The fact of the matter is that why we reject the case that this is somehow our own elections that are called at the end of four years are self-interested political fix. We believe that this ought often examples of the Prime Minister of the day to be implemented for future Governments, including seeking to give his or her party a political advantage. It ones where we may not be in power. It was very was not that they thought four years was the appropriate interesting that when my noble friend Lord Rennard length of time, or that the term had come to its natural challenged the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, break, but that it was a judgment for them—as my as to whether, when this Bill is enacted with the five noble friend Lord Dobbs indicated—as to when they years as proposed, a future Labour Government would thought they could win. If they thought they could, amend it to four, he was not able to give a definitive that was when they went. Indeed, on the second day in answer that they would. Committee, my noble friend Lord Dobbs said: However, it must be recognised, too, that even “I am afraid that these decisions have nothing to do with the under fixed terms, Parliaments come under pressure, astrological significance of the figures four or five. It has simply both in their earlier and in their later years. We have been a matter of self-preservations”.—[Official Report, 21/3/11; had a number of speeches to that effect. At the beginning col. 495.] 807 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 808

I think that when an election has been held after Wales the opportunity to change their election date to four years, it has been because it has been more avoid a clash with an election in 2015—the offer was electorally convenient for the party in power than for to hold an election between the first Thursday in May any great reasons of measuring accountability or suiting 2014 and the first Thursday in May 2016—in each the political biorhythm—a view that I think is shared case they opted for a five-year term. They could have by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. In holding up gone for four years and six months or three years and this practice as a standard for fixed terms, the advocates six months but they opted for five years, and that of four years are arguing strongly for the very enemy Motion was, I think, assented to by the leaders of all that the Bill is seeking to combat—that of political parties, including the Labour Party, in both the Parliament expediency triumphing over the national interest, with and the Assembly. parties holding an election after four years when they The question that has been raised, not least by the see it as expedient to do so. We are trying to take that noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Pannick, is: how do power out of the hands of the Prime Minister and give we ensure accountability? Accountability can come in it to Parliament. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord many ways. It is not just in parliamentary general Hennessy, said at Second Reading, for that reason this elections that parties and politicians are accountable. is a “collector’s item” of a Bill. The noble Lord, Lord My noble friend Lady Stowell talked about some of Morgan, clearly wishes to intervene. the ideas that came out in the Power inquiry to try to engage ordinary people in the political process. The Lord Morgan: Is that not a totally false distinction? point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in Do not a Government necessarily equate their party what I thought was a very thoughtful contribution, interest with the national interest? Is that not precisely that five years is very often required for an assessment what the Liberal Democrats have done by serving in to be made of the effectiveness of a Government’s this Government? early policies and for people to make a proper and Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I am not informed decision after there has been an opportunity sure that last Thursday would necessarily have been for those policies to feed through. thought to be in my party’s interest. I shall not rehearse all the arguments for the coalition but we heard the Lord Wills: I am grateful to the noble and learned comments of my noble friend Lord Dobbs, who has Lord for his espousal of these methods of public been there when some of these decisions have been engagement. I, too, was pleased to hear that espousal taken. As he indicated, the question has been: can we from his noble friend Lady Stowell. Can he explain to win? No doubt all parties think that they are right for the House why they have not taken advantage of one the country but clearly the decision is taken for partisan of these methods of public engagement to ask the reasons—when they think they can win. If one looks public what they think about this measure? at 1983 and 1987, it is interesting that Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, did not hold an election exactly after four years—or at least she did in 1987—but she made Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, in the the decision in 1983 after the local election results had Constitution Committee, the noble and learned Lord, come through. If I recall correctly, that was when I Lord Goldsmith, asked my honourable friend Mr Mark was first elected. The Dissolution took place the week Harper about opinion polls which showed public support after the local government election results in the first for establishing fixed terms. These are not old opinion week in May, when she quite clearly saw that that polls: the Populus survey conducted for the Times, would be to her party’s advantage. published on 30 May 2009, found that 74 per cent of It is also suggested that Parliaments that have gone those surveyed supported the establishment of fixed to five years have been destabilising—I think that the terms; a poll conducted by ICM Research for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, used the Sunday Telegraph, published on 26 May 2010, found expression “an awful fifth year”—but in many respects that 63 per cent of those surveyed supported the the term has been self-selecting, as my noble friend establishment of fixed terms; and a survey by the Lord Blencathra indicated. There have been fifth years Scottish Youth Parliament conducted in August 2010 under Governments who did not have the confidence found that 76.4 per cent of the young people surveyed to go to the country after four years because they did were in favour of establishing a fixed term for the not think that they could win, having run out of steam United Kingdom Parliament. I accept that the question and lost their way. No doubt they thought that if they as to whether it should be four or five years was not carried on for a final year something might just turn put, but there was clearly in the surveys support for up. That is not a very good argument for saying that the principle of fixed-term Parliaments. five years would not work. I shall pay a passing My noble friend Lord Dobbs talked about the compliment to the Government of whom the noble opportunity for policies to mature and to be assessed. and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was a Therefore, there is an opportunity for accountability member. I suspect that if the Government elected in because the electorate can see what has been delivered, 1997 had gone into a fifth year, that year would still not only by this Government in the present Parliament, have been very purposeful. The noble and learned where it may take some time for the necessary remedial Lord shakes his head but I think that he may be doing measures to work through, but by other Parliaments. a disservice to his party. It is possible for a Government coming into office at As my noble friend Lord Rennard pointed out, it is the beginning of five years to plan its legislative programme also interesting that when the Government gave the and the other things that do not require legislation, devolved Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in and at the end of which the public can make their 809 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 810

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I am not decision and judgment on the effectiveness of the here to speak on behalf of these experts. In my closing Government over those years. That will help remarks, I picked up the point made by my noble friend accountability. Lord Blencathra that there has been a lot of opinion Practical issues were raised by a number of noble on this from people who have had experience, including Lords, not least by my noble friends Lord Renton and former Cabinet Secretaries and Chief Whips as well as Lord Blencathra. The questions of stability, practicality those in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly and allowing for accountability point to five years. who favoured five years when given the opportunity to do so. Some of them have indicated that they would quite like five years to be put on a more permanent Lord Bach: Something is troubling me. If the noble footing. The evidence suggests that they have had and learned Lord has all these strong arguments against practice and five years is what they have concluded is four years rather than five, why was it that his party probably the right period of time. So again I invite the went into the 2010 general election supporting a fixed-term noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment. Parliament of four years? What changed? When did the noble and learned Lord change his mind? 5.15 pm Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it has been a good and a very important debate. If what the noble Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, if the House and learned Lord says is right about trying to engage will bear with me, I shall find the quote from the the public more in politics and if the Deputy Prime Liberal Democrat manifesto of last year. It states: Minister is right when he says, describing the suite of “Introduce fixed-term parliaments to ensure that the Prime Bills, that, Minister of the day cannot change the date of the election to suit “it is an unambiguous judgment on our part that reducing the themselves”. power of the executive, seeking to boost the power of the legislature, As my noble friend Lord Rennard indicated, there is making the legislatures more accountable to people ... collectively not a reference to four years. However, in the past the introduces the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater party has supported— control over politicians”, surely the minimum that this Government should do is to respond to Parliament’s independent view about Lord Bach: Is the noble and learned Lord really these issues, not put on a party-political basis. Both Select suggesting that the Liberal Democrat party was in Committees, which contain a majority of people from favour of five-year fixed Parliaments at the time of the the coalition, said that five years was wrong and that general election of 2010? We know about the Private four years was right. If this Government are going to Member’s Bill that was supported by many of those demonstrate their sincerity about new politics, should who are now prominent in Government. Liberal Democrat it not abandon simply doing things on the basis of policy has always been four years. Why has it changed what their own whipped majority wants and listen to so suddenly? what Parliament says? Parliament has said on an independent basis that four years and not five years is right. If the Government do not listen to that, I have Lord Wallace of Tankerness: What the noble Lord to say that it puts in doubt their repeated statement, in claimed was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto was particular through their Deputy Prime Minister, that inaccurate. I am not shying away from the fact that they want to give more power to the legislature. four years had been Liberal Democrat policy, but I shall not repeat the arguments in support of four everyone knows that you have to have negotiations if years. For my own part, the independent evidence you want to get the outcome of a fixed-term Parliament, supports it very strongly. The only point that I shall and that was the negotiation. I have listened to the refer to is the one made by the noble and learned argument and, heaven forfend, I am persuaded by it. Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that you could have five The arguments that have been made for five years are years for this Parliament and four for the next. Myself very compelling indeed. and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of On the point made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, Tankerness, are in agreement on the principled position although there has been a great deal of opinion in in relation to that. If it is to be four or five years for the favour of four years, we have heard in today’s debate—and future, it should be the same for this Parliament, from the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong and Lord because this Bill introduces fetters and difficulties in Butler, in Committee—that the evidence points in having an election before the end. So I agree with the favour of five years. I urge the noble and learned Lord Government when they say that it should be the same to withdraw his amendment. now as for the future. For all the reasons given, in my respectful submission Lord Goldsmith: The Minister confirmed a moment the right answer is four years. Sadly, I shall not accept ago—I am grateful to him—when he spoke about the invitation of the noble and learned Lord, tempting opinions that none of the three surveys asked the as it is. I wish to test the opinion of the House. people what they thought about the precise length of 5.18 pm term. Can he say why it is—he did not address this in his remarks—that the experts, I think without exception Division on Amendment 1 but certainly the vast bulk of them, who came to the Contents 209; Not-Contents 257. Select Committee spoke in favour of four not five years, and none of them supported five. Why is that? Amendment 1 disagreed. 811 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 812

Division No. 1 Pannick, L. Stern, B. Parekh, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. CONTENTS Patel, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Patel of Blackburn, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Adams of Craigielea, B. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L. Adonis, L. Grocott, L. Pendry, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Allenby of Megiddo, V. Hanworth, V. Pitkeathley, B. Temple-Morris, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Harries of Pentregarth, L. Plant of Highfield, L. Tenby, V. Andrews, B. Harris of Haringey, L. Prescott, L. Thornton, B. Prosser, B. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Harrison, L. Tomlinson, L. Quin, B. Bach, L. Hart of Chilton, L. Touhig, L. Radice, L. Barnett, L. Haskel, L. Triesman, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. Haskins, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Rea, L. Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller] [Teller] Hastings of Scarisbrick, L. Turnberg, L. Beecham, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Reid of Cardowan, L. Richard, L. Turnbull, L. Bhattacharyya, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Turner of Camden, B. Billingham, B. Henig, B. Richardson of Calow, B. Wall of New Barnet, B. Bilston, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Warnock, B. Blood, B. Hollick, L. Rooker, L. Boateng, L. Hollis of Heigham, B. Rosser, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Boothroyd, B. Howarth of Breckland, B. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L. Borrie, L. Howarth of Newport, L. Rowlands, L. West of Spithead, L. Boyd of Duncansby, L. Howells of St Davids, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Wheeler, B. Bradley, L. Howie of Troon, L. Sandwich, E. Whitaker, B. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Hoyle, L. Sawyer, L. Whitty, L. Brookman, L. Hughes of Stretford, B. Sewel, L. Wigley, L. Cameron of Dillington, L. Hughes of Woodside, L. Sherlock, B. Wilkins, B. Campbell-Savours, L. Hunt of Chesterton, L. Simon, V. Williams of Elvel, L. Carter of Coles, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Wills, L. Chandos, V. Irvine of Lairg, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Wood of Anfield, L. Christopher, L. Jay of Paddington, B. Snape, L. Young of Hornsey, B. Clancarty, E. Jones, L. Soley, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. Clark of Windermere, L. Judd, L. Clarke of Hampstead, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. NOT CONTENTS Clinton-Davis, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Cobbold, L. Kestenbaum, L. Aberdare, L. Chidgey, L. Collins of Highbury, L. King of Bow, B. Addington, L. Clement-Jones, L. Corbett of Castle Vale, L. King of West Bromwich, L. Alderdice, L. Colwyn, L. Corston, B. Kingsmill, B. Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller] Condon, L. Crawley, B. Kinnock, L. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. Cope of Berkeley, L. Cunningham of Felling, L. Kinnock of Holyhead, B. Arran, E. Cormack, L. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Kirkhill, L. Ashdown of Norton-sub- Cotter, L. Davies of Coity, L. Knight of Weymouth, L. Hamdon, L. Courtown, E. Davies of Oldham, L. Laming, L. Astor, V. Cox, B. Davies of Stamford, L. Lea of Crondall, L. Astor of Hever, L. Craig of Radley, L. Dixon, L. Levy, L. Attlee, E. Craigavon, V. Donaghy, B. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Avebury, L. Crathorne, L. Donoughue, L. Liddle, L. Ballyedmond, L. Crickhowell, L. Drake, B. Lister of Burtersett, B. Bell, L. De Mauley, L. D’Souza, B. Listowel, E. Benjamin, B. Dear, L. Dubs, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Best, L. Deech, B. Eames, L. McAvoy, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Denham, L. Elder, L. McDonagh, B. Blencathra, L. Dholakia, L. Elystan-Morgan, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Blyth of Rowington, L. Dixon-Smith, L. Evans of Parkside, L. McFall of Alcluith, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Dobbs, L. Evans of Watford, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. B. Doocey, B. Falconer of Thoroton, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Boswell of Aynho, L. Dykes, L. Falkland, V. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Eaton, B. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. L. Bowness, L. Eccles, V. Faulkner of Worcester, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Bradshaw, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Filkin, L. Martin of Springburn, L. Bridgeman, V. Edmiston, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Masham of Ilton, B. Brinton, B. Elton, L. Ford, B. Massey of Darwen, B. Brittan of Spennithorne, L. Empey, L. Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Maxton, L. Broers, L. Erroll, E. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Meacher, B. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Falkner of Margravine, B. Fritchie, B. Mitchell, L. L. Faulks, L. Gale, B. Moonie, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Feldman of Elstree, L. Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Morgan, L. Browning, B. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Giddens, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Butler of Brockwell, L. Ferrers, E. Glasman, L. Morgan of Ely, B. Butler-Sloss, B. Flight, L. Golding, B. Morgan of Huyton, B. Byford, B. Fookes, B. Goldsmith, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. Caithness, E. Fowler, L. Gordon of Strathblane, L. Morris of Handsworth, L. Campbell of Alloway, L. Framlingham, L. Goudie, B. Morris of Manchester, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Gould of Brookwood, L. Morris of Yardley, B. Cathcart, E. Freeman, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Nye, B. Cavendish of Furness, L. Freud, L. Grantchester, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. Chadlington, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Grenfell, L. Palmer, L. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Gardiner of Kimble, L. 813 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 814

Gardner of Parkes, B. Mawhinney, L. True, L. Walmsley, B. Garel-Jones, L. May of Oxford, L. Trumpington, B. Walpole, L. Geddes, L. Mayhew of Twysden, L. Tugendhat, L. Walton of Detchant, L. German, L. Miller of Hendon, B. Tyler, L. Warsi, B. Glasgow, E. Montagu of Beaulieu, L. Verma, B. Wasserman, L. Glendonbrook, L. Montrose, D. Vinson, L. Wei, L. Glentoran, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Waddington, L. Wheatcroft, B. Gold, L. Moynihan, L. Wade of Chorlton, L. Wilcox, B. Goodhart, L. Naseby, L. Wakeham, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Goodlad, L. Neuberger, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Wilson of Tillyorn, L. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Newlove, B. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Greaves, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Greenway, L. B. 5.33 pm Hameed, L. Noakes, B. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Northbrook, L. Hamwee, B. Northover, B. Amendment 2 Hanham, B. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. Harris of Richmond, B. O’Cathain, B. Moved by Lord Falconer of Thoroton Henley, L. O’Loan, B. Heyhoe Flint, B. Owen, L. 2: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from “be” to end of line 8 Higgins, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. and insert “on the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation Hill of Oareford, L. Palumbo, L. on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and subsequent Home, E. Patten, L. parliamentary general elections shall be every four years thereafter” Hooper, B. Perry of Southwark, B. Howe, E. Phillips of Sudbury, L. Howe of Aberavon, L. Popat, L. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not Howe of Idlicote, B. Ramsbotham, L. think that the House has any appetite for long debates Howell of Guildford, L. Randerson, B. on any of these next votes, but they are alternatives to Hunt of Wirral, L. Rawlings, B. Hurd of Westwell, L. Razzall, L. the vote that we have just had. This next vote, which is Hussain, L. Redesdale, L. on Amendment 2, involves the following: instead of Hussein-Ece, B. Rennard, L. this first Parliament being fixed for five years, the Hylton, L. Renton of Mount Harry, L. position should be left as it is. In effect, if the Government Inglewood, L. Roberts of Conwy, L. want to go on for five years, they can do so and the James of Blackheath, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Janvrin, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. arrangements should be left as they are, and a fixed-term Jay of Ewelme, L. Rotherwick, L. Parliament can be introduced for the future. I detect Jenkin of Kennington, B. St John of Bletso, L. some support for the view that, this first time around, Jenkin of Roding, L. St John of Fawsley, L. the Government should be able to last for five years if Jolly, B. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. they want. If that is the Government’s position, they Jones of Cheltenham, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L. Jopling, L. Sassoon, L. do not need to amend the law to do that; they can just King of Bridgwater, L. Scott of Foscote, L. do it by agreement and all that is required is trust. Kirkham, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. I do not intend to go through the arguments about Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Seccombe, B. four years or five because the basis of this proposition Knight of Collingtree, B. Selborne, E. Kramer, B. Selkirk of Douglas, L. is that we end up in a situation where we do not Krebs, L. Selsdon, L. change the law for this Parliament but leave it as it is, Lamont of Lerwick, L. Sharkey, L. which would allow the Government to go for five Lang of Monkton, L. Sharp of Guildford, B. years if they wanted to, but then I will be arguing that Lee of Trafford, L. Sharples, B. it should be four years for the future when we come to Lexden, L. Shaw of Northstead, L. Lingfield, L. Sheikh, L. those votes. I therefore invite the House to reach a Linklater of Butterstone, B. Shipley, L. compromise position of no change for the first Parliament Lloyd of Berwick, L. Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] and four years for the subsequent ones. Loomba, L. Skelmersdale, L. Lothian, M. Slim, V. Lucas, L. Smith of Clifton, L. The Lord Speaker: I have to inform the House Luce, L. Spicer, L. that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Luke, L. Stedman-Scott, B. McColl of Dulwich, L. Steel of Aikwood, L. Amendments 3 to 7 inclusive by reason of pre-emption. Macdonald of River Glaven, Stevens of Ludgate, L. L. Stewartby, L. MacGregor of Pulham Stirrup, L. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, in the spirit Market, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. in which the amendment was moved, I do not wish to MacLaurin of Knebworth, L. Storey, L. detain the House. We have had a full debate about the Maclennan of Rogart, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. arguments about four years and five, but I shall simply McNally, L. Strathclyde, L. talk about how the Government would prefer the Maddock, B. Sutherland of Houndwood, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Taverne, L. position to be determined with regard to this Parliament. Mancroft, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. I think that I indicated in my reply to the previous Maples, L. Teverson, L. debate that if we are going to have fixed-term Parliaments, Mar, C. Thomas of Gresford, L. it makes sense if we oblige this Parliament to move Mar and Kellie, E. Thomas of Walliswood, B. into the same rules as those governing what will happen Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Tonge, B. L. Tordoff, L. in future Parliaments. I understood the noble and Marland, L. Trefgarne, L. learned Lord to say that he thought there was some Marlesford, L. Trimble, L. merit in that consistency. 815 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 816

While I have no doubt that this Government will Hollick, L. Patel of Bradford, L. carry on in our measured fashion up to an election in Hollis of Heigham, B. Pendry, L. May 2015, if something is not fixed at that date it is Howarth of Breckland, B. Pitkeathley, B. Howarth of Newport, L. Plant of Highfield, L. inevitable, as one knows only too well, that speculation Howells of St Davids, B. Prosser, B. can start running rife, and the measure not being in Howie of Troon, L. Quin, B. place would perhaps give more grounds for speculation. Hoyle, L. Radice, L. That would actually hinder the productivity of this Hughes of Stretford, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Parliament in its latter years when there might be Hughes of Woodside, L. Rea, L. Hunt of Chesterton, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. more focus on opinion polls than on the legislative Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Richard, L. programme, something that the Bill is intended to Irvine of Lairg, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. avoid. We would be far better knowing definitely when Jay of Paddington, B. Rooker, L. the next election would be—namely, the first Thursday Jones, L. Rosser, L. in May 2015. I therefore invite the noble and learned Judd, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Rowlands, L. Lord to withdraw his amendment. King of West Bromwich, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Kingsmill, B. Sandwich, E. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Persuasive an advocate Kinnock, L. Sawyer, L. though the noble and learned Lord is, I wish to test the Kinnock of Holyhead, B. Sewel, L. Kirkhill, L. Sherlock, B. opinion of the House. Knight of Weymouth, L. Simon, V. Laming, L. Slim, V. 5.36 pm Lea of Crondall, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Levy, L. Snape, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Soley, L. Division on Amendment 2 Liddle, L. Stern, B. Lister of Burtersett, B. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Contents 200; Not-Contents 253. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Stirrup, L. McAvoy, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L. Amendment 2 disagreed. McDonagh, B. Stone of Blackheath, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. McFall of Alcluith, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L. Division No. 2 McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Temple-Morris, L. CONTENTS Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Tenby, V. L. Thornton, B. Adams of Craigielea, B. Eames, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Tomlinson, L. Allenby of Megiddo, V. Elder, L. Mar, C. Touhig, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Elystan-Morgan, L. Martin of Springburn, L. Triesman, L. Andrews, B. Evans of Parkside, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller] Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Evans of Watford, L. Maxton, L. Turnberg, L. Bach, L. Falconer of Thoroton, L. Meacher, B. Turnbull, L. Barnett, L. Falkland, V. Mitchell, L. Turner of Camden, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Moonie, L. Wall of New Barnet, B. [Teller] Faulkner of Worcester, L. Morgan, L. Warnock, B. Beecham, L. Filkin, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Billingham, B. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Morgan of Ely, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Bilston, L. Ford, B. Morgan of Huyton, B. Wedderburn of Charlton, L. Blood, B. Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. West of Spithead, L. Boateng, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Morris of Handsworth, L. Wheeler, B. Boothroyd, B. Fritchie, B. Morris of Manchester, L. Whitaker, B. Borrie, L. Gale, B. Morris of Yardley, B. Whitty, L. Boyd of Duncansby, L. Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Nye, B. Wigley, L. Bradley, L. Giddens, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. Wilkins, B. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Gilbert, L. Palmer, L. Williams of Elvel, L. Brookman, L. Glasman, L. Pannick, L. Wills, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Golding, B. Parekh, L. Wood of Anfield, L. Carter of Coles, L. Goldsmith, L. Patel, L. Young of Hornsey, B. Chandos, V. Gordon of Strathblane, L. Patel of Blackburn, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. Christopher, L. Goudie, B. Clark of Windermere, L. Gould of Brookwood, L. NOT CONTENTS Clarke of Hampstead, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Clinton-Davis, L. Grantchester, L. Aberdare, L. Berridge, B. Cobbold, L. Grenfell, L. Addington, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Alderdice, L. Blencathra, L. Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Grocott, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller] Blyth of Rowington, L. Crawley, B. Hanworth, V. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Cunningham of Felling, L. Harries of Pentregarth, L. Arran, E. B. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Ashdown of Norton-sub- Boswell of Aynho, L. Davies of Coity, L. Harrison, L. Hamdon, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Davies of Oldham, L. Hart of Chilton, L. Astor, V. Bowness, L. Davies of Stamford, L. Haskel, L. Astor of Hever, L. Bradshaw, L. Dixon, L. Haskins, L. Attlee, E. Bridgeman, V. Donoughue, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Avebury, L. Brittan of Spennithorne, L. Drake, B. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Ballyedmond, L. Broers, L. D’Souza, B. Henig, B. Bell, L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Dubs, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Benjamin, B. L. 817 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 818

Brougham and Vaux, L. Home, E. Popat, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. Browning, B. Hooper, B. Ramsbotham, L. Strathclyde, L. Butler of Brockwell, L. Howe, E. Randerson, B. Sutherland of Houndwood, L. Butler-Sloss, B. Howe of Aberavon, L. Rawlings, B. Taverne, L. Byford, B. Howe of Idlicote, B. Razzall, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Caithness, E. Howell of Guildford, L. Redesdale, L. Teverson, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Rennard, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Carrington, L. Hurd of Westwell, L. Renton of Mount Harry, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B. Cathcart, E. Hussain, L. Risby, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Roberts of Conwy, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Hussein-Ece, B. Tonge, B. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Chadlington, L. Hylton, L. Tordoff, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Inglewood, L. Trefgarne, L. Chidgey, L. James of Blackheath, L. Rogan, L. Rotherwick, L. Trimble, L. Clement-Jones, L. Jay of Ewelme, L. True, L. Colwyn, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. St John of Fawsley, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L. Trumpington, B. Condon, L. Jenkin of Roding, L. Tugendhat, L. Cope of Berkeley, L. Jolly, B. Sassoon, L. Tyler, L. Cormack, L. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Scott of Foscote, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Cotter, L. Jopling, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. Courtown, E. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Seccombe, B. Verma, B. Cox, B. Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Selborne, E. Vinson, L. Craig of Radley, L. Kramer, B. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Waddington, L. Craigavon, V. Krebs, L. Selsdon, L. Wade of Chorlton, L. Crathorne, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Sharkey, L. Wakeham, L. Crickhowell, L. Lang of Monkton, L. Sharp of Guildford, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. De Mauley, L. Lee of Trafford, L. Sharples, B. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Dear, L. Lexden, L. Shaw of Northstead, L. Walmsley, B. Deech, B. Lingfield, L. Sheikh, L. Walpole, L. Denham, L. Linklater of Butterstone, B. Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] Walton of Detchant, L. Dholakia, L. Lloyd of Berwick, L. Skelmersdale, L. Warsi, B. Dixon-Smith, L. Loomba, L. Smith of Clifton, L. Wasserman, L. Dobbs, L. Lothian, M. Spicer, L. Waverley, V. Doocey, B. Lucas, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Wei, L. Dykes, L. Luce, L. Steel of Aikwood, L. Wheatcroft, B. Eaton, B. Luke, L. Stevens of Ludgate, L. Wilcox, B. Eccles, V. Macdonald of River Glaven, Stewartby, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Wilson of Tillyorn, L. Elton, L. MacGregor of Pulham Storey, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Empey, L. Market, L. Erroll, E. Mackay of Clashfern, L. 5.52 pm Falkner of Margravine, B. MacLaurin of Knebworth, L. Faulks, L. McNally, L. Feldman of Elstree, L. Maddock, B. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Amendment 3 Ferrers, E. Mancroft, L. Moved by Lord Falconer of Thoroton Flight, L. Maples, L. Fookes, B. Mar and Kellie, E. 3: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert— Fowler, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, “( ) Following the next parliamentary general election after Framlingham, L. L. the passing of this Act, the polling day for each subsequent Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Marland, L. parliamentary general election is to be the first Thursday in May Freeman, L. Marlesford, L. in the fourth calendar year following that in which the polling day Freud, L. Masham of Ilton, B. for the previous parliamentary general election fell.” Garden of Frognal, B. Mawhinney, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. May of Oxford, L. Gardner of Parkes, B. Mayhew of Twysden, L. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the final Garel-Jones, L. Methuen, L. Geddes, L. Miller of Hendon, B. amendment in this sequence is the only combination German, L. Montagu of Beaulieu, L. left, and although it proposes five years for this Glasgow, E. Montrose, D. Parliament—I have been cruelly rebuffed in my two Glendonbrook, L. Morris of Bolton, B. attempts to avoid that—it proposes four years for the Glentoran, L. Moynihan, L. future and will, I think, unite the House on my side, Gold, L. Naseby, L. apart from a very few noble Lords who I regard as Goodhart, L. Neuberger, B. Goodlad, L. Newlove, B. outliers. There is no point in debating the amendment Grade of Yarmouth, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, again, because we have done so for the past two hours. Greaves, L. B. I beg to move. Greenway, L. Noakes, B. Hameed, L. Northbrook, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Northover, B. The Lord Speaker: If this amendment is agreed, I Hamwee, B. Norton of Louth, L. cannot call Amendments 4 to 7, by reason of pre-emption. Hanham, B. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. Harris of Richmond, B. O’Cathain, B. Henley, L. O’Loan, B. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, this is what Heyhoe Flint, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. the noble and learned Lord, in earlier discussions, Higgins, L. Palumbo, L. Hill of Oareford, L. Patten, L. described as the “five-four-four” amendment. The Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Perry of Southwark, B. Government are opposed to it for reasons that have L. Phillips of Sudbury, L. been advanced and I do not propose to repeat. I am 819 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 820 sure that it will be to the noble and learned Lord’s McDonagh, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. great disappointment that we cannot accept the Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Sandwich, E. amendment. If he wishes to test the opinion of the McFall of Alcluith, L. Sawyer, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. House, I should make it clear that we believe there Sewel, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Sherlock, B. should be consistency and that there should be a term Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Simon, V. of five years for this Parliament and for ensuing L. Smith of Basildon, B. Parliaments. McKenzie of Luton, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Martin of Springburn, L. Snape, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Soley, L. 5.54 pm Massey of Darwen, B. Stern, B. Maxton, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Division on Amendment 3 Meacher, B. Mitchell, L. Stirrup, L. Moonie, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L. Contents 199; Not-Contents 244. Morgan, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Amendment 3 disagreed. Morgan of Ely, B. Taylor of Blackburn, L. Morgan of Huyton, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. Division No. 3 Morris of Aberavon, L. Temple-Morris, L. Morris of Handsworth, L. Tenby, V. Morris of Manchester, L. Thornton, B. CONTENTS Morris of Yardley, B. Tomlinson, L. Adams of Craigielea, B. Giddens, L. Nye, B. Touhig, L. Allenby of Megiddo, V. Gilbert, L. O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. Triesman, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Golding, B. Palmer, L. Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller] Andrews, B. Goldsmith, L. Pannick, L. Turnberg, L. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Gordon of Strathblane, L. Parekh, L. Turnbull, L. Bach, L. Goudie, B. Patel, L. Turner of Camden, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Patel of Blackburn, L. Wall of New Barnet, B. [Teller] Grantchester, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Warnock, B. Beecham, L. Grenfell, L. Pendry, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Best, L. Grey-Thompson, B. Pitkeathley, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Billingham, B. Grocott, L. Plant of Highfield, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L. Bilston, L. Hanworth, V. Prescott, L. West of Spithead, L. Blood, B. Harries of Pentregarth, L. Prosser, B. Wheeler, B. Boateng, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Quin, B. Whitaker, B. Boothroyd, B. Harrison, L. Radice, L. Whitty, L. Boyd of Duncansby, L. Hart of Chilton, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Wigley, L. Bradley, L. Haskel, L. Rea, L. Wilkins, B. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Haskins, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. Williams of Elvel, L. Brookman, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Richard, L. Wills, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Wilson of Tillyorn, L. Carter of Coles, L. Henig, B. Rooker, L. Wood of Anfield, L. Christopher, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Rosser, L. Young of Hornsey, B. Clark of Windermere, L. Hollick, L. Rowlands, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. Clarke of Hampstead, L. Hollis of Heigham, B. Clinton-Davis, L. Howarth of Breckland, B. NOT CONTENTS Cobbold, L. Howarth of Newport, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Howie of Troon, L. Aberdare, L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Condon, L. Hoyle, L. Addington, L. L. Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Hughes of Stretford, B. Alderdice, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Crawley, B. Hughes of Woodside, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller] Browning, B. Cunningham of Felling, L. Hunt of Chesterton, L. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. Butler of Brockwell, L. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Arran, E. Butler-Sloss, B. Davies of Coity, L. Hylton, L. Ashdown of Norton-sub- Byford, B. Davies of Oldham, L. Irvine of Lairg, L. Hamdon, L. Caithness, E. Davies of Stamford, L. Jay of Paddington, B. Astor, V. Carlile of Berriew, L. Dixon, L. Jones, L. Astor of Hever, L. Carrington, L. Donoughue, L. Judd, L. Attlee, E. Cathcart, E. Drake, B. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Avebury, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. D’Souza, B. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Ballyedmond, L. Chadlington, L. Dubs, L. King of Bow, B. Benjamin, B. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Eames, L. King of West Bromwich, L. Berridge, B. Chidgey, L. Elder, L. Kingsmill, B. Black of Brentwood, L. Clement-Jones, L. Elystan-Morgan, L. Kinnock, L. Blencathra, L. Colwyn, L. Evans of Parkside, L. Kinnock of Holyhead, B. Blyth of Rowington, L. Cope of Berkeley, L. Falconer of Thoroton, L. Kirkhill, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Cormack, L. Falkland, V. Knight of Weymouth, L. B. Cotter, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Laming, L. Boswell of Aynho, L. Courtown, E. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Lea of Crondall, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Crathorne, L. Filkin, L. Levy, L. Bowness, L. Crickhowell, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Bradshaw, L. De Mauley, L. Ford, B. Liddle, L. Bramall, L. Deech, B. Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Lister of Burtersett, B. Bridgeman, V. Denham, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Lloyd of Berwick, L. Brinton, B. Dholakia, L. Gale, B. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Brittan of Spennithorne, L. Dixon-Smith, L. Gibson of Market Rasen, B. McAvoy, L. Broers, L. Dobbs, L. 821 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 822

Doocey, B. MacGregor of Pulham Storey, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Dykes, L. Market, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. Verma, B. Eaton, B. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Strasburger, L. Vinson, L. Eccles, V. MacLaurin of Knebworth, L. Strathclyde, L. Waddington, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. McNally, L. Sutherland of Houndwood, L. Wade of Chorlton, L. Elton, L. Maddock, B. Taverne, L. Wakeham, L. Empey, L. Magan of Castletown, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Teverson, L. Erroll, E. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Falkner of Margravine, B. Mancroft, L. Walmsley, B. Thomas of Walliswood, B. Faulks, L. Maples, L. Walpole, L. Feldman of Elstree, L. Mar, C. Thomas of Winchester, B. Tonge, B. Walton of Detchant, L. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Mar and Kellie, E. Warsi, B. Ferrers, E. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Tordoff, L. Trefgarne, L. Wasserman, L. Flight, L. L. Wei, L. Fookes, B. Marland, L. Trimble, L. Wheatcroft, B. Fowler, L. Marlesford, L. True, L. Wilcox, B. Framlingham, L. Mawhinney, L. Trumpington, B. Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Mawson, L. Tugendhat, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Freeman, L. Mayhew of Twysden, L. Tyler, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Freud, L. Methuen, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Montrose, D. 6.07 pm Gardiner of Kimble, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Gardner of Parkes, B. Moynihan, L. Garel-Jones, L. Naseby, L. Geddes, L. Neuberger, B. Amendment 4 German, L. Newlove, B. Moved by Lord Pannick Glasgow, E. Noakes, B. Glendonbrook, L. Northbrook, L. 4: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at beginning insert “If, but only if, a Glentoran, L. Northover, B. resolution to this effect is approved by each House of the Parliament Gold, L. Norton of Louth, L. in question,” Goodhart, L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. Goodlad, L. O’Cathain, B. Grade of Yarmouth, L. O’Loan, B. Lord Pannick: My Lords, the amendments are in Greaves, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Greenway, L. Palumbo, L. my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamilton of Epsom, L. Patten, L. Boothroyd, and the noble Lords, Lord Butler of Brockwell Hamwee, B. Perry of Southwark, B. and Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. The noble Lord, Hanham, B. Phillips of Sudbury, L. Lord Armstrong, regrets that he is unable to be in his Harris of Richmond, B. Popat, L. place because he is chairing a Joint Committee. Henley, L. Ramsbotham, L. Heyhoe Flint, B. Randerson, B. The purpose of the amendments is to address the Higgins, L. Rawlings, B. deep unease on all sides of the House, as expressed at Hill of Oareford, L. Razzall, L. Second Reading and in Committee, as to whether it is Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Redesdale, L. appropriate to confine the circumstances in which a L. Rennard, L. Home, E. Renton of Mount Harry, L. general election may be called within a five-year term. Hooper, B. Risby, L. The amendments would ensure that the coalition Howe, E. Roberts of Conwy, L. Government will have their way as to the criteria Howe of Aberavon, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. governing this Parliament, but would leave future Howe of Idlicote, B. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Parliaments to decide for themselves whether to apply Howell of Guildford, L. Rogan, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Rotherwick, L. the provisions in the Bill. That sunrise provision would Hurd of Westwell, L. St John of Bletso, L. thereby limit what many noble Lords regard as the Hussain, L. St John of Fawsley, L. constitutional damage which would be caused by this Hussein-Ece, B. Sanderson of Bowden, L. unhappy Bill. The amendments do not touch on the Inglewood, L. Sassoon, L. distinct question of the length of any fixed-term James of Blackheath, L. Scott of Foscote, L. Parliament, which we have just debated. Jay of Ewelme, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Seccombe, B. I want to make four points. First, the Bill would not Jenkin of Roding, L. Selborne, E. in fact introduce fixed-term Parliaments. There is general Jolly, B. Selkirk of Douglas, L. agreement on all sides, and it is embodied in the Bill, Jones of Cheltenham, L. Selsdon, L. Jopling, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. that it is essential to allow for early general elections in Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Sharkey, L. some circumstances. The dispute concerns in what Kramer, B. Sharp of Guildford, B. circumstances and by what means. Many noble Lords Lamont of Lerwick, L. Sharples, B. believe that it is impossible satisfactorily to define in Lang of Monkton, L. Shaw of Northstead, L. legislation the circumstances in which an early election Lee of Trafford, L. Sheikh, L. is appropriate. Such matters are far better left to Lexden, L. Shipley, L. Lingfield, L. Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] convention and practical politics than to legalistic Linklater of Butterstone, B. Skelmersdale, L. constraints. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee Loomba, L. Smith of Clifton, L. heard compelling evidence to that effect, in particular Lothian, M. Spicer, L. from Professor Vernon Bogdanor. It is easy to envisage Lucas, L. Stedman-Scott, B. circumstances in which an early general election may Luce, L. Steel of Aikwood, L. Luke, L. Stevens of Ludgate, L. well be appropriate, whether or not the criteria in Macdonald of River Glaven, Stewartby, L. Clause 2 are satisfied—for example, a change of Prime L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Minister; a change of coalition partner; or a new 823 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 824 policy, such as Asquith’s in 1910 to gain popular Bill is very strong. This sunrise clause would recognise approval for Lloyd George’s Budget and then popular that the legislation inevitably suffers from substantial approval for limiting the powers of this House. defects as it seeks to constrain what should be left to Clauses 2 and 3 are worthy but necessarily cumbersome practical politics, convention, experience and the views attempts to allow for early general elections in some of the electorate. If a future Parliament wishes, for circumstances. Such is the splendid unpredictability of political reasons of its own, to adopt a similar approach, politics that no one can foresee all the circumstances perhaps because there is another coalition Government, that justifiably lead to an early general election. That it will be able to do so. In the mean time, the legislation is the first point. would apply only to this Parliament. I beg to move. Secondly, many noble Lords on all sides of the House have doubted the premise of the Bill, which is Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I congratulate that the power of the Prime Minister to call an early the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and his hugely general election is a political advantage for him or her. distinguished co-signatories, on the amendment. It is The evidence is very weak that this power has assisted elegant, precise, effective and clever. I am very attracted Prime Ministers who would otherwise have lost subsequent to it, because I take the view that the principle of general elections. Many noble Lords have spoken from fixed-term Parliaments is misguided. The more I have experience of the agonies of decision-making caused listened to debates on the subject in your Lordships’ to Prime Ministers with whom they have worked House, the more convinced I have become that the closely. Our political system has worked well; people course on which the Government have set themselves can and should be trusted to decide whether to penalise is ill judged and will be damaging. Fixed-term Parliaments a Prime Minister who calls what the people regard as are anti-democratic and reduce accountability.Moreover, an unnecessary or inappropriate early general election. there is no evidence of public dissatisfaction with the Thirdly, it is of special importance—we heard state of affairs that we have. It is a good maxim in discussion of this earlier—that a constitutional measure constitutional matters that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. of this sort should be grounded in public consultation In this unelected second Chamber, we accept—often and in pre-legislative scrutiny. There was none. The with reluctance—that we should not oppose the central Government should recognise that one reason why purposes of government Bills and should not vote the referendum campaign on AV—I say nothing of them down at Second Reading, particularly if they are the result—was so unsatisfactory was that there was sent to us after being endorsed by the elected Chamber. no process of prior analysis of the options for change Therefore, this House has conducted itself with restraint and of the merits and demerits of different voting and responsibility. The beauty of the amendment that systems. The absence of public consultation and pre- the noble Lord moved is that it would allow the legislative scrutiny in this Bill is even more troubling, coalition to achieve its political purpose of providing because there will be no opportunity for the public an arrangement whereby the two parties are handcuffed to express a view by way of a referendum. Unless and together for the duration of this Parliament, giving until there is proper public consultation on the issue, themselves a five-year term or a very good chance of in a referendum if appropriate, we should do no more one. The noble Lord spoke of the possibility of the than legislate for this Parliament. coalition ending in tears. It has already reached the Fourthly and finally, we should identify why this stage of curses and maledictions such as I can rarely, if Bill is before Parliament. No one could seriously dispute ever, recall in politics, but we cannot be certain that it the conclusion of your Lordships’ Constitution will not totter through the full five-year term. However, Committee, which stated in paragraph 20 that, it is not respectable for the coalition Government to “the origins and content of this Bill owe more to short-term hijack the constitution for their political convenience. considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional The amendment provides the opportunity for a principles or sustained public demand”. subsequent Parliament to prevent the constitution I recognise that the Liberal Democrats have been being damaged in perpetuity. It would allow the next arguing for fixed-term Parliaments for some time. and subsequent Parliaments to reconsider the principle However, they could not dispute seriously that the of a fixed term, or to reconsider particular features of inclusion of this measure in the coalition agreement is the legislation such as whether four years or five years due solely to the desire of the two parts of the coalition is the right length for a fixed term, or whether the to ensure that their union lasts for five years and does two-thirds or 14-day provisions should be retained, in not end in tears before then. That is a short-term the light of the experience that by then we as a country political need. I do not deprecate it, but it does not shall have had, and not just in the light of preconceptions justify a long-term alteration to the constitution of or deals put together for short-term political advantage. this country. In that sense the amendment offers the possibility that the whole experience of this Parliament—here in 6.15 pm both Houses of Parliament, and the experience in the What should the House do? I suggest that we country—would effectively provide an opportunity should accept, with more or less enthusiasm, as noble for pre-legislative scrutiny, because the opportunity Lords wish, the political reality that the coalition would be provided for the legislation to be revisited wants a binding commitment for this Parliament, but and approved or not approved at the beginning of a that we should stand firm in our belief—held on all subsequent Parliament. I think that the amendment sides of the House—that the case for general constitutional would not permit future amendments to the legislation: reform simply is not made. Indeed, the case for opposing it would either have to be accepted as a whole or the long-term constitutional reform contained in the rejected as a whole for the Parliament to come. However, 825 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 826

[LORD HOWARTH OF NEWPORT] future Parliaments to accept or reject the Bill’s provisions I do not worry too much about that because, as I say, I after every election as they see fit and to do so by means am not in favour of fixed-term Parliaments and I am of a resolution of both Houses. Mr Clegg disagrees not sure that trying to patch the legislation would with me on this: we disagree on a number of things, make it any more acceptable. but certainly on this. Last year, he described the Bill I do have a worry that it would be too tempting—too as, attractive—to an incoming Prime Minister armed with “a constitutional innovation of significant proportions”. a good majority, or to a coalition which had patched He argued that it would be “bizarre” to confine it to together a majority, to seize the opportunity to assure one Parliament. These amendments do not propose themselves of another five-year term. That possibility that it should be left to one Parliament only. Importantly, would be fairly seductive. So I worry that the vote at they propose that future Parliaments should decide for the beginning of a Parliament which would be provided themselves. for by the legislation if it were amended as the noble We know that countries with written constitutions Lord has proposed, would become like other ritual have the kind of entrenched laws that the Deputy Motions which are passed in the opening Session of a Prime Minister appears to want—but Britain is not Parliament. None the less, I think that this is an one of those. The Government would do well to attractive and a good amendment. To me, it is preferable remember that. As far as I can recall, at the last to the options that we have considered in the three election the country did not exactly clamour for fixed previous debates this afternoon. I very much hope that five-year Parliaments. If I interpret the public mood the House will pass it. correctly—as did the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Cormack, with whom I entirely agree—people Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, this is the Bill’s first in this country want honest politics. They want good outing in this House since last week’s referendum, so I Government and greater scrutiny of what Governments think we are entitled to take stock of the coalition’s are doing in their name. They do not want an assortment position in the light of the electorate’s aversion to of ill considered proposals to turn Parliament upside radical reform. Clearly, as the noble Lords, Lord down to suit a political elite. Cormack and Lord Grocott, strongly said before we Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that I opened the Report stage today, the referendum casts do not regard this legislation with great affection at fresh doubt on the wisdom of persisting with major all. In fact, I believe it is quite unnecessary. This House constitutional measures that lack popular support. is charged with the responsibility and the role of Ministers have changed tack on the timetable for this examining legislation and scrutinising it. As a Member Bill before, and I suspect there would be few tears shed of this House, I reckon I have to make the best of what on the Conservative Benches if they took another I think is a very bad job. The amendments before us look at it even at this late stage. However, we have to today would preserve the freedom of future Parliaments proceed and we have to deal with what is before us this to face their own challenges in their own way and in afternoon. the circumstances of the time. I strongly support them I imply no criticism when I observe that the new and hope that many of your Lordships will do likewise. politics that the coalition claimed to represent in its early days has lost a bit of its sheen. Ministers would be wise to take account of reasoned objections in this Lord Tyler: The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and his House to some of the Bill’s more doubtful features. It distinguished collaborators have, as ever, tabled very is in the light of this that I support and commend the interesting, very seductive, amendments. I examined amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord them with great care because I respect their expertise. Pannick. The amendments in this group do not challenge Reluctantly, I believe the amendments are flawed. The the Government’s intention to hold the next election purpose of the Bill is to do one very simple thing: to in May 2015 or 2014, whatever may finally be decided. remove from the Prime Minister—the leader of a Nor do they challenge the Government’s proposal to political party—and, by extension, from the governing introduce legally binding procedures to make an early party, the right to time elections for their own political election unlikely. However, as currently written, this convenience. I give credit to the present Prime Minister: legislation goes much further than the lifetime of this he has been the first Prime Minister to accept the logic Parliament in a way that I believe is unwise and of that position. unjustified. This legislation seeks to bind future Hitherto, Prime Ministers—leaders of political Parliaments to the same legal restraints intended primarily parties—have been able to look at the polls and see if for the lifetime of this coalition Government and this they look good in order to be able to say yes to an Parliament. These restraints are destined to last early general election or no to postponing it. The “henceforth” according to Mr Clegg, the Deputy Prime Government’s objective is to remove that question of Minister. when elections should be held from routine partisan I understand perfectly the coalition’s wish to serve political advantage and its consideration. After all, that for a fixed period of years, to tackle the current is already the case in local government; it is the case in economic situation and to see that its programme is the devolved assemblies and parliaments throughout enacted. However, I reject the same imposition being the United Kingdom. This Parliament has insisted placed on the freedom of action of future Parliaments, that that should be the case, and clearly that is right. and this will be the situation without these amendments. This Parliament has recognised in primary legislation Without them, the constitution is being blighted time and again that elections are the mechanism by permanently and unnecessarily. The amendments allow which political parties are held to account. It surely 827 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 828 cannot be right, then, that any one party or collection future Parliament. The Climate Change Act, which of parties should be able to contrive to time the spent many hours in your Lordships’ House, set carbon election for a moment which is propitious for their emissions targets that are deliberately binding on future own advantage. That is the clear principle and objective Governments, although I suppose it could be said that of this Bill. they do not bind Parliament as such. I invite your Lordships to look very carefully at This Bill is similar in its effect in that it takes power Amendment 25 in this group. This would undermine away from the Government and leaves it with Parliament. the central objective of the Bill by setting up a routine In that sense, it binds Governments, and Prime Ministers for Governments to instruct their newly elected majorities in particular, by giving power and flexibility to Parliament. in the Commons after 2015 as to whether they particularly This group of amendments does the opposite, in that fancied a fixed-term Parliament or not—for their own it allows a Government to veto a fixed term which party advantage, not in the interests of good governance. does not suit its party advantage. That would surely be There would be an immediate return to the worst a retrograde step. Allowing such a veto is not necessary feature of prime ministerial prerogative. If the Bill to maintain the principle that Parliaments do not bind were amended, it would be not a fixed term but a their successors because Parliament could not and semi-fixed term, subject to the machinations and will not be bound by this Bill in perpetuity. A future inclinations of the Prime Minister and party leader of Parliament could amend the Act if it wanted. Surely the day, the exact opposite of what the Bill seeks to we should not legislate now for Governments to be achieve and what the other place has already voted to able to wriggle out of fixed terms just because it is in do. This Bill is already more flexible than some of us their party-political interests to do so. That is the would like. I would favour a superglue fix in the crucial distinction between the Bill as brought forward fixed-term Parliament, without extensive opportunities by the Government and this group of amendments. for early Dissolutions, but I accept that a sensible Parliament should set out now what we think are middle way has been achieved. the constitutional principles now and in the future. Surely in this House we are not seriously arguing that 6.30 pm Governments should be given the opportunity regularly There are already, as we have previously debated, to manipulate Parliament, after every election, into two substantial escape hatches in the Bill allowing for choosing whether or not to be subjected to a fixed-term early elections: one where there is a two-thirds majority rule. The Bill as drafted provides for a constitutional in the Commons for an early election and one where lock on the length of Parliaments, to take politics out there is a simple majority vote of no confidence, but of election timetables. That is its purpose, and it is a no alternative Government come forward within 14 days purpose I strongly support. By contrast, I fear that the and receive the confidence of the House of Commons. amendments add more politics to election timetables. We have already downgraded the fix to something no Imagine the party pressures immediately after a general more adhesive than Sellotape. election when the country and the parties have been The amendments take us even further down the subjected to extraordinary partisan argument and scale. They would turn the Bill into the Blu-Tack Bill controversy. We would be right back into the simple or the Post-it note Bill and would not be a fix at all. If party-political advantage game immediately after that we favour fixed-term Parliaments—I was very interested peculiarly partisan situation. On that basis, however to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of seductive the amendments and however distinguished Thoroton, say earlier that he and his party still do—we the authors, the amendments, though doubtless very should reject these amendments because they simply well intentioned, are flawed and I hope your Lordships put the status quo, where there is no fixed term and it will reject them. is left to the party leader, back into law. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, quite rightly reminded Baroness Jay of Paddington: Before the noble Lord your Lordships that no Parliament should be able to sits down, will he help me with the force of his bind its successor, and I am sure that the noble Baroness, argument about the imposition of party politics on Lady Boothroyd, joins me in thinking that that is the kind of provision that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, absolutely right. If there is a completely new situation and his associates have suggested to the House when in a new Parliament, of course the long-standing that will take place, as I understand it, immediately current position will continue, and it continues under after a general election? It is not, as it was in the this Bill. This Bill does not wipe that away. The position circumstances which he describes, something that Prime is still exactly as it has been for many hundreds of Ministers could calculate towards the end of a Parliament years. We cannot restrict future Parliaments in that was to their party advantage, or was not, as the case respect, and therefore I suppose it could be said that may be. the amendment is superfluous because in due course, if another Parliament decided to take a different view, Lord Tyler: The noble Baroness may recall that I it could legislate so to do. The principle of parliamentary was elected on 1 March 1974, and given the convention—it sovereignty is not to say that one Parliament cannot was referred to earlier—that normally it is six months make law which will continue to have effect after it has before another election is agreed to by the monarch, left office. In the past, as we all know, Bills have very that would have been precisely the situation. It was often set targets for future Governments. I recall that entirely wrong that the Prime Minister of the day the previous Government wanted to legislate for future decided for party advantage that he would ignore all Governments to reduce the deficit by 50 per cent in the big economic problems of the summer of 1974, four years. That was, in a sense, trying to commit a did nothing to disturb the popularity of his Government, 829 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 830

[LORD TYLER] is surely unarguable. We now know enough after five carried on to the autumn without taking important days of debate that this Bill is designed to strengthen strategic decisions about the future of the country and the Government. It is in the national interest because then went to the country in the autumn. That is the it would give them a secure five years. No wonder the sort of situation that we should certainly avert because Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted it. party advantage could, very soon after a general election, You are subject to paranoia quite early if you are a be uppermost in the mind of a party leader who would lifelong member of the Labour Party, but I cannot therefore take advantage and destroy the fixed-term help being a little paranoid about the commentariat, if legislation for his or her own party advantage. that is the right word, who had only one story in town under the last Labour Government, which was: “This Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, as a Conservative, Government are too strong. We must strengthen I am extremely reluctant to see Parliament at any stage Parliament and the public. Governments these days fiddling about with our constitution, and I very much are too domineering and powerful”. But on the day of agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, the general election, the whole argument suddenly that if it is not bust, why fix it? Having said that, the shifted and the chatterers were absolutely convinced coalition quite clearly finds it necessary as part of its that the crucial thing was strong Government. “We agreement to have a five-year fixed Parliament, and if must not have too much of this democratic stuff. We that is what it wants to do, so be it. I have a little need a strong Government so we will bring in a Bill to trouble in understanding how a Government continue guarantee them five years, barring some convoluted to govern when they no longer have a majority in the exception in Clause 2”. Those exceptions include the House of Commons, but that is another issue. I do not absurd one that even if the Government lose a vote of think there is any strong reason why this legislation confidence, they can still chatter on for another 14 days should go through in perpetuity. I do not see what is to see whether they can survive. wrong in returning to the status quo ante. There I want to make a simple point. As far as I can see, seemed to me to be nothing wrong in the way the the objective behind the Bill is that, somehow or other, system worked, and I do not know why we should over the years Prime Ministers have been abusing the therefore be trying to commit future Governments to power to call general elections. For those who like five-year fixed Parliaments just because it is convenient looking at tables, as I do because in this House we are for this coalition Government to have a five-year all anoraks to varying degrees when discussing issues Parliament this time round. Therefore, I will be more of this kind, I refer them to British Electoral Facts by than happy to support the amendment moved by the Colin Rawlings and Michael Thrasher. On page 139, noble Lord, Lord Pannick. there is a table headed: “Reasons for Holding General Elections 1832 to 2005”. Lord Grocott: My Lords, I strongly agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I It is pretty comprehensive. Looking at the list indicating want to make a pretty brief point. The trouble is that when Prime Ministers have determined to hold general when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, he elections, I defy anyone to find a frivolous or absurd almost tempted me to a Second Reading observation. reason why they called an election when they did. Let I was astonished by his last argument, as I understood me quote briefly from the list. In 1931, we had an early it—he must stop me if I am factually wrong at any general election: point—that he was elected in February 1974. Did he “Resignation of the Labour Government and formation of a lose his seat in October 1974? National Government by James Ramsay MacDonald who six weeks later asked for a Dissolution in order to obtain a new mandate”. Lord Tyler: Yes. Is that stupid or frivolous? Obviously, I think it was a pretty disastrous period in our history and he is not Lord Grocott: I thought so, so his view is that the my favourite Labour Prime Minister. In 1955: February 1974 election should have been a fixed, five-year Parliament. I can see where he is coming “Sir Winston Churchill resigned as Prime Minister and was succeeded by Anthony Eden who immediately asked for a from, but I know he is a Liberal Democrat, so I know Dissolution”. his argument will be based on deep principle rather than on any short calculation. I think he needs to Is that a stupid or indefensibly partisan reason for think again about the repeated mantra that this measure calling a general election? In 1966 there was a: strengthens Parliament, weakens Governments and “Request by the Prime Minister for a Dissolution to obtain a strengthens the people. I cannot understand that argument. renewal of the electors’ confidence in the Government and an How on earth a Government who are guaranteed five adequate parliamentary majority”. years, except in the very tightly drawn exceptions, can That is a perfectly valid and sensible thing to do. in any sense be said to be weakened in respect of Again, I defy anyone to find anything in this list that is Parliament, much less weakened in respect of the a bad reason for calling a general election. public as a whole, by this Bill is beyond me. Finally, I shall say why I strongly support this Surely we can agree on one factual point, and I amendment. I would have much preferred that the Bill would beg the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, had not been introduced. I would have much preferred to concede this. The Bill will obviously reduce the that we could at least have agreed on four years, but number of general elections. By law, it certainly cannot this is a compromise in the classic tradition of the increase them. The possibility for the public to express Cross Bench Peers. It simply provides that if after the their opinion on the Government will be reduced; that next general election, which obviously I hope will 831 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 832 deliver a majority Labour Government, the Government What the amendment does is recognise the right want to persist with this procedure that we are probably of the Government to do what they are seeking to do, going to be forced to accept, they will need a resolution but enshrines in the legislation one of the principles of both Houses in order to do so. I would love my of our unwritten constitution, which is the right of party, should it be re-elected, to commit itself to every new Parliament to determine which way it will abolishing this legislation. But as my noble friend go. That does not in any way inhibit future Governments. Lord Howarth made perfectly plain, I am realistic If, after the next general election, there is a majority enough to see the temptation for an incoming Prime Conservative Administration, which I personally would Minister to say, “Yippee, I’ve got five years”, under like to see, or a majority Labour Administration, which the Bill as it stands. Why on earth would he want to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, would understandably get rid of that power? What is all this stuff about the like to see, it matters not. If the Government wish to Bill being about weakening the powers of Prime Ministers? continue with the fixed five-year term, they can do so, It would be very difficult indeed, particularly since all but they have got to say to Parliament, “Let us look at incoming Governments have ambitious legislative this”, as one of their very first acts after the election. programmes and want to get cracking quickly. So it is I can imagine that in 1974, because I was there, it very unlikely that unless my party commits itself to would have been difficult for Prime Minister Harold repealing the Bill, we will indeed go on with it for ever Wilson to have got through the necessary clause to and ever. create a five-year Parliament. I am exceptionally sorry, This amendment is a clever proposal. It gives the of course, that that would have prevented the noble Government what they want, which is something I do Lord, Lord Tyler, or Paul Tyler as he was then, serving not find easy to accept, but it requires every subsequent out the five years which he had hoped to serve, but to Government to make a conscious decision to stick by have a Government with a tiny majority or, in that this piece of legislation as a requirement of our new case, no majority at all, enshrined for five years would constitution. I strongly support the amendment. have been a legislative and constitutional nonsense. Of course, Harold Wilson had the right to go to the 6.45 pm Palace in the late summer/early autumn of that year, to ask for Dissolution and to have another general Lord Cormack: My Lords, not for the first time election, which had as a catastrophic by-product the today I find myself very much in sympathy with the loss of the services of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I cannot say that I share but was nevertheless the right thing constitutionally his aspirations regarding a future Labour Government, to do. but apart from that, he has spoken very persuasively and sensibly, as he always does. The noble Lord is a All that this amendment does is to recognise reality constitutionalist and thus, in the constitutional sense, and it ought to command a degree of support from a true conservative. As I listened to him, I thought of those of us in all parts of the House who truly treasure my dear friend, the late, great Jack Weatherill. He used our constitution. I said earlier today that it is the to say, “I am all in favour of progress so long as it does most important part of our democratic heritage. The not mean change”. I think that Members from all Government are not damaging it irrevocably by producing sides of the House to some degree view this Bill in that this Bill, but we are putting in a safety clause. We are spirit. I have never been totally opposed to the concept giving an opportunity for future Parliament not of fixed-term Parliaments, and indeed I made that automatically to be saddled with this but to have to plain in my maiden speech. But I must say that the face up to the question: do we want it? I was delighted more I have heard of the debates as they have gone that my noble friend Lord Hamilton made the brief along, the more I am convinced, as I said earlier today, and telling speech that he did. I think that he spoke for that this is unnecessary legislation which is taking up a many who share our views and our prejudices—because lot of our time and need not do so. we all have them. This is an amendment which ought to commend itself to my noble and learned friend Some exceptionally distinguished Cross-Benchers—I Lord Wallace, for whom I have a genuine regard and pay tribute to them all, particularly the noble Baroness, who has always handled matters in this House extremely Lady Boothroyd, a former Speaker of the House who sensitively and considerately. I hope that he will say has unparalleled experience—have put down an that he can commend the amendment, just as he has amendment that, in a sense, saves us from ourselves. It put his name to another amendment lower down the is a wise and sensible amendment in the best traditions Marshalled List. of this House because it accepts, however reluctantly, that it is the will of the Government to have a fixed-term The amendment paves the way for the important Parliament Bill. I have never for a moment challenged debates next week when we have to decide the the right of a Government to serve for five years and circumstances in which an early election can be called, have said repeatedly that I applaud that desire. I do all of us having recognised that there must be a proper, not think that this legislation is necessary for it, but I comprehensible and simply expressed formula which applaud the desire. I am pleased to support the coalition can provide for that. For the moment, we are dealing Government and I hope that they do survive for five with this amendment and it should command widespread years. I hope that, as the years go by, they become support. more and more politically mature, less and less bent on messing up the constitution, and then more and Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I and, I am more inclined to concentrate on those issues which sure, my noble friends are very grateful for the generous truly concern the people of this country, wherever things which have been said about this amendment. they may live. They have been said so well that I need speak only 833 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 834

[LORD BUTLER OF BROCKWELL] Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, like briefly, but I hope that brevity will not disguise from my noble friend Lord Tyler, I agree that these amendments your Lordships the constitutional importance of the are clever and elegantly drawn, and the quality of the principle which underlies the amendment. speeches in favour of them supports that. However, I do not question or doubt for a moment the upon analysis, one sees that the effect of the amendments sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and his colleagues is to undermine the entire Bill from the next election. who believe in a fixed-term Parliament. I do not agree Having listened carefully to the speeches that have with them, largely for the reasons that were so well put been made in support of them, it is plain to me that by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, because there are that is the desire of those who have made them. The circumstances in which it is in the national interest effect of the amendments is that a resolution of both for a Prime Minister to seek an early general election Houses would be required to make any subsequent and a new mandate. The circumstances which the Parliament fixed term. As has been rightly pointed noble Lord described bear that out. I simply do not out, this and any Government already have the power think that it is true that all Prime Ministers who go for to decide the date of the next election, which they an early election do so for their party advantage. can, if they wish, fix. That being the case, with these There are very often national circumstances, as there amendments, this Bill would add nothing to the certainly were in my experience, which make that existing law. desirable. The Bill, which has been extensively debated, is Perhaps I may state some propositions on which I intended to legislate for the principle of fixed-term think we can all agree. The first is that to go from Parliaments for the long term. To the extent that it is flexible-term Parliaments to an arrangement for fixed-term enacted and stays in force, it will ensure that the power Parliaments is a constitutional change. As the noble to dictate the timing of elections is removed from the Lord, Lord Owen, said, it is a major constitutional Prime Minister of the day. That is, however, subject to change; arguably, it is more important than the change the provisions in Clause 2 for early elections. Much to the alternative vote system on which the country humour has been made of the loss to the House of had a referendum. Secondly, I think that it is unarguable Commons of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in October that the Government do not have a mandate for this 1974. It is likely that this Bill would not have saved proposition. It was in the coalition agreement, but it the noble Lord’s career then, because the House was not in the Conservative Party manifesto and it is would probably have been dissolved in any event pursuant not something on which the public voted at the last to the early election provisions had this Bill been in general election. Thirdly, as was said, there has been force. no pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. It has been introduced very quickly; I think that one could say 7pm that aspects of it were not properly thought out. That The real fallacy of these amendments is the suggestion is not the way that a major constitutional change of that by this legislation the Government seek to bind this sort ought to be introduced. future Parliaments. Parliament cannot bind its successors. As has been said, the Government have a perfect That is the fundamental principle, but it is expressed in right to commit themselves to a fixed term for the the practice that any subsequent Parliament can legislate present Parliament, provided that they continue to to amend or repeal existing legislation. That is how we maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. work. The law stays the law until it is amended or As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others have repealed. These amendments seek to derogate from said, it is not necessary to have legislation for that that principle. If a subsequent Parliament wishes to purpose, but if the Government want such legislation, change this Act, it may do so. There is no attempt in to bind themselves with hoops of iron, I regard that as the Act to entrench the legislation in any way. their business; I do not challenge it. What I do challenge is their right by making a permanent constitutional change to bind future Parliaments. Certainly, they do Lord Butler of Brockwell: Since it is agreed that not have the right to make a permanent change to our the legislation is not necessary to bind the present constitution to meet the convenience of a temporary Government, what purpose can it possibly have except coalition. to bind future Governments? As has been said, this amendment seeks to deal with this situation in a reasonable way. It does not Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, that defeat the Bill. It allows it to apply to the present is an important point, but the answer is that if you Parliament, which is the Government’s wish. It allows legislate on the principle, as this Bill when an Act will the legislation to remain on the statute book in case a seek to do, the electorate will be entitled to know what future Government or coalition wish to bind themselves it is voting for at any election. Will it get a fixed-term similarly. However, while giving a future Parliament Parliament unless the legislation is amended or repealed, that choice, it avoids a permanent change to our or will the Government and the Prime Minister retain constitution. I urge noble Lords in all parts of the the right to choose when to go to the country? If the House, whether they agree with a fixed-term Parliament Government decide to repeal the legislation or amend or not, to uphold the principle that we do not make it, they are likely to put that in their manifesto. On permanent changes to our constitution without more the basis of these amendments, the Government will consideration than has been given in this instance and have the right after the election to determine what the that we do allow future Parliaments to apply this electorate has given them. That, in my respectful legislation to themselves if they choose it. submission, is wrong in principle. 835 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 836

Furthermore, the amendments are inconsistent with after the next election. That is wrong. If Parliament the Parliament Act 1911. By that Act, the House of wishes to change the law, it needs to pass new law to Commons can insist on legislation that does not extend do so. the life of a Parliament and this does not extend the life of a Parliament, with the exception of the possible Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I indicated two-month extension, and we do not know what will earlier, I support this suite of amendments. They are happen to that. This House can only delay legislation. important in relation to the position of Parliament By these amendments, because of the provision for a and this Bill for three reasons. First, such a series of resolution of both Houses, the power of this House clauses might well be appropriate in any constitutional would be there to deny passage to a resolution that legislation that makes a significant change. I do not the House of Commons wished to pass. That again is think that anybody doubts that, because that is how contrary to the principle and militates against these the Government are putting it. I agree with other amendments. noble Lords who have said that this is potentially a The so-called sunrise clause in Amendment 25 would significant constitutional change. In my respectful cause chaos. By way of example, under Amendment 25, submission, before we commit ourselves irredeemably the schedule would come into force only to the end of to this change it is sensible to see what happens. For the first meeting of the next Parliament, but that that first reason, I support the amendments. schedule is the one that would repeal the Septennial Secondly, we broadly know—there is no real dispute— Act 1715 among other things. Would that suddenly the provenance of these constitutional changes. There come back into force after the next election? is no suggestion that there is a widespread desire The amendments are understated in their presentation. among constitutionalists or the public for this particular They hand straight back to the Prime Minister and the change. It is an insider’s deal in relation to politics, Government of the day, with no need for legislation, which suits two political parties. As far as one can see, the power to choose the timing of the next election. it has no broad political support beyond the two That is the answer to the point made by the noble political parties. I venture to suggest that, if the public’s Baroness, Lady Jay, when she intervened on my noble interest could be engaged in this and one explained to friend Lord Tyler. the public that we might have a situation under the Bill where the Government could be defeated on the Finance Lord Gilbert: I have listened very carefully to the Bill, then defeated on a vote of confidence that they noble Lord’s speech. Over and again I heard him say put down and they would still not have to have a that the Prime Minister would have total power to general election—or that the Government could be choose the general election date. Has it never occurred defeated on a vote of no confidence put down by the to him that the monarch has a say in that? The noble Opposition and they would still not have to leave Lord finds that funny, but I do not. because they could spend 14 days bribing a variety of rebels and other small parties to join them, so they could hold on in Government—the public might not Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: We plainly take find this Bill worth supporting. It is an insider’s Bill, a different view of the constitutional arrangements. which does not feel particularly attractive to me. The monarch has a say in certain very limited circumstances but, by and large, in a constitutional There is a third reason of importance. I have found monarchy she takes the advice of the Prime Minister in the course of these debates in the Commons and and is very careful to avoid becoming embroiled in in your Lordships’ House that people think that, in constitutional disputes of this sort. relation to a significant constitutional change, there should be public consultation, a desire to find consensus and pre-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, on 25 May, David Lord Gilbert: Is the noble Lord actually advancing Heath, the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons the proposition that the monarch has no discretion said that he favoured pre-legislative scrutiny for this whatever as to whether she actually accedes to a Bill. His only concern was that such scrutiny might request for a dissolution? lead to the Bill being forced into the next Session of Parliament. Noble Lords will remember that the coalition Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: Noble Lords in the Commons then extended this Session by will have heard me say that her discretion is very approximately nine months thereby making it clear limited and that she seeks to stay out of controversy of that there could be no clash. There was still no pre- this sort where she possibly can. Plainly, sometimes, legislative scrutiny. the monarch’s role is to get involved and sometimes Therefore, I think most people who have debated that is unwisely exercised, as with the dismissal by Sir this would agree that this Bill has not gone through John Kerr of the Government of Gough Whitlam in the appropriate procedures for a Bill of this importance Australia. That was not the monarch directly, but it constitutionally. Is there no price to be paid for this? Is was the monarch’s representative and that shows the Parliament to be absolutely supine in relation to this? danger of the monarch becoming involved. Controversy It is a big opportunity for the coalition Government to has raged ever since in Australia and elsewhere about put their money where their mouth is. They say they that exercise of the royal prerogative. It is a dangerous believe in new politics and they say they believe in one. reaching out for consensus; I cannot see any reason My point is that if you read these amendments why the noble and learned Lord cannot say, on behalf carefully, a resolution of both Houses would be required of the Government, that he agrees with what has been for this legislation to survive beyond the first meeting said and that we should see whether the way that the 837 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 838

[LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON] done early on? If it is not early on, is it fair that you do Bill operates between now and the next election gains nothing for, say, two or three years, then when it looks public support and, if it does, Parliament can form a as though you might quite like the protections of this view about whether to pass the resolution next time Act, you decide in about the third year to revive it? around. That would not cost the Government anything, Should there be some point at which you have got to because they would have the Bill they want. place your bet?

Lord Rennard: The noble Lord is of course a very Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand the clever lawyer, so perhaps he could just explain to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick House, for the purposes of clarification, how he considers and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, to be governed supporting an amendment that says that each Parliament, by Amendment 25 in this respect. What happens is after each general election, should meet to consider that this Bill continues only up until the first meeting how long the Parliament should last, is compatible of the next Parliament, and I assume that the resolution with the Labour Party manifesto commitment a year can be passed at any time thereafter. I hope that ago, which said that if the party returned to government, satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. it would legislate for fixed-term Parliaments? Lord Turnbull: I think it satisfies me as regards the Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Whatyoudohereisyou explanation, but I am not sure that it satisfies me as to have a Bill for fixed-term Parliaments, you see how it whether that is the right outcome. works and, if it works, you determine whether, as a Parliament, you should continue with it. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I would have thought it is sensible for Parliament to decide when it wants to Lord Elton: Can he answer the points made by my consider the resolution—it might well want to consider noble friend Lord Marks, in particular those relating it early on, or it might well want to consider it later on. to the Parliament Act and the lapse in the schedule? I do not see any purpose, as far as the amendment is concerned, in restricting the time as to when the resolution needs to be considered. In my respectful Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With respect, the Parliament submission, the key point in relation to this is that this Act is a total red herring. The noble Lord, Lord is a bad piece of constitutional legislation, in the sense Marks of Henley-on-Thames, says that by allowing that the process used is agreed by all to be a bad the decision to depend on a resolution of both Houses, process. Putting aside the argument that says all we—Parliament—are giving the power back to a constitutional legislation should be subject to a sunrise Government with a majority. Of course we are, but we clause, it is right, if we are going to make a change to are doing that anyway because they could pass a our constitution of this importance, that there should repealing Act. Surely it must be right for this House to be some protective measures. This seems, with respect, express its disapproval of the way that the Bill has to be a very sensible protective measure. If we see our been brought forward by supporting the amendment role as being to protect the constitution, and we can tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble do that without denying the Government what they Baroness, Lady Boothroyd and the noble Lords, Lord want politically, then I respectfully suggest we should Butler and Lord Armstrong, and to say, “Yes, you can take that opportunity. I am grateful to the noble Lord, have your Bill, but let us see whether or not a major Lord Pannick, and the other co-signatories to the constitutional change like this—which is very much an amendment for giving us that opportunity. insider’s Bill—works, let us see whether or not it is something worth continuing and let the next Parliament 7.15 pm decide”. Lord Tyler: The noble Lord has made a very important point about protecting the constitution. Has he considered Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: I do not understand the consequences, in terms of a very considerable how what the noble Lord has said answers my point constitutional crisis, if, under the wording of this that in order to revive the Fixed-term Parliaments Act amendment, one House votes in one way and the other after the next election, you would have to have a House votes in the other way? That would raise huge resolution of both Houses, while ordinary legislation problems in terms of the primacy of the other place. could be insisted upon by the House of Commons after a delay of a year. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In the situation where you have a proper constitutional arrangement, whereby Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Parliament could use its we protect the constitution here, if you took the view majority to get the repealing Act through, just as it that we were not going to support such a resolution, could use its majority to pass the resolution. In my that is the way that our constitution works. We have respectful submission, there is no difference between been good as a House in determining when we defer to the two. the other place. We do not defer only when we think a real constitutional principle is in issue; if we did not Lord Turnbull: Can the noble Lord explain my one defer to the other place on an issue like that, we would reservation about a provision I otherwise support, be assuming—I would be assuming—that an important which is about the point in the next Parliament when constitutional principle was at stake. What is wrong this option has to be exercised. Can it be exercised at with that? What is our purpose if a part of it is not to any time through that Parliament, or does it have to be defend important constitutional principles? 839 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 840

Lord Gilbert: Is not the danger to which the noble the day choosing at some stage during the five years, Lord, Lord Tyler, has just referred only likely to arise assuming the quinquennium was revived, when to if both Houses are elected? [Laughter] hold an election. That would mean that in each Parliament the Government of the day could have the allegation levelled against them that they were in some way Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is very difficult to operating for a partisan advantage. answer that question, and I will not try. It has been suggested not just in this debate but in a This is an important opportunity for the Government number of debates that the whole purpose of the Bill to show their sincerity in relation to the way that is to make arrangements for this Parliament. However, constitutional legislation should be done and to accept it is clear that it is intended that the fixed-term Parliament the amendments. If they do not, I will support the should, as I said, become part of our constitutional movers of the amendment if they put it to the vote. arrangements. That is what the Labour Party said in its manifesto and my own party has argued that for Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, as we have some time. I thought I heard the noble and learned heard, Amendments 4, 5 and 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, say that that was still the Labour Lord, Lord Pannick, with the support of the noble Party’s policy but I fear that supporting this amendment, Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lords, as he does, puts that into question. It would allow the Lord Butler and Lord Armstrong, provide that the Government of the day elected after 2015 to decide, if Bill’s provisions would be subject to a sunset clause they had a majority, whether to table the Motion or combined with a potential sunrise clause after the resolution to re-establish fixed-term Parliaments or next general election. As my noble friend Lord Tyler whether to revert to the situation that existed prior to said, these amendments are both interesting and this Bill. seductive. It is also fair to say that they are somewhat complex. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If we discovered that I want to take a moment to set out what the these provisions did not work well or reduced confidence amendments seem to be designed to achieve. They in our constitution, would it not then be right not to would enable the next parliamentary general election prolong them? to be on the date set out in the Bill, namely 7 May 2015. After this parliamentary election, however, the apparatus Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, in spite of in the Bill—the date of general elections after the 2015 all the criticisms that the Constitution Committee of election; the process for calling early elections, and it your Lordships’ House made of these proposals, it is important to remember that there is a process for thought that the architecture of Clause 2 and the calling early elections which has sometimes been double triggers for Dissolution were suitable and overlooked; and the consequential matters in the Bill— appropriate. However, if it were felt that other mechanisms would all cease to apply unless revived. It could be were required, clearly amending legislation could be revived by a resolution of each House of Parliament—a brought forward, and later I shall say something about sunset clause combined with a sunrise clause. I think the importance of using legislation. that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of In establishing fixed-terms, we are providing that Thoroton, gave an accurate and factual answer to the the Government and the Opposition have to face the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, when he said that that electorate on a set day. As my noble friend Lady resolution could take place at any time. It could add to Stowell said on the first day in Committee, the uncertainty, and I do not think that that is a particularly happy arrangement. “it would ensure that the Government and the Opposition had to face the electorate on a predetermined date, whatever the political In bringing forward this Bill the Government sought conditions are at that time. That is the most compelling thing to put in place a provision that we hoped would about fixed-term Parliaments”.—[Official Report, 15/3/11; col. 223.] become part of our constitutional arrangement—fixed If this amendment were passed, we would allow the terms for the United Kingdom Parliament, just as situation to revert to the status quo and, as a number there are fixed terms for local government, for the of my noble friends have indicated, it would mean that devolved Parliaments and Assemblies and for the the fixed term would apply only to this Parliament. European Parliament. Two of the Bill’s key provisions When this Parliament established fixed terms for the are: to deny the Executive the ability to choose a date Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern for a general election to suit their own party political Ireland Assembly, a sunset clause was never suggested, ends, and to deliver certainty about how long a Parliament and indeed no one in any of the devolved institutions should last. On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord has ever suggested that we should revisit the idea of Hennessy, remarked on the importance of these provisions. fixed-term Parliaments. No one is suggesting that I think that he also called them a collector’s item, not Mr Alex Salmond should be able to choose to call an least because the Executive, and specifically the Prime election to suit the best interests of the SNP some time Minister, were surrendering a long-held power. over the next five years. I accept all the caveats that it is If these amendments were accepted, the position not possible to make a complete comparison between would not be clear not only in the Parliament elected this Parliament and the devolved institutions; nevertheless, after May 2015 but, indeed, in subsequent ones. Again, fixed-term Parliaments for legislatures have worked the political parties would be able to choose whether and no one is suggesting that that should change. Parliaments should have a fixed term, in which case all A fixed-term Parliament will deliver certainty. We the arrangements would be in place, or whether to debated earlier whether better planning is achieved return to the default position of the Prime Minister of over four or five years, but we believe that a fixed term 841 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 842

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] through an Act of Parliament subject to all the safeguards will facilitate better planning across government. The that that implies. We have heard much in this debate nation will no longer be left on tenterhooks or have to about the importance of our constitution. The noble deal with wild speculation about whether the Prime Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, talked about the fact that Minister will go to the country or how the opinion we do not have a written constitution. However, if the polls are going. In introducing his amendment, the constitution is changed, it is done through an Act of noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talked about Prime Ministers Parliament rather than through a special procedure, agonising over the decision, and sometimes they got it and people have cherished the idea of parliamentary wrong. Harold Wilson arguably got it wrong when he sovereignty. called an election in June 1970. However, let us not kid It is not the case that this Parliament, through this ourselves: the agony is over whether it is going to be in Bill, is trying to bind its successors. That point was the best interests of their party. As my noble friend made forcibly by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Lord Dobbs has said on more than one occasion Brockwell, but it was answered by my noble friends during our debates, the key question is, “Can we Lord Tyler and Lord Marks. We do not seek to win?”. It is not unreasonable for a political party to entrench these provisions. We cannot bind a future want to win but that is not necessarily the same thing Parliament. However, we can say that this important as national advantage. In his book, The View from constitutional change has been brought into the law of No. 11: Memoirs of a Tory Radical, my noble friend our land through an Act of Parliament—by First Lord Lawson said about the then Prime Minister, now Reading, Second Reading, Committee, Report and the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher: Third Reading in the House of Commons and by the “Her view was that a Government should always wait until the procedures that we know in this House of First Reading, final year of the quinquennium, but once there should go as soon Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading as it is confident it will win”. and by Her Majesty giving Royal Assent. That is how Noble Lords may say that that is stating the obvious we change our constitution—by Act of Parliament. but that is what the Bill tries to change. There will be a Surely, if we were being true to our constitutional fixed term and it will not be possible for the Prime heritage, we would say that any change to that heritage Minister of the day to choose the moment that will be should also be carried out through an Act of Parliament. to the party’s partisan advantage. It would have to have the same scrutiny as this Bill has I should be interested to know how the proposers of clearly had and Ministers would, in the other place the amendment would react if the change were made and this place, have to argue their case for making the by repealing legislation rather than having an affirmative change. I do not think that we can just sweep aside the order. How would they react if a Minister came to the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Marks. With Dispatch Box of your Lordships’ House and argued the exception of amendments to the Parliament Acts, that the Government wanted to return to the Prime with this amendment a resolution of the House of Minister of the day being able to make a decision to Commons could be overturned or at least thwarted by suit his party interest rather than sticking with fixed a resolution of this House. It is a unique situation terms? Perhaps in his reply the noble Lord, Lord and we should think long and hard before going down Pannick, will tell us how he expects all this to work. that route. If we do go down it, one can imagine the The schedule of consequential amendments contains tensions there would be at some stage if the other quite important and weighty matters—for example, House had voted for a fixed-term Parliament but this the repeal of the Septennial Act, changes to the Regency House decided it would not. I fully understand and Act 1937 and provisions relating to the demise of the associate myself with the concerns about our constitutional Crown. Does he see those being revived, having been procedures and heritage, but we change the constitution repealed? He will know that there are provisions in the by Act of Parliament and not by simple resolution. A Interpretation Act concerning the revival of an Act very new venture is embodied in these amendments. that has been repealed. However, I think that there is some uncertainty about whether these would be revived. 7.30 pm The other point that has been made is that not I accept and fully anticipate that there will be scope much has changed from the present situation, in which for post-legislative scrutiny. I am not sure whether the a Government have come to power and introduced a right time to do it would be at the end of this Parliament, maximum fixed five-year term. I do not think it is fair because we did not start on the basis of a fixed-term to say that that is analogous to the situation that would Parliament and the Government did not come in with be in place after 2015. The present system is uncertain a five-year programme that they had planned beforehand. for the voter and we think that that uncertainty should I am therefore not sure how we can—to use the words be removed by introducing fixed terms. However, these of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—see amendments would add an entirely new layer of what happens after just one Parliament. As I said, uncertainty for voters. Not only would they not know, there has been no suggestion that the fixed-terms when voting, when a subsequent general election might should be changed in any of the devolved institutions. be but they would not even know the legal system under There will be an opportunity for post-legislative scrutiny, which the next Parliament would operate and how the and if some of the mechanisms for early elections are next general election date would be chosen. I do not found not to have worked, there will be an opportunity, believe that that is fair or sensible for the electorate. through legislation, to reform them. It has also been pointed out that the Bill alters the I do not think that the uncertainty inherent in this apparatus for calling elections. The crucial difference amendment or the unusual constitutional solution is that the Government propose moving to fixed terms being proposed will improve the Bill; nor will it increase 843 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 844 the scrutiny that the Bill receives once it is passed. In short-term political problem. In the light of that, we the light of these considerations and concerns, I ask should think very carefully before we embody on the the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. statute book, as a permanent measure introducing permanent constitutional change, a measure which Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Can my noble and has at best a short-term political purpose. learned friend tell me whether he knows of any mechanism I respect the views expressed by the noble Lords, by which an Act of Parliament which has come into Lord Tyler and Lord Marks, and by the Minister. I force can have its force suspended for a given period? respect their views because they and the Liberal Democrats strongly believe in fixed-term Parliaments as a matter Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I cannot readily think of principle. However, their difficulty is that large of one off the top of my head. However, there are numbers of noble Lords on the government Benches enough people in the Chamber and, if there is such a do not agree with fixed-term Parliaments as a matter mechanism, I am sure that one of them will be able to of principle. They are rightly concerned about the tell us. My noble and learned friend, who has wide constitutional implications of such a measure, as so experience, might be able to think of one, but I cannot. eloquently expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton However, the “sunsetted and sunrisen” approach is and Lord Cormack, in this debate. They are particularly very novel. concerned about this matter in the absence of any public consultation on this issue, in the absence of any pre-legislative scrutiny and given the lack of any evidential Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My recollection is that basis for the new constitutional principles we are about we put sunrise or sunset clauses into a significant to enact. amount of the terrorist legislation, the result being The inescapable reality is that the Government and that they would continue to have an effect only if there large numbers of noble Lords on the government had been a resolution in both Houses of Parliament to Benches are supporting the Bill not because they carry on with them. I think that that is an answer to believe in the constitutional principle but because it is your Lordships’ question. part of the coalition agreement, and it is part of the coalition agreement because of the political needs of Lord Mackay of Clashfern: With respect, that is not this coalition Government to remain together for five an answer to my question. The terrorism provisions years. I repeat: I do not deprecate that; it is a perfectly end the Act of Parliament unless it is continued by a proper political position to adopt as a basis for legislation resolution, whereas this proposal, as I understand it, which applies to this Parliament. However, it is not an would suspend the operation of this Bill, supposing acceptable basis for general constitutional change, as that it becomes an Act, for a certain period without the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has pointed out. repealing it. At the moment—I am willing to be taught—I The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, asked whether cannot think of that having happened before. However, under the amendments a future Parliament could approve novelty is perhaps the watchword of the season. a resolution at any time during that Parliament. The answer is yes, and the reason the amendment is so Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble and learned drafted is that it would be inappropriate to limit the Lord is right. There is a difference between an Act events and the circumstances that may occur during a lapsing and not being revivable and the situation under future Parliament. It is quite possible that a coalition this provision where if it lapsed for the first Parliament Government might be formed part of the way through because it was not passed in resolution, it could be a future Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, revived for the second Parliament. In practice, however, and the Minister were concerned about the Parliament the difference may not be that great. Act, but of course a future Parliament could at any time enact primary legislation on this subject. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I stand to The Minister asked a fair question—all his questions be corrected, but as far as I am aware it is a novel were fair, of course, but he asked me to address this approach. Not only could it lapse and be put in one in my reply—about how this will work in the suspension; it could be revived, lapse again and be future. My belief, my expectation, is that no future revived again. We are not switching on and off light Government will want to apply the provisions in this bulbs. There are quite important issues here and I am Bill as they are unless there is another coalition not sure that these procedures are designed to give Government with similar political demands to this them proper weight. That is why we argue that primary one. I hope and expect that after the next general legislation should be the way of dealing with the issue, election, if there is a desire in principle for fixed-term if it is felt that the provisions for a fixed-term Parliament Parliaments, the relevant responsible Government will are not working and should not be the basis for the bring forward new primary legislation that will be future. based upon proper consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny and in the light of experience. Lord Pannick: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: I am sorry to for the support that has been expressed on all sides of interrupt the noble Lord, but what is his answer to my the House. My answer to the noble and learned Lord, point and to that of the Minister that there should be Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is that we are dealing with proper full parliamentary consideration of primary an exceptional Bill which is being brought forward by legislation to amend or appeal this Bill rather than the the coalition Government to deal with a particular odd mechanism proposed in his amendments. 845 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 846

Lord Pannick: If this amendment were to be approved Liddle, L. Rowlands, L. by this House and if it were to be approved by the Lister of Burtersett, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. other place, that would be the parliamentary consent Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Sandwich, E. Luce, L. Sawyer, L. to the provisions of this Bill. That is no different in McAvoy, L. Scott of Foscote, L. principle from any other circumstance where both McDonagh, B. Sewel, L. Houses approve a particular procedure. McFall of Alcluith, L. Shaw of Northstead, L. The issue before the House is very simple. Accepting, McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Sherlock, B. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Simon, V. as these amendments do, that the coalition Government Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L. Slim, V. can have their way for this Parliament, should we as a McKenzie of Luton, L. Smith of Basildon, B. House enact constitutional change for the future on a Mar, C. Smith of Finsbury, L. permanent basis when, to put it at its very lowest, the Martin of Springburn, L. Snape, L. case for permanent constitutional change has not been Massey of Darwen, B. Soley, L. Mawson, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. made out? I wish to test the opinion of the House. Maxton, L. Stirrup, L. 7.41 pm Meacher, B. Stoddart of Swindon, L. Moonie, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Division on Amendment 4 Morgan of Drefelin, B. Sutherland of Houndwood, L. Morgan of Ely, B. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Contents 190; Not-Contents 184. Morgan of Huyton, B. Taylor of Blackburn, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Amendment 4 agreed. Morris of Handsworth, L. Temple-Morris, L. Morris of Yardley, B. Thomas of Swynnerton, L. Division No. 4 Neill of Bladen, L. Thornton, B. CONTENTS Northbrook, L. Tomlinson, L. Nye, B. Touhig, L. Aberdare, L. Fritchie, B. Palmer, L. Triesman, L. Adams of Craigielea, B. Gale, B. Pannick, L. [Teller] Tunnicliffe, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Patel, L. Turnberg, L. Andrews, B. Giddens, L. Pitkeathley, B. Turnbull, L. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Gilbert, L. Plant of Highfield, L. Turner of Camden, B. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. Golding, B. Prescott, L. Vinson, L. Bach, L. Goldsmith, L. Prosser, B. Wall of New Barnet, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Gordon of Strathblane, L. Quin, B. Walpole, L. Beecham, L. Goudie, B. Radice, L. Walton of Detchant, L. Best, L. Gould of Potternewton, B. Ramsbotham, L. Warnock, B. Bew, L. Grantchester, L. Rea, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Bilimoria, L. Greenway, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. West of Spithead, L. Bilston, L. Grenfell, L. Richard, L. Wheeler, B. Blood, B. Grey-Thompson, B. Rix, L. Whitaker, B. Boateng, L. Grocott, L. Rooker, L. Whitty, L. Boothroyd, B. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Rosser, L. Wilkins, B. Boyd of Duncansby, L. Hanworth, V. Rowe-Beddoe, L. Wilson of Tillyorn, L. Bradley, L. Harries of Pentregarth, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Harris of Haringey, L. NOT CONTENTS Brookman, L. Harrison, L. Browne of Ladyton, L. Hart of Chilton, L. Addington, L. Clement-Jones, L. Butler of Brockwell, L. Haskel, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Colwyn, L. Butler-Sloss, B. Haskins, L. Alderdice, L. Condon, L. Cameron of Dillington, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller] Cope of Berkeley, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Ashdown of Norton-sub- Cotter, L. Carter of Coles, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Hamdon, L. Crathorne, L. Clark of Windermere, L. Hollis of Heigham, B. Astor of Hever, L. Crickhowell, L. Clinton-Davis, L. Howard of Rising, L. Attlee, E. De Mauley, L. Cobbold, L. Howarth of Breckland, B. Avebury, L. Dholakia, L. Collins of Highbury, L. Howarth of Newport, L. Ballyedmond, L. Dixon-Smith, L. Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Howe of Idlicote, B. Benjamin, B. Dobbs, L. Cormack, L. Howells of St Davids, B. Berridge, B. Doocey, B. Corston, B. Hoyle, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Dykes, L. Crawley, B. Hughes of Stretford, B. Blencathra, L. Eaton, B. Davies of Oldham, L. Hughes of Woodside, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Edmiston, L. Davies of Stamford, L. Hunt of Chesterton, L. B. Elton, L. Derby, Bp. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Boswell of Aynho, L. Empey, L. Dixon, L. Jay of Ewelme, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Falkner of Margravine, B. Drake, B. Jay of Paddington, B. Bridgeman, V. Faulks, L. D’Souza, B. Jones, L. Brinton, B. Feldman of Elstree, L. Dubs, L. Judd, L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Fink, L. Elder, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. L. Fookes, B. Elystan-Morgan, L. King of Bow, B. Brougham and Vaux, L. Fowler, L. Evans of Parkside, L. King of West Bromwich, L. Browning, B. Framlingham, L. Falconer of Thoroton, L. Kinnock, L. Byford, B. Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Kinnock of Holyhead, B. Caithness, E. Freeman, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Kirkhill, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Freud, L. Filkin, L. Knight of Weymouth, L. Cathcart, E. Garden of Frognal, B. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Laming, L. [Teller] Cavendish of Furness, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Ford, B. Lea of Crondall, L. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Gardner of Parkes, B. Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Chidgey, L. Garel-Jones, L. 847 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011 848

Geddes, L. O’Cathain, B. Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work German, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Glendonbrook, L. Palumbo, L. Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 Glentoran, L. Patten, L. Motion of Regret Goodlad, L. Perry of Southwark, B. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Popat, L. 7.54 pm Greaves, L. Randerson, B. Hamwee, B. Rawlings, B. Moved By The Countess of Mar Hanham, B. Rennard, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Risby, L. That this House regrets that it has been given Henley, L. Roberts of Conwy, L. insufficient information to understand the policy Heyhoe Flint, B. Higgins, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. objectives of the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Hill of Oareford, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/688), Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. Rotherwick, L. how the scheme will work and whether claimants’ Home, E. St John of Fawsley, L. prospects of obtaining employment will be improved. Howe, E. Sanderson of Bowden, L. Howell of Guildford, L. Sassoon, L. Relevant document: 27th Report from the Merits Hunt of Wirral, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. Committee. Hurd of Westwell, L. Seccombe, B. Hussain, L. Selborne, E. Hussein-Ece, B. Selkirk of Douglas, L. The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in moving this James of Blackheath, L. Sharkey, L. Motion I may cover some of the ground to be covered Jenkin of Kennington, B. Sharples, B. by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, in his Jenkin of Roding, L. Sheikh, L. Motions. The 27th report of the Merits of Statutory Jolly, B. Shipley, L. Instruments Committee draws our attention to the Jopling, L. Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Smith of Clifton, L. fact that: Kramer, B. Stedman-Scott, B. “Although there is a considerable amount of paper attached Lang of Monkton, L. Steel of Aikwood, L. to this instrument the information it contains is … vague”. Lee of Trafford, L. Stevensof Kirkwhelpington, The committee makes it plain that it has asked for Lexden, L. L. clarification on the regulations from the Department Lingfield, L. Stewartby, L. Linklater of Butterstone, B. Stoneham of Droxford, L. for Work and Pensions and that very little has been Liverpool, E. Storey, L. forthcoming. The committee points to several Loomba, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. inconsistencies between the Explanatory Memorandum Lucas, L. Strasburger, L. and the departmental memorandum to the Social Luke, L. Strathclyde, L. Security Advisory Committee. Like the SSAC before Lyell, L. Taverne, L. Macdonald of River Glaven, Taylor of Holbeach, L. it, the Merits Committee is particularly concerned L. Teverson, L. because, MacGregor of Pulham Thomas of Gresford, L. “the sanction on the individual claimant for failing in any element”, Market, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B. of the scheme, Mackay of Clashfern, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. MacLaurin of Knebworth, L. Tonge, B. “is the loss of 3 months’ benefit”. McNally, L. Tordoff, L. It also points to how: Maddock, B. Trefgarne, L. “The degree of flexibility and discretion built into the arrangements Magan of Castletown, L. Trimble, L. causes the Committee to question how it can be delivered with Tugendhat, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. any degree of consistency”. Mancroft, L. Tyler, L. Maples, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Noble Lords have always been assured by Ministers Mar and Kellie, E. Verma, B. that primary legislation lays down the framework and Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Waddington, L. that the detail would be provided in secondary legislation. L. Wakeham, L. In this statutory instrument, we have little detail. We Mawhinney, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Mayhew of Twysden, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. are told that the Department for Work and Pensions Methuen, L. Walmsley, B. does not intend to provide detailed guidance on the Morris of Bolton, B. Warsi, B. criteria within the regulations, as it believes the best Moynihan, L. Wasserman, L. way to select participants is via adviser discretion. It Naseby, L. Wei, L. admits that it has limited evidence for the effectiveness Newlove, B. Wheatcroft, B. Nicholson of Winterbourne, B. Wilcox, B. of the four-week placement in mandatory work activity Noakes, B. Willis of Knaresborough, L. and that that activity is a new scheme. In other words, Northover, B. Wolfson of Aspley Guise, L. it is making the rules on the hoof—rules for which Norton of Louth, L. Younger of Leckie, V. there will be no scrutiny and no appeal for the claimants. I have the greatest sympathy with anyone not versed 7.53 pm in legislation who may need to refer to it for a particular purpose. I feel that I almost fell at the first post when I Amendment 5 tried to find Section 17A(10) of the Act for the meaning of “jobseeking conditions”, as referred to in the last Moved by Lord Pannick footnote on page 3 of the statutory instrument. I have 5: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “each” and insert “a” a copy of the Jobseekers Act 1995 with a Section 17 Amendment 5 agreed. but no Section 17A, let alone Section 17A(10). There is no indication of when or under which legislation Consideration on Report adjourned until not before Section 17A(10) was inserted. I would have thought 8.53 pm. that I would find Section 17A on the internet, but no 849 Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011[LORDS] Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011 850

[THE COUNTESS OF MAR] 8pm such luck. With the help of the wonderful staff in the Regulation 4 deals only with what must be done in Printed Paper Office, I was led to Section 1 of the writing. There is no mention of any verbal statement Welfare Reform Act 2009—but still no luck. I found given over the telephone. There is no indication of the that “jobseeking conditions” means conditions set out procedure for dealing with a person who cannot in Section 1(2)(a) to (c) of the Jobseekers Act 1995. understand or take in what has been read to them and Why on earth could the footnote not have read just my example would seem to indicate that, far from that? I can imagine that a member of the public would being a flexible and tailor-made service, the process is be enraged at having to spend an unnecessary £18 for a designed to catch the innocent and the unwary. Action copy of the Welfare Reform Act in addition to the for ME has commented for some time that the DWP £7.70 for the Jobseekers Act simply to find the definition does not properly understand the impact of ME on that is pivotal to the statutory instrument. the individual’s capacity to work. In its response to the Regulations 4 and 5 are clear in so far as they go. call for evidence for the independent review of the Noble Lords will be aware that I am concerned with a work capability assessment, it reported that there is number of charities that represent people with CFS/ME, unfounded scepticism towards the diagnosis of ME, but may not know that this week is ME Awareness set within a broader cultural perception within the Week. The Department for Work and Pensions seems benefits system that applicants are fraudsters until to be singularly unaware of and indeed determined to proven otherwise and that the system lacks recognition ignore the disabling symptoms of this fluctuating of barriers to work which are not patently visible, condition. It seems odd to me that the World Health including cognitive problems and fatigue, particularly Organisation and the Department of Health recognise when the applicant “looks well”. There is insufficient it as a neurological condition, while the former Chief understanding of and training in up-to-date data on Medical Officer, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, told ME by assessors and decision-makers, including medical the BBC online on 11 January 2002 that CFS/ME staff, and unrealistic expectations on claimants with should be classified alongside multiple sclerosis and ME to find and sustain work over time. motor neurone disease. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recognises it to be as Another correspondent, Mr Keith Anderson, who disabling as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, is a CFS/ME nurse in Fife, wrote: congestive heart failure and other chronic conditions. “My anger is growing because I can see no reason why this I note from a Written Answer that the Department group of patients is being singled out other than deliberate for Work and Pensions refers to chronic fatigue syndrome removal from benefits because the DWP staff do not believe the when my Questions relate to chronic fatigue syndrome/ condition exists, or they recognise many will not appeal due to the stress and illness it will cause them”. ME. The two are entirely different conditions, defined by different sections of the International Classification I had another letter today, which I will send to the of Diseases in ICD-10. It is high time that the department Minister, on precisely that fact. The nurse continues: recognised this, for its failure to do so by applying “Patients are suffering greater symptom impact, relapse in unjustifiably harsh sanctions which seek to force people their condition management, exacerbation of any mental issues with CFS/ME back to work before they are ready and, of course, a huge increase in the workload for me”. could be counterproductive, resulting in a deterioration He maintains that the oath “First, do no harm” is not of their health or delaying their recovery. being adhered to by DWP doctors. I have recently been sent correspondence from a person helping claimants with CFS/ME who are being I understand that claimants will be given placements transferred from incapacity benefit to employment that last up to four weeks and will be expected to work and support allowance. She explains that the claimants for up to 30 hours a week. We are not told the type of are first sent a letter, as outlined in Regulation 4 of the work they are to be given. There is no indication as to statutory instrument, and states: what will happen to a person with a fluctuating condition “This tells them briefly about the start of the process and that who has been found by Atos doctors to be fit for some they’ll be contacted by ’phone”. work, but who finds they cannot sustain the work The time period appears to be about two weeks. She says: allocated for the number of hours expected, except that they will fail to meet the jobseeking conditions “When the claimants get the ’phone call they are read a and suffer sanctions. After all, is it not the case that statement outlining the process. This appears to be read from a script. The claimants are also given the opportunity to ask those with CFS/ME need to change their attitude and questions. I’m aware of several claimants who say the statement is behaviour—nothing a little cognitive behaviour therapy lengthy and due to their cognitive problems, they have been won’t cure? unable to remember the content of it. One claimant asked for a written copy of the statement to be sent to her but was told this I find it extraordinary that so much is left to the wasn’t possible as ‘they were doing it this way’ i.e. verbally”. discretion of DWP personal advisers and private providers. She says: I wonder whether the Minister saw an article in the “I feel this highlights the inadequacy of the DWP in catering Guardian of 1 April 2011—not a joke, I understand. It for those with conditions that involve cognitive problems and details how, in order to meet targets, vulnerable jobseekers further underlines just how these problems are being ignored and are being tricked into breaching the rules so that poorly understood by this Government department”. benefits can be held back. A Jobcentre Plus adviser is She goes on to say that her contacts are from Kent and quoted as saying: the Midlands, “Suddenly you’re not helping somebody into sustainable “so they cannot say they are dealing with the process differently—my employment, which is what you’re employed to do. You’re looking contacts were both read the same statement over the phone”. for ways to trick customers into ‘not looking for work’”. 851 Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011[10 MAY 2011] Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011 852

We know that we must not believe everything we read speaking to the Motions standing in my name on the in the papers, but if there is so much as a grain of truth Order Paper. In that context, it is probably as well for in the contents of this article, it is extremely worrying. me to explain to your Lordships why I thought it I would be grateful if the Minister will categorically necessary to add to her Motion by tabling two of assure the House that there are no targets applicable my own. to the DWP, Jobcentre Plus or private providers. I am only too aware that it is exceptional for your The Social Security Advisory Committee and the Lordships to agree an annulment. In this case, I am Merits Committee are highly critical of the sanctions not opposed in principle to the subject of the regulations, system. They appear sceptical that sanctions will achieve to mandatory work activity—I was a Minister when the results they are designed to achieve. The Merits we proposed a pilot of something similar, just referred Committee points out that the department’s own research to by the noble Countess. I was therefore very reluctant indicates that, to seek to annul these regulations. What I was after “there is little evidence that workfare increased the likelihood of was a mechanism that required the Government to finding work”, take back the regulations and return with them, in unless conditions are as close to work as possible. The improved form, with the necessary evidence to support DWP admits that it has not even asked bidders to their introduction on a national scale, much as the specify the placements that they propose to find. The noble Countess has said she would like. In this, I too reasoning behind this is that contractors will be allowed was informed by the 27th report from the Merits as much flexibility as possible to consider what will Committee that she referred to. best support customers. If I place a contract with an individual or a company, I expect to know in detail As I understand it, the regret Motion in the name exactly what they propose to do. I expect my Government of the noble Countess effectively reprimands the to do the same for me and my fellow citizens. Government, but does not prevent the regulations from proceeding. Given the extent of criticism from The Merits Committee tells the House that these the Social Security Advisory Committee and then regulations bear similarities to the Work for your from the Merits Committee, it seems appropriate to Benefit regulations considered last year but not offer your Lordships the option of requiring the implemented, and which are revoked by the current Government to address the concerns of those committees regulations. It explains that: and come back with sufficient information before the “One of the key concerns at the time was that the providers instrument is agreed, but giving an indication orally should not exploit participants as a source of cheap labour and that participants should gain relevant skills from the experience. that if they have such evidence the instrument will of These concerns remain for the replacement scheme set out in the course be passed. I was therefore delighted to discover current regulations. The Work for your Benefit Scheme differed in a 2006 report from a Joint Committee on conventions that it was based on a randomised selection process and was a to your Lordships. On page 63 of the report, at small pilot scheme with a clear evaluation plan aimed at examining paragraph 232, it says: whether mandatory work activity had demonstrable benefits”. It went on to say, tellingly: “In the absence of a power to amend SIs, the most constructive way for the Lords, as the revising chamber, to reject an SI is by “That evidence was not obtained, but the mandatory work motion (or amendment) incorporating a reason, making it clear activity scheme is being introduced nationally from the start of both before and after the debate what the issue is”. May 2011”. I readily acknowledge that there are a small proportion I therefore tabled such an amendment in this spirit, of benefits claimants who are work-shy and lack the incorporating a reason, and it was initially accepted. It disciplines required to obtain and sustain viable was quickly then unaccepted, because such a Motion employment. I contend that sanctions are probably was without precedent. After further discussion, it unnecessary for people with CFS/ME. A survey by was then accepted again before finally being rejected Action for ME in 2008 found that people with ME by the Clerks. The Clerks were then very helpful in want to work, and that when people with ME do not splitting my Motion into the two we have before us work it is because they are physically and mentally tonight. The first is a traditional annulment and the unable to sustain paid employment. Action for ME second regret Motion is the explanation. I am most would prefer to see a system based on incentives and grateful to them for their assistance, but I have to say support, rather than sanctions. I recognise that there to your Lordships that I think the current situation a are also others in the population with mental and little odd. The way my two Motions sit on the Order physical health problems that may not be immediately Paper is not in the interests of transparency and has obvious and who are, in fact, very vulnerable. How elicited a number of media enquiries as to what I am does Her Majesty’s Government propose to ensure up to. I am therefore writing to the Procedure Committee that their policies will not do irreparable damage to to suggest that the recommendation of the 2006 committee minds and bodies? be accepted so that we can be clearer in future on the I would like to see these regulations taken away and Order Paper. returned to us as a complete picture, rather than a I turn to the substantial issue. As we have heard, the sketch, but of course that depends upon the flexibility regulations allow the Secretary of State to introduce of the Minister. I regret that he has ignored the advice mandatory work activity for customers in receipt of of the SSAC and the Merits Committee. I beg to move. jobseeker’s allowance, from April of this year—that is, last month. Each placement consists of up to 30 hours’ Lord Knight of Weymouth: My Lords, it is a pleasure activity per week and lasts for up to four weeks. to follow the noble Countess and I am very supportive Participants will at the same time be expected to be of what she has said and of her Motion, but I am now actively seeking work, attend fortnightly interviews 853 Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011[LORDS] Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011 854

[LORD KNIGHT OF WEYMOUTH] and if he has time perhaps the Minister could address and be available for work. If they fail to meet these them too. Rural residents may be sent to work at some conditions, they can lose 13 weeks’ benefit for the first distance, at their own transport cost, and potentially a offence and 26 weeks’ benefit subsequently. long way from the local office for signing on. Will the While there is an appeal process for the sanction, requirements be relaxed to allow them to sign on by there is no appeal for being mandated on to the phone during the period of the placement? scheme. There will be around 10,000 places per year What about participants with children? According and customers will not be able to volunteer to take up to the SSAC report, their childcare has to be funded these places. An enthusiast would therefore have to from their benefits. Can that be right? Does that not persuade their adviser to make them go on the scheme. put them in a position of choosing to use all their The DWP does not plan on issuing detailed guidance, benefit for 30 hours’ childcare leaving nothing to live as we have heard, but wants to give flexibility to on, to use a benefit sanction of three months, or to Jobcentre Plus in how it uses this new weapon in its take risks on the reliability of informal childcare, armoury. I was an early evangelist for local flexibility which might mean that they were unable to get to but I worry that this is all left a little too vague, given work? What will that do to their experience of work as the seriousness of the sanctions that I have set out. a positive activity? Remember, they have no appeal on As I have said, I am not against the general principle; the mandation. The Minister could assist greatly by when in government, we legislated for a pilot to mandate being clear now that advisers will put the interests of Work for your Benefit. However, I am concerned children first in applying these regulations, and that about proceeding with a national scheme without parents will be mandated on to the scheme only if evidence. If this Government had proceeded with the the childcare arrangements are adequate and affordable. pilot for Work for your Benefit, they would have that evidence on whether this will work. 8.15 pm As the Social Security Advisory Committee has said in paragraph 4.2 of its report, What about ethnic minorities, those with caring responsibilities, those with disabilities, those with ME “published evidence is at best ambivalent about the chances of and those with learning difficulties? DWP evidence ‘workfare’ type activity improving outcomes for people who are shows that these are the people most likely to be out of work. The Department’s research indicates that ‘there is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding sanctioned for not actively seeking work; they are work’ unless conditions are as close to work as possible. The therefore those most likely to be mandated on to this evidence suggests that the mandatory work activity must be scheme and therefore at greatest risk of these punitive carefully tailored to an individual’s specific needs and carefully sanctions. timed to be of maximum effectiveness”. As ever, I have asked a lot of questions. I apologise. In the light of that clear statement from the department’s I know it is a better tactic in Opposition to stick to just independent experts, how does this four-week work one or two in the hope that it forces the Minister to activity differ from the work done on, say, community answer them. However, there are a lot of questions. punishments? How will advisers be trained to tailor it That is why everyone who has looked at these regulations to the individual’s needs and timed to be most effective? wants more information. I found it shocking to discover As the Merits Committee said, the purpose of the just this evening on the Merits Committee website that mandatory work activity is not clear. Is it, as the it has published an exchange of letters between itself Explanatory Memorandum says, to require extra support and the Minister of State in the department, Chris to help customers refocus their approach to job search? Grayling MP.In the first letter on 11 April, the committee Or is it more, as the department’s memorandum to the said: Social Security Advisory Committee says, to give jobcentre “Our 27th report made it clear that we found the case for the advisers another intervention to deal with those doing Mandatory Work Activity Scheme Regulations to be vague, only the bare minimum to comply with the requirement unquantified and lacking in practical detail”. to seek work? The SSAC is concerned about the, The committee took oral evidence from Mr Grayling, “precedent set by appearing to punish claimants who are satisfying which, the conditionality rules but who in the view of the Personal “did not add significant detail about the numbers of places Adviser appear to display the ‘wrong attitude’”. actually needed, or the cost benefit assessment. We gained the impression of an experimental scheme, with little clear accountability Is the committee not right that this is an extension of to the taxpayer, or to claimants who might find themselves the conditionality rules by the back door, by negative required to perform a very wide range of activities, the scope of instrument, and with no evidence to support it? which remains unclear”. Why not delay the regulations and proceed with the Mr Grayling replied on 19 April: pilot to ensure that the 10,000 work experience places “I do not believe that the Department should be criticised for are an effective use of taxpayers’ money in helping not providing information on all these issues in the explanatory people into work? How would the Minister respond to memorandum that accompanied the Regulations”. those who suggest that this is going to end up just He continued, saying that, being a way of parking 10,000 customers and generating “the function of the Committee is to examine whether a statutory a few headlines in the Daily Mail, but not actually instrument will effectively achieve the stated policy objectives, not helping anyone? to examine whether those policy objectives are themselves desirable. In my view some of your detailed questions, including that Then there are the concerns about certain groups regarding Jobcentre Plus resources, suggest that the Committee is being able to do the activity and fulfil the other straying further into questioning the policy itself than it should conditionality rules. I shall quickly run through those, do”. 855 Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011[10 MAY 2011] Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011 856

The committee replied—understandably, in some with the process, thus turning the whole placement, in outrage—on 4 May: this circumstance, into nothing much more than a “The Committee felt strongly that your letter was an inappropriate punishment. How do we know what a good cause is response to legitimate concerns expressed by a Parliamentary for this particular scheme? We do not; it is left, presumably, Select Committee … It is for the Department to give a coherent to the decision-makers in Jobcentre Plus. Why? It is explanation for the legislation it proposes—the Committee’s task apparently felt that prescribing in regulations what should not be to undertake research to piece information together”. constitutes good cause will limit the circumstances in The committee goes on to say that if it is not satisfied, which it can be applied, although it is prescribed for it will invite the Secretary of State for Work and other sanctions regimes. Does this mean that there is Pensions, together with the most senior officials from likely to be inconsistency up and down the country the department, to give oral evidence to the committee. in how good cause is judged? Yes, this is bound to It is clearly very unhappy with the way that Parliament happen, which must surely be why these regulations, is being treated by the Minister of State. as drafted, are unacceptable and leave Parliament In conclusion, I know the Minister takes his work unsighted as to how the scheme will work in practice. here very seriously. Perhaps, by speaking in this debate One matter I am puzzled about is the nature of the tonight, we will help him to persuade his colleagues in placements under the scheme. The Minister in his the department that getting secondary legislation right evidence said that placements would be in the not-for- is essential and not just an irritant. I look forward to profit sector. He cited the examples of work in a his response and urge your Lordships to send a strong charity shop or on a conservation project. However, message to Ministers about the importance of Parliament, nowhere is it spelt out in the regulations that these the Merits Committee and accountability by supporting placements will be in the not-for-profit sector. Clearly at least the Motion of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. there are all kinds of implications if placements are to be made in ordinary businesses, including the danger Baroness Thomas of Winchester: My Lords, I, too, of exploitation. I wonder why this is not stated in the am glad to have the opportunity to debate briefly the regulations. Many other questions are raised by the thinking behind this order, which raises some important order. Perhaps two, crucially, are: is the balance right questions. I am not unsympathetic to the whole scheme. between what the Secretary of State lays down and It has been introduced, we are told, because Jobcentre what is left to local determination; and what will Plus staff wanted a tool to enable them, in the words success look like? of the Minister, Chris Grayling, when he gave evidence All in all, Parliament is being asked to buy a pig in a to the Merits Committee, to refer someone on JSA for poke with these regulations, framed the way they are. a period of full-time activity to instil the discipline of As I said at the beginning, I am not against the policy work, and re-energise, refocus and remotivate them of trying to engage perhaps recalcitrant jobseekers to enter or re-enter the world of work. This sounds with the world of work, but the lack of information reasonable until one looks at the process. It is very rare we are given in these regulations leaves me with no option for the Merits Committee, of which I used to be a but to vote for the regret Motion of the noble Countess. member, to draw the special attention of the House to an order using the following words: Lord Rix: My Lords, this is the first time that I have “The Committee considers it unacceptable that the House has been given insufficient information to understand the policy been in your Lordships’ House since the debate on objective of the scheme; to determine how the scheme will work; disability last Thursday, when it was announced that and effectively to assess whether the outcome will help claimants the noble Lord, Lord Freud, had had an unfortunate to improve their prospects of obtaining employment”. accident. I am glad to see him back in his place and I Since then, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has told us hope that he is fully recovered. what the up-to-date situation is, which I had not heard I start by stating that I am, of course, in support of about. I am glad he has given us that news. the principles behind universal credit—namely, making It is important to say that this mandatory work work pay and helping more people into employment, activity scheme is not work-related activity, which is a if they are able to work. I doubt that anyone in the very different scheme for those on the employment Chamber opposes that. However, the means by which side of ESA. However, there is a similarity between this is achieved must be sensitive to the wide-ranging the two schemes—not just between their names, which needs and abilities of potential jobseekers. It is within is unfortunate. Both are supposed to help unemployed these parameters that any assessment of the fairness people prepare for the world of work and both carry a and value of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme sanctions regime, although neither is a sanction in must be considered to ensure that people are not itself. disproportionately disadvantaged. I intend to focus on The two sanctions regimes are very different. Work- the impact that this regulation would have on disabled related activity for ESA claimants carries a relatively people and, as President of Mencap, especially on mild sanctions regime, whereas this scheme—although those with a learning disability, because I fear they placements under it last for only four weeks—has a stand to lose most as a consequence of these regulations. much tougher regime. As we have heard, if someone Recently, the Employment Minister claimed that defaults without good cause there will be a fixed three-quarters of incapacity benefit claimants have sanction of 13 weeks. If this happens twice within now been found to be fit for work. Coupled with the 12 months, the sanction will be of 26 weeks. No removal of the exempt group, which means that people wonder the SSAC considered this disproportionate. It with a learning disability are not automatically exempt was also critical of the fact that the sanction could not from the work capability assessment, this could result be overturned or shortened by a claimant re-engaging in a significant number of disabled people being found 857 Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011[LORDS] Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011 858

[LORD RIX] struck me as being damning in its conclusion that the to be fit for work and migrated onto benefits, most lack of information attached to the regulations was likely JSA, where they will be subject to conditions unacceptable. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of such as the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme. Winchester has confirmed that view. This holds many challenges—primarily the risk of I am rather more familiar with the reports of the imposing unreasonable demands on people who might Social Security Advisory Committee, having read many struggle to fulfil them because of their disability or of them over the years. Its report on these regulations, those who might not fully grasp the requirements to which the Merits Committee refers, is at the more made upon them. A failure to attend a mandatory critical end of the spectrum of SSAC statements. Its interview, for example, may be as a consequence of an key recommendation was that mandatory work activity individual’s lack of understanding of what was expected should not proceed. Nevertheless, it is proceeding on of them, rather than a deliberate act of non-compliance. the basis of regulations deemed inadequate by the Indeed, the Social Security Advisory Committee has Merits Committee for their lack of clarity of purpose. warned that: As the committee underlines, these are important “Evidence from the Department’s Equality Impact Assessment and DWP research shows that ethnic minority claimants and regulations, the effects of which could have serious those with a learning difficulty tend to be disproportionately implications for the livelihood of thousands of sanctioned for not actively seeking employment. This, alongside unemployed people. As we have heard, where sanctions other societal factors, could lead to these groups being are imposed, JSA will be withdrawn for 13 or 26 weeks disproportionately referred to this scheme and, as a consequence, and, if further primary legislation is passed, we could at even greater risk of sanction”. be talking about loss of benefits for 156 weeks for a I seek assurances from the Minister that the correct third so-called offence from April 2012. protocols will be put in place to ensure that people with a learning disability fully understand the obligations The evidence suggests that it is often the most they must meet. It is also vital that these obligations vulnerable who are subjected to sanctions. Both the are reasonable and that individuals are provided with Merits Committee and SSAC comment on the ambiguities appropriate support. This is particularly important surrounding the scheme’s purpose. The department because disabled people are statistically more likely to denies any punitive intent, emphasising how the scheme live in poverty and will often be unable to cope with is supposed to help customers develop behaviours the sanctions. and attitudes required to get and keep work, yet it is adamant that sanctions must be applied to those who Additionally, I am very concerned about the precedent do not comply. I do not find the department’s response being set to punish people for having the “wrong to SSAC’s concerns very convincing. The velvet glove attitude” when it comes to job seeking. It is imperative and warm words about support surrounding the iron that the Government are clear about the intention of fist of sanctions look rather threadbare. the scheme. If the aim is to incentivise work, I would suggest that there are better ways of monitoring how I am reinforced in that view by my reading of a proactive people are being when in search of employment, recent systematic review of international evidence on rather than penalising them if someone determines the impact of benefit sanctions published by the Joseph that they are not looking hard enough. The truth Rowntree Foundation. The review questions the efficacy might be that an unsuccessful passage into work might of sanctions in changing claimants’ motivation or not be as a result of a lukewarm motivation but attitude towards work. It suggests that although sanctions because of a lack of available opportunities to work. may have a short-term effect in shortening unemployment People with a learning disability have very specific spells, the longer-term effects can be counterproductive and individual support needs when seeking employment. in jobs and earnings progression. It is worth citing the With the increased likelihood of disabled people moving report’s conclusion: onto jobseeker’s allowance come the increased “this report brings into focus the gulf between the rhetoric of responsibilities to ensure that these people are properly welfare reform and the evidence of the effects of sanctions … supported in getting a job and are not given the added policy-makers continue to justify the extension of sanctions (and sanction-backed conditionality) on moral philosophy grounds onus of unfair sanctions or conditionality if they are while taking an ambivalent attitude to the evidence … with unable to do so. Equally, there seems to be no detail evidence being marginalised by discussion of principles and what about a complaints procedure in the event of this can be expected of claimants in return for benefits”. support not being available. Given the significant evidence I fear that, in a moral crusade against the supposed of prejudice that befalls many disabled people when welfare dependency, Ministers read the evidence through seeking a job, what assurances can the Minister provide a distorting lens. As the TUC warned in its submission that this will be adequately addressed in the scheme? to SSAC, these regulations seem to move employment As I said before, my concerns arise out of a lack of policy further away from an evidence-based approach. clarification from the Government about the details of The SSAC report comments: the scheme and I hope that the Minister will be able to “The evidence on the efficacy of ‘workfare’ schemes is, at best, allay my concerns by assuring me that disabled people, mixed”, especially people with a learning disability, will not lose out under these regulations; but, frankly, I fear the worst. as the noble Countess has already pointed out. Personally, I was unhappy about the previous 8.30 pm Government’s work-for-your-benefit proposal, but at Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, being new least, as the Merits Committee notes and my noble to the House, I am no connoisseur of Merits Committee friend pointed out, it was to be a pilot scheme with a reports, but on reading its 27th Report over Easter, it clear evaluation plan aimed at examining whether 859 Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011[10 MAY 2011] Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011 860 mandatory work activity had demonstrable benefits. required to do so. This point was made by the noble These regulations introduce mandatory work activity Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. The department’s nationwide without any such evidence. response to SSAC, namely that doing so risks limiting That makes all the more important the monitoring the circumstances in which good cause could be applied, of placements to ensure that, among other things, again is unconvincing. Clear good-cause provisions in participants are treated properly and are not used to the regulations would provide a safeguard for claimants, replace waged workers. I am pleased that the department without necessarily limiting the circumstances to those has accepted SSAC’s recommendation on that point, listed. and I would welcome more information from the In conclusion, the Merits Committee complains Minister about the placement monitoring system. about the vague and insubstantial basis on which we However, as the Child Poverty Action Group points are expected to assess whether the regulations will out—I declare an interest as its honorary president— achieve their objective. On the basis of research evidence, there are no guarantees of minimum standards that I fear that the regulations will do more harm than can be expected from employers. I regret that the good. I support my noble friend’s prayer that they be department has rejected SSAC’s recommendation that annulled, and the Motion of Regret tabled by the detailed guidance should be given to employers about noble Countess. placements. My other main concern, which was also picked up Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, the House by the Merits Committee and SSAC and was commented owes a debt to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for on by the noble Countess, is the question of discretion. raising these regulations this evening. As always, it The Merits Committee questioned how the scheme also owes a debt to the Merits Committee and the can be delivered with any degree of consistency given Social Security Advisory Committee for their excellent the degree of flexibility and discretion built into it. In work. The debate highlights very important points, its 28th report, drawing attention to oral evidence many of which have already been made. provided by the Minister for Employment, the committee observed that, The first thing that I will say relates to the initial “The targeting of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is to observations about procedures made by the noble be left almost entirely to the discretion of Jobcentre Advisers, and Lord, Lord Knight. I would support him in pursuing the Minister is sanguine that there will be local variation and a the clarity that we need to enable the House to demonstrate lack of consistency in the way that the Advisers apply their and exhibit displeasure to the department without judgment”. necessarily seeking to completely torpedo and annul That is just one example of how discretion is being regulations. The Motion in front of us in the name of extended in the social security system, and I find it the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is well judged. It is not worrying. always a Minister’s fault—indeed, I completely absolve Flexibility sounds very positive, but its flip side is a my noble friend from some of the worst excesses of lack of clear rights and the danger of arbitrary and this order. However, we should have the ability to inconsistent decision-making and lack of transparency. make it clear that if there is insufficient detail, and if Moreover, the JRF review suggests that the administration we do not feel that it is safe to endorse proposals that of sanctions is not rational or equitable and can lead are brought to the House by the department via to bias, including racial bias. Important decisions with Ministers, we should have a method of expressing that implications for a claimant’s livelihood will be taken in a grown-up way, and we should be able also to test on the basis of what SSAC refers to as the opinion in the Division Lobbies. I encourage the noble “views and opinions of the personal adviser”— Lord to pursue that line of thought. views and opinions about attitudes and motivations Secondly, my noble friend must have bigger fish to that will require considerable skill to interpret correctly. fry. I have spies everywhere and they tell me that this is I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us about an £8 million scheme. That does not mean that it is not the kind of training that advisers will receive to make important—there are important principles here—but these decisions, and whether all advisers will have he has much more important things to worry about, received this training by later this month when the such as universal credit and the work programme, scheme is introduced. which are both crucial. I also understand that we have Will the Minister also clarify the department’s response managed to get such a keen price out of the contractors to SSAC’s recommendation that, that we have been able to double the number of places for the mandatory work activity scheme and are now “detailed information is provided to potential participants about thinking about 19,000. That raises questions about the the criteria for selection”? quality of the schemes that will be provided. I have a In its response to SSAC’s report, the department says calculator, and I can divide 19,000 into £8 million and that it accepts the recommendation, but in explaining see that it works out at something like £430 per four-week how it accepts it the department does not state explicitly placement. These figures need to be confirmed; otherwise, that potential participants will be told the criteria for we will all be confused. The point I am making is that, selection. I would be grateful if the Minister would if we have four-week schemes that are costing £430 to confirm whether they will be told. provide, one wonders about the disproportionate sanctions Another extension of discretion lies in the refusal referred to by colleagues earlier in this debate of to prescribe in regulations factors to be taken into £1,800 or thereabouts, being equivalent to 26 weeks’ account when deciding whether someone has good benefit at £67.50. There is a disproportionality about cause for failing to take part in the scheme when some of this, as well as the question of whether the 861 Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011[LORDS] Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011 862

[LORD KIRKWOOD OF KIRKHOPE] terms of the department’s inability to persuade people quality can be delivered on a four-week scheme for that we have enough information to take sensible £430. We need to keep this in context, but there are decisions about these regulations this evening. some really important questions that worry me about Benchmarking was mentioned by the noble Baroness, these regulations that are creating potential precedents. Lady Lister of Burtersett. The guidance should be These deserve attention. public. Although it may be technical, I understand First, if I understand it right, contributory JSA that it will be searchable under freedom of information, benefit claimants are covered by these regulations. and if it is, I do not know why it has not been made Contributory benefit claimants are different from means- public. It will be kept within the department unless tested JSA benefit claimants. They have been paying people ask for it. Benchmarking and targets become national insurance contributions to enable them to be interchangeable, and staff in Jobcentre Plus offices entitled to this benefit, at least in the first year, before will start making sure that they achieve the targets. I they go into the work programme, as I understand this do not think they have been worked out. I am not scheme as it is going to be rolled out. They are going convinced that we have had enough discussion about to be tapped on the shoulder by some Jobcentre Plus when a benchmark is a target and when it is not. There personal adviser and be told that they are going to be are all sorts of problems in some of these things. subject to the mandatory work activity scheme. People Finally, coming from a rural area of south-east who make contributions through the national insurance Scotland, I am really concerned about how transport system should be in a different place from those on a costs and childcare costs are dealt with in rural areas. means-tested JSA regime. I would like the Minister to My honest opinion is that the £8 million would have comment on whether that is correct. been better spent on training schemes, but if we are I also worry greatly about the way we are potentially going to do this, we are entitled to seek more detail. I interfering with the well-established legal definition of think that as things stand, these schemes are of doubtful “actively seeking work”. The way I read this—and value. The sanctions are very severe, and I will need again, I would like to be corrected if I am wrong—being some persuasion by the Minister not to support the able to do just enough to satisfy JSA legal entitlement Motion moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, if requirements is not going to be enough anymore under she presses it to a Division this evening. this scheme, because if you are only undertaking activity that is just enough to satisfy your personal adviser, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, you can still be mandated to be put on this mandatory Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): My work activity scheme. So I think we are stretching Lords, thank you for giving me the opportunity to some of the well-established concepts. What people clarify the objectives of the mandatory work activity really clearly understand about “actively seeking work” scheme and to explain further how the scheme will has been built up over years in case law. We interfere operate. with that at our peril, and I hope the department is Before I go into that, I want to say that the department thinking carefully about that. takes the concerns raised by this House very seriously. I also concur with the comments made about adviser The concerns raised here and by the Merits Committee discretion, which is unappealable, to nominate candidates tell the ministerial team in the department that something for this scheme. Obviously, the decision about a sanction has gone wrong. I am aware that this is not the first is appealable and that is understood, but the noble time in this Session that the department’s instruments Baroness, Lady Lister, was right to draw attention to have been called to the attention of this House, and we giving discretion to advisers, as other colleagues have find that very serious. The full ministerial team is in done in terms of local flexibility to contractors. agreement that providing the Merits Committee and Part 6 of these regulations causes me some concern the House with all the necessary information is of because I do not know that I have ever seen anything central importance, and we all regret—I particularly like this, but I may be wrong. Part 6 talks about regret—any occasion when the Committee felt it received “contracting out certain functions in relation to the inadequate information. We are working hard to improve scheme”. If we are starting to contract out certain on this. We have arranged for senior officials to meet functions of the scheme—I understand that does not with the committee’s advisers this week in order to include sanctions—that is new territory as far as I am take a serious look at how we are falling down, and concerned. We have to be very careful about what they will work with the committee team to ensure that Jobcentre Plus staff and personal advisers can do, as the House is in future supplied with all necessary well as some of the providers of these schemes. information. I can assure noble Lords that I am going to make sure that there is a process in the department 8.45 pm that makes sure that the right information goes to the Local flexibility for contractors raises questions committee. This will not continue in this way. about quality, and I agree with them. I think there are Let me now offer some assurances about this particular disproportionate levels of sanctions, and I agree with instrument. The mandatory work activity scheme my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester about represents a new approach. I understand why some good cause suddenly being undefined. Good cause has noble Lords feel that we should have conducted a pilot always been defined ad longam in legislation before. I before introducing the scheme nationwide. Such an understand that the department is suddenly saying, approach may have been the norm in the past, but “Let’s look at it. Let’s be more flexible because we can there has been a change of philosophy in this area. deal with clients better”, but I remain to be convinced The problem with small, limited pilots is that in the about that. That is one of the biggest omissions in mean time they leave you with a moribund system. 863 Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011[10 MAY 2011] Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011 864

Central to the new philosophy of the department is the country. The guidance will indicate the type of that it is best to provide the freedom to allow initiatives characteristics that we expect claimants who benefit to flourish into success. That is what the structure of from this provision to display. As a department, we are the work programme is designed to do. It provides our choosing to trust those who have day-to-day experience own staff with the freedom to innovate. Advisers are of working with jobseekers. They are, after all, the given greater flexibility to make decisions on what people who are asking for greater freedom in how to help an individual needs in order to find work. It is help customers. one of a range of available support options that can be The noble Lord, Lord Rix, was concerned about considered. the complaints procedure. A clear, independent complaints The budget is set by a central contracting process, procedure exists through the independent case examiner. but it will up to Jobcentre Plus to decide whether to If providers are at fault, a hefty fine will be attached. use it and in what numbers. It will depend on whether The noble Countess, Lady Mar, expressed concern there are claimants in a particular Jobcentre Plus area about trickery and quoted from an article in the whose characteristics suggest that they would benefit Guardian. I can assure her that there are no targets in from this intervention. Contracted providers will not place to deliver sanctions, either in JCP or among be paid for places we do not use, so there is no providers. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, was concerned incentive to use places that customers do not need. My about costs. We have taken on board the recommendation noble friend Lord Kirkwood’s maths on his calculator of the SSAC that we pay childcare costs. Lack of is more or less spot on. We have the money for up to suitable childcare is good cause for failing to attend. 19,000 places costing £8 million, which on the calculation Therefore, there would be no sanction. We also pay of my team in the Box comes to £421. That is close transport costs under the programme. More detailed enough to my noble friend’s answer of £423. How he guidance will be available to JCP advisers. The guidance got that discrepancy suggests that it is obviously a will be internal for them, so it would not make much Hewlett Packard calculator. sense to publish it. It is important to recognise that we are not undertaking We have now completed the procurement process this work without assessing its place in the wider and are able to discuss the suggestions of those who picture. We intend to learn from how mandatory work participate in the scheme. That may be helpful in activity is used and what impact it has on the customers clarifying how mandatory work activity will help who are referred to it. I shall come back to precisely customers as they look for employment. The noble how we plan to report to the House on that. Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady I should also like to take this opportunity to address Lister, said that research shows that workfare is not some of the other concerns that have been raised in effective. We must make it clear that this is not workfare; the debate. It is vital to recognise that this support was it is a short, supportive and personalised programme. asked for specifically by Jobcentre Plus personal advisers That is why flexibility is built into it. The noble Baroness themselves. After all, they are the people best placed said that that can be looked at in two ways, but the to understand what help those struggling to find work intention here, given the brevity of the programme, is really need. During the summer, ministerial colleagues to be supportive. went out, listened and gathered opinions from Jobcentre We have not asked contracted providers to give us Plus advisers. The consistent message was that they details of every placement, but, as an example, several wanted a tool like this to engage a particular group of organisations have suggested that they will place people people. So the introduction of the mandatory work with charities that renovate old furniture to be used in activity programme has been driven by the grass roots. social housing or by low-income families. The noble The programme is aimed at a particular, rather small Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, spoke of group of people who have become disengaged and benefiting the community. Examples of placements stuck in a rut in their search for work. By getting them include improving local green spaces, improving involved in mandatory work activity within their local community cohesion by working with excluded groups, communities, the aim is to give them the confidence maintaining cultural spaces and helping the development they need to approach finding employment proactively of social enterprises. Our aim is not only to provide as well as the basic disciplines that any employer visible benefit for local communities but also to give would expect. people the chance to develop skills that they can take The noble Lord, Lord Rix, was particularly concerned forward when looking for work in the future. Most about people with learning disabilities. We aim to importantly, they will be expected to turn up for work replicate all the existing protections in referring people. every day for four weeks. They will be expected to JCP advisers are not looking for customers in this work with their colleagues and to complete tasks that group. Equally, I shall pick up the concerns of the noble they have been set in a timely way. Countess, Lady Mar. Customers in poor health are In response to the concerns of the noble Baroness, absolutely not the target group for this scheme, which Lady Lister, about placement monitoring, we will is aimed at those whose key barriers to work are the monitor placements through direct relationships with disciplines of employment. We know that every customer’s providers. It is clear in the contracts that placements circumstances are different. As much as possible, we must not replace current or future employees. We are are giving discretion to Jobcentre Plus advisers on seeking in this programme to instil essential work when to refer customers to mandatory work activity. disciplines. Research with employers has consistently Although we are not being prescriptive, we are shown that they value such characteristics highly. A providing guidance to JCP so that it can provide a short experience of the workplace can help that framework and achieve continuity of approach across development. 865 Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011[LORDS] Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011 866

[LORD FREUD] Bilston, L. Lister of Burtersett, B. My noble friends Lady Thomas and Lord Kirkwood Boyd of Duncansby, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. were concerned that there was no indication about Bradley, L. McAvoy, L. Brookman, L. how we would operate good cause. We will explicitly McDonagh, B. Browne of Ladyton, L. McFall of Alcluith, L. include good cause in the guidance in a similar way to Carter of Coles, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. that in other regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, Clark of Windermere, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. was concerned about there being no appeal for mandation. Collins of Highbury, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, The decision to refer is an administrative decision Corston, B. L. Craigavon, V. McKenzie of Luton, L. subject to judicial review if it is unreasonable. Crawley, B. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. I thank noble Lords for allowing me this opportunity Davies of Oldham, L. Davies of Stamford, L. Mar, C. [Teller] to try to explain these regulations more than we seem Mar and Kellie, E. to have done to the Merits Committee. I hope that I Dixon, L. D’Souza, B. Massey of Darwen, B. provided some enlightenment. I recognise that some Dubs, L. Maxton, L. noble Lords hold deep concerns and I respect and Elder, L. Meacher, B. acknowledge those. But in response to those concerns, Elystan-Morgan, L. Moonie, L. I assure noble Lords that as well as monitoring the Evans of Parkside, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. management information generated by the scheme Falconer of Thoroton, L. Morris of Yardley, B. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Palmer, L. from day one, we will be conducting an impact assessment Finlay of Llandaff, B. Pannick, L. in November 2012 to assess how mandatory work Ford, B. Pitkeathley, B. activity has changed outcomes for individuals. Gale, B. Prescott, L. On top of that, we have set aside £150,000 to Glasman, L. Prosser, B. Glentoran, L. Quin, B. conduct external independent research in February Golding, B. Rea, L. 2012 to learn about the experience that customers Gordon of Strathblane, L. Rix, L. have while on the scheme, and the difference that it Gould of Potternewton, B. Rooker, L. makes to the approach that customers take on their Grantchester, L. Rosser, L. job searches. That will report in summer 2012. Any Greaves, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. decisions about the future of the scheme will be based Grenfell, L. Sawyer, L. Grey-Thompson, B. Sewel, L. on the outcome of those reports. In order to ensure Grocott, L. Sherlock, B. that the House has the opportunity for further scrutiny Hanworth, V. Simon, V. of any future changes, I commit that these reports will Hart of Chilton, L. Slim, V. be laid before the House and noble Lords will be Haskel, L. Smith of Basildon, B. alerted that that has occurred allowing for further Haskins, L. Smith of Clifton, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Smith of Finsbury, L. debate at that time. I hope that those offers are satisfactory Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Soley, L. and I urge noble Lords not to press their Motions. Hollis of Heigham, B. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Howarth of Newport, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to Howe of Idlicote, B. Thomas of Gresford, L. the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for going to so much Howells of St Davids, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. trouble, and I have no doubt about his sincerity. I Hoyle, L. Thornton, B. Hughes of Stretford, B. Tomlinson, L. doubt that any noble Lord in this House is completely Hughes of Woodside, L. Tordoff, L. against these regulations. We agree that some people Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Touhig, L. need to be offered the discipline of work. But we are Jay of Paddington, B. Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller] not happy about the sanctions and the noble Lord has Jones, L. Turnberg, L. made no effort to justify these draconian sanctions—they Judd, L. Turner of Camden, B. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Tyler, L. are very severe. Kirkhill, L. Wall of New Barnet, B. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Walpole, L. taken part. I will not go through their speeches individually Knight of Weymouth, L. West of Spithead, L. because I know that everybody is hungry and will Lea of Crondall, L. Wheeler, B. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Whitaker, B. want to go to dinner. I am not satisfied despite the Liddle, L. Whitty, L. Minister’s efforts that he has filled in all the gaps. We have a statutory instrument before us that is not clear and I wish to test the feeling of the House. NOT CONTENTS Addington, L. Bridgeman, V. 9.04 pm Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Brinton, B. Alderdice, L. Brittan of Spennithorne, L. Division on Countess of Mar’s Motion Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller] Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Ashdown of Norton-sub- L. Contents 122; Not-Contents 155. Hamdon, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Astor of Hever, L. Browning, B. Countess of Mar’s Motion disagreed. Attlee, E. Byford, B. Ballyedmond, L. Cathcart, E. Division No. 5 Berridge, B. Cavendish of Furness, L. Bew, L. Chalker of Wallasey, B. CONTENTS Black of Brentwood, L. Clement-Jones, L. Blencathra, L. Colwyn, L. Aberdare, L. Bach, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Cope of Berkeley, L. Adams of Craigielea, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. B. Cormack, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Beecham, L. Boswell of Aynho, L. Cotter, L. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Best, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Crickhowell, L. 867 Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2011[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 868

De Mauley, L. Maples, L. (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations Deben, L. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, 2011, laid before the House on 14 March, be annulled Denham, L. L. (SI 2011/688). Dholakia, L. Marlesford, L. Dixon-Smith, L. Mawhinney, L. Relevant document: 27th Report from the Merits Dobbs, L. Montrose, D. Committee. Dykes, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Eaton, B. Moynihan, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Naseby, L. Motion not moved. Edmiston, L. Newlove, B. Empey, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Feldman of Elstree, L. B. Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Fink, L. Noakes, B. Fookes, B. Northover, B. Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 Framlingham, L. Norton of Louth, L. Motion of Regret Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Freud, L. Patel, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Perry of Southwark, B. 9.14 pm Gardiner of Kimble, L. Popat, L. Tabled By Lord Knight of Weymouth Gardner of Parkes, B. Randerson, B. Garel-Jones, L. Rawlings, B. Geddes, L. Rennard, L. That that this House regrets that in relation to German, L. Roberts of Conwy, L. the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Glendonbrook, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Scheme) Regulations 2011, laid before the House Goodlad, L. St John of Fawsley, L. on 14 March (SI 2011/688), “the House has been Grade of Yarmouth, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L. given insufficient information to understand the Hanham, B. Sassoon, L. policy objective of the scheme; to determine how Henley, L. Scott of Needham Market, B. Heyhoe Flint, B. Seccombe, B. the scheme will work; and effectively to assess whether Higgins, L. Selborne, E. the outcome will help claimants to improve their Hill of Oareford, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. prospects of obtaining employment”, and calls on Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Sharkey, L. Her Majesty’s Government to make new Regulations L. Shaw of Northstead, L. when these concerns have been met. Home, E. Sheikh, L. Hooper, B. Shipley, L. Relevant document: 27th Report from the Merits Howe, E. Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] Committee. Hunt of Wirral, L. Spicer, L. Hussain, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Hussein-Ece, B. Steel of Aikwood, L. Motion not moved. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Stewartby, L. Jenkin of Roding, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. Jolly, B. Strathclyde, L. Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Jopling, L. Taverne, L. Report (1st Day) (Continued) Knight of Collingtree, B. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Kramer, B. Teverson, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B. 9.15 pm Lang of Monkton, L. Tonge, B. Lawson of Blaby, L. Trefgarne, L. Amendments 6 and 7 not moved. Lee of Trafford, L. Trimble, L. Lexden, L. Tugendhat, L. Lingfield, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Linklater of Butterstone, B. Verma, B. Amendment 8 Liverpool, E. Waddington, L. Moved by Lord Grocott Loomba, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Lucas, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. 8: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert— Luke, L. Walmsley, B. “( ) Each five-year parliament shall include a minimum of five Lyell, L. Warsi, B. parliamentary sessions.” MacGregor of Pulham Wasserman, L. Market, L. Wei, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Wheatcroft, B. Lord Grocott: My Lords, this is a very simple McNally, L. Wilcox, B. amendment with a very simple objective which I hope Maddock, B. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Magan of Castletown, L. Wolfson of Aspley Guise, L. the Government will be able to accept. As the House Mancroft, L. Younger of Leckie, V. knows, I find the Bill entirely unattractive and wish that we were simply getting rid of it, but if we are to have a Bill where there are fixed five-year Parliaments, Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work then it follows, as night follows day, that there ought Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 to be a rule governing the number of Sessions within Motion to Annul the fixed five years. It is very odd trying to put our constitution into a straitjacket, but the Government seem intent on doing 9.14 pm so. This amendment was considered in Committee but Tabled By Lord Knight of Weymouth not very satisfactory answers were given. The reason I have been inspired to table it is that whereas we That a Humble Address be presented to Her normally know that a parliamentary Session will last Majesty praying that the Jobseeker’s Allowance about a year—with the exception of the first year of a 869 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 870

[LORD GROCOTT] five years. If the Government have found the mechanism Parliament, which can frequently be 18 months, from, for dealing with a Parliament that lasts less than five say, May in one year until November the following years, surely it is not difficult to find a mechanism for year—I am sorry to say that this Government have dealing with the consequences for parliamentary Sessions. unilaterally decided that there would be a two-year It is unfortunate that we have to go down this road Session to begin this Parliament. but, if we have, it cannot be beyond the skill of If we were following the normal conventions of our parliamentary draftsmen to deal with that objection. democracy then we would not be debating the Report The only other case that the noble and learned stage of a Bill now, we would be having a Queen’s Lord, Lord Wallace, offered in Committee comes in Speech. It is a year since the general election and that col. 526 of Hansard on 21 March. He explained why is the normal length of a Session of Parliament. The the Government decided that it would be not a one-year Government have already told us that the next general Session but a two-year Session; it was announced election will be in May 2015, so it seems an incredibly unilaterally to Parliament last September without simple proposition that there should be five Sessions consultation, as far as I know—although I would be of one year each. Normally it would be completely delighted to be proved wrong in that respect. The unnecessary for me or anyone else to move an amendment explanation that was given was as follows: requiring that this should be the case, but the Government “An announcement was made in September, which would have broken the normal rules. I do not know where the normally have been between a third and half way through the decision to have a two-year Session came from. I ask Session”. the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, what He is referring to the last Session, which should have consultation the Government had with the Opposition concluded this May, as I have suggested. or anyone else when they decided that we should have “There was an option to truncate the Session about now”— a two-year Session of Parliament. he was speaking in March— As we all know, the sessional discipline is part of “but it was thought that the best thing to do was to go to next the delicate balance between Government and Opposition. year”. Oppositions get stronger, in a sense, as the Session The Minister is very precise with words; he is a lawyer progresses because the Government know that they and is careful what he says. It is not exactly truncating are up against the deadline of a Queen’s Speech; and a Session to suggest that it should be for a year, we have had, quite properly, to establish precise however. It really is a fairly loose use of the word. mechanisms to enable a Bill to be carried over from one Session to the next. I say “quite properly” because The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace we have all recognised in the past—although apparently of Tankerness): Does the noble Lord not recall that not now—that it would be quite wrong for a Government the normal practice has been for the first Session after simply to be able to extend at their convenience the a May election—indeed, I think that it happened with periods between Queen’s Speeches. almost every Government elected when Mr Blair was As I say, I do not like translating conventions into Prime Minister—to last not a year but until the following rules, but it is necessary in this case. Why are we not autumn? So when I say truncated, I mean that there having a Queen’s Speech now? Why are the Government would not normally have been a Queen’s Speech this not bringing the first year of this Parliament to a May; it would still have been in November. The first conclusion in the normal way, after 12 months, making Session would probably have gone 18 months, so to concessions on Bills—which is what Governments do have had a Queen’s Speech in March or April would towards the end of a Session—and then preparing for have been to truncate the normal practice after a May the next statement of the Government’s policies and general election. legislative objectives, which of course is what we get with a new Queen’s Speech? If the Government are Lord Grocott: The problem with that argument is intent on having five years after five years after five that, yes, it is true that if the election is in May then years ad infinitum—although I am obviously delighted normally you have the Queen’s Speech the following with the amendment that has been passed that will year, in November. But if there is an election in require any new Government to think again about October—and one that I vividly remember is the one this—what could conceivably be the objection to insisting in October 1974, because it was when the noble Lord, in this legislation, which provides us with the opportunity, Lord Tyler, went out and I came in—the Queen’s that there should be a minimum of five Sessions in a Speech is the following November. The convention is five-year Parliament? that the Queen’s Speech is in November and if the I looked in vain, having reread the Committee stage sequence of elections means that that does not happen, when this was discussed, but no one spoke against it it is quite right that there is a long Session of 18 months. except the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. There is a bit of a case for that, I suppose; all Governments Maybe it was wishful thinking on my part, but I got are wild with enthusiasm when they come in and have the feeling that he was not wildly enthusiastic about lots of exciting things to propose, such as Fixed-term speaking against it. The only objections that he offered Parliament Bills, and so on. So it goes for a longish were that this could present problems should there be Session. But this was a choice for the Government, a Dissolution of Parliament under the terms of this once they had decided that there would be a five-year legislation in less than five years. We all know that that Parliament, between having a year Session or a two-year is a possibility; again, it is a part of the Bill that not Session. If he thinks there is not much to choose many of us like, but there are precise provisions for between an 18-month Session, which as he rightly says saying how Parliaments can be of a period of less than obtains when there is a May election, and a two-year 871 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 872

Session, let me say that it would have been heaven to of what they describe as the new politics, or are they me as Chief Whip to have had a two-year Session. simply motivated by a desire to make their life as easy There is no pressure on you and no trouble; you can as possible—that is, the worst sort of Executive? spend as long as you like on Committee and Report stages, and so on. So I do not think that that argument Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I held up very well. apologise for speaking at this late hour but I made it I do not suggest evil intent on the part of the clear in Committee that if anybody referred to Mr Asquith Minister or anyone else in the Government in this again, it would stimulate me into speaking. Although I respect at all. I am simply saying that not much was not here to hear the reference to him at the thought went into what was in fact a quite substantial beginning of this afternoon’s proceedings, it was alluded shift of power between Government and Opposition. to later in the debate on Amendment 1. Therefore here As I said, that is a pretty delicate matter in our I am, on my feet. parliamentary procedures in both Houses, because it shifted the balance of power substantially in favour of Your Lordships’ House will recall the Sherlock the Government. I thought that the Minister really Holmes case where the great detective pointed out to gave the game away in this second sentence: Dr Watson the significance of the dog not barking in the night-time. Those of your Lordships who were “There was an option to truncate the Session about now, but it was thought that the best thing to do was to go to next year”.—[Official here to listen carefully to the powerful speech by the Report, 21/3/11; col. 526.] noble Lord, Lord Morgan, on Amendment 1 will have The question from where I am standing is: the best noticed that he omitted from his list of five-year thing to do for whom? In whose interest was it unilaterally Parliaments in the post-war era the period from 1945 to determine that there should be a two-year Session? to 1950. He thus omitted the great achievements of the Labour Government of the Earl Attlee of that period. I simply put two questions to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. First, was there any consultation In generosity, I take it that the noble Lord, Lord through the normal channels about the Government’s Morgan, realised that it required a five-year Parliament decision unilaterally to decide, for the first time in the to produce the achievements of what I understand the past 30 or 40 years—I am sure that the historians Labour Party has always thought was the greatest could go much further—on a two-year Session which Labour Government of them all. As to the reason he is massively to the Government’s advantage? Secondly, omitted it, I suggest that it was considered either that I really would like to know, once it was determined to it would be sacrilege ever to run the risk of toppling be the “best thing to do”, in whose interest the decision the Attlee Government’s record from its plinth, or that was thought to be made. I beg to move. Labour had given up hope of ever challenging the Attlee Government’s record and felt that Labour should conceal the dilemma I am describing by limiting the Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we support life of any future Labour Government to, at most, this amendment. It goes to the heart of this Government’s four years as a self-immolating, self-denying ordinance. claim that they wish to empower the legislature as The noble Lord, Lord Morgan—not to mention the against the Executive. The reason it matters, as my noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—was prudent noble friend Lord Grocott said, is that where there is a enough not to announce which of the cases I have restriction on the time to get legislation through, there adumbrated was correct and now we shall never know. is a huge incentive for any Government, whatever their hue, to reach agreement with the Opposition on as many issues as possible. If they do not reach agreement 9.30 pm on those issues, the consequence is that their legislation Your Lordships’ House knows my tremendous is delayed. admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. It is an Parliament is disempowered if a Government feel index of my forgiveness of the fact that I am never able, as this one did, to double the length of a Session. going to know the answer as to why the Attlee This Government did so on a whim, as there was no Government was omitted from the analysis of consultation. It appears from the speech of the noble Amendment 1 that I say to my noble and learned and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that friend on the Front Bench that I think he has a they simply decided to go for two years without giving question to answer from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. any justification. This House is entitled to hear the Government’s opinion on the number of Sessions Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I had not planned there should be in a Parliament and their commitment to speak on this but, reflecting on what has been said, in relation to that. Do they understand the importance I am rather torn. I accept the logic of what the noble of empowering the Chamber in each House by having Lord, Lord Grocott, has said—I think that the argument a limit on the time available to them for the passage of he has advanced is impeccable—but I am reflecting on legislation? the value of the sessional cut-off, keeping it to a year, If satisfactory answers are not given, this should be as has been advocated. It is quite right that the sessional put to the vote. It is an important issue. The answers cut-off is a discipline on the Government and it gives must include one to the question which my noble some leverage to the Opposition—capital “O”, and friend Lord Grocott put, because that is really the sometimes small “o”—because of the pressure. I am litmus test of how committed the Government are to not sure that compression within one year as the the idea of there being a year-on-year Session. This is length of the Session necessarily benefits Parliament, another opportunity for the Government to put their because legislation has to be got through in that time money where their mouth is. Are they true exponents and it limits the two Houses in the amount of time 873 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 874

[LORD NORTON OF LOUTH] point, which, as has been indicated, he first raised in they can devote to deliberation in Committee. In the Committee. At that point I indicated that the two-year Commons, there is a problem now with Public Bill Session that we are currently in was intended as a Committees, because there is very little time between transitional situation so that we could get into a taking evidence and having then to consider the Bill in position where we had 12-month parliamentary Sessions the normal way. that fitted in, should Parliament pass a fixed-term I am just reflecting on the fact that, while I accept Parliament Act. the logic of what the noble Lord has said, maybe we I draw your Lordships’ attention to the Written need to think a little more imaginatively about how Ministerial Statement made by my right honourable long each Session actually lasts. In a five-year Parliament, friend the Leader of the other place, Sir George Young, maybe we should think about a three or four-Session on 23 March. He reiterated the Government’s decision Parliament. There needs to be some discipline, but one to extend the current Session of Parliament to spring has to try to get the balance on that right. I am 2012, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, because he has prompted me to think about that. We perhaps “in order to ensure a smooth transition towards five, 12-month Sessions over a Parliament, which would be a beneficial consequence ought to reflect a little more seriously about it; there is of Parliament agreeing the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill”.—[Official a problem with the nature of rushed legislation of this Report, Commons, 23/3/11; col. 57WS.] sort, when perhaps we should be sitting back and thinking a little more constructively about how we I hope that the House and the noble Lord will be want our Parliament to be run to the benefit of Parliament. assured that it is our intention that there should normally As I say, there is that balance to be met between giving be five Sessions in a five-year Parliament. While the leverage to the Opposition and benefiting Parliament expectation is that future Sessions will last for 12 months, so that it has proper time to thoroughly scrutinise it remains inappropriate to enshrine that in statute; what the Government are bringing forward. indeed, I think that I understood the noble Lord himself to indicate that he would prefer that working Lord Howarth of Newport: I suppose we could do practices and conventions were not enshrined in statute. what the Scottish Parliament does, which is to have no It is our intention that in future Parliaments there sub-division into annual Sessions within a four-year should be five 12-month Sessions. term—apparently shortly to be a five-year term in the In the Bill we have sought to do only what is Scottish Parliament. I think that we should either go necessary to establish fixed-term Parliaments for the the whole way in abolishing parliamentary Sessions United Kingdom. I am not convinced that the case and having some kind of continuing, rolling process of has been made for legislating for the number of Sessions. legislation, or have a rational, predictable, orderly The Bill does not abolish the prerogative power to division of the time available in a Parliament. prorogue Parliament, which will continue to be used The amendment in the name of my noble friend to set parliamentary Sessions, nor does the Bill affect Lord Grocott should not be necessary. It is clearly the powers of each House to adjourn. It is worth undesirable to legislate on internal proceedings in noting that the Constitution Committee has endorsed Parliament, but we have been driven to it by the our decision not to abolish the prerogative power to behaviour of the coalition Government in awarding prorogue. themselves a two-year Session in which they should Future Sessions after this one will last for only have been able to get anything at all through. Their 12 months. The noble Lord asked me about the points potential abuse of parliamentary strength has been that I made in Committee. When I talked about truncating mitigated only by their incompetence in failing to take this Session, that was on the basis that, as he advantage of the situation that they created for themselves. acknowledged, when elections have been held in May In the early months of this Session, we had almost no or June it has been customary for that first Session to legislation introduced; we then had an immense amount continue through to the following October or November. of time spent on constitutional legislation, which the To have had a Queen’s Speech around now would public did not want, culminating in the fiasco of the therefore have meant truncating what had been expected AV referendum. We now have the pause in the NHS at the outset. legislation. I am given to understand that there are going to be new Bills introduced at Second Reading I have made it clear that the decision to go for two this summer, so that even with a two-year Session, years and thereafter to have 12-monthly Sessions was they may run out of time to complete their programme; taken not in May last year but at a later stage. I am not it really is pretty chaotic. aware that there was any consultation—I accept that My noble friend does the House, and indeed criticism—but this was intended to be a transitional Parliament, a service in drawing attention to this measure. By that stage, the Government’s legislative consideration. While I would not wish to see his programme had been announced and it would have amendment get on to the statute book, he very properly been very difficult if we had moved immediately to a challenges the Government to think carefully about 12-month Session for the first Session, although that how they handle proceedings within this House. I do could have been done if it had been thought about at not want a written constitution but I want respect for the outset. I hope that the House will accept that that the unwritten constitution. is the purpose of this being a two-year Session. It is not intended that this should be repeated. My right Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I thank the honourable friend the Leader of the other place has noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for affording the House a indicated that it would now be our intention to move further opportunity to consider and scrutinise this to five 12-month Sessions in a Parliament. 875 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 876

I take the point made by my noble friend Lord I was taken with the point made by the noble Lord, Norton about this always being in the interests of Lord Norton. I agree with him that maybe a year is Parliament. My experience in your Lordships’ House not necessarily the best period. Maybe it is worth in the run-up to the most recent general election is discussing that. I strongly believe in the convention that, with the final Session starting in November and that we have. If a Government are unable to contain finishing in March in order to accommodate a May their legislative programme within an agreed period of election, we have tended to have a short Session that time, there should be an agreement by either House to I do not believe allows proper scrutiny of legislation. carry a Bill over from one Session to the next only This led to a very unfortunate situation in the wash-up after the most rigorous tests. However, I take the noble where large parts of Bills were ditched, some of which Lord’s point. I must admit that I was stopped in my are now on the statute book but certainly did not have tracks by my noble friend who reminded me that it the kind of scrutiny that we would normally expect. was against the philosophy of several of us to try to Having five 12-month Sessions will allow for proper put the proceedings of this Parliament into too strong planning of legislation. While it would be unwise to a legislative framework. say that there will never be any kind of wash-up at the The point has been made, as the noble and learned end of the final Session, one hopes that there will be Lord, Lord Wallace, has acknowledged. It is written in far less than has been the case hitherto. One of the blood in Hansard that there will be 12-month Sessions advantages of a fixed-term Parliament is that it will be for the remainder of this Parliament until the happy possible to plan a legislative programme in a way that day when it comes to a conclusion and a Labour will not lead to these log-jams at the end, when much Government can repeal the whole of this legislation. legislation is virtually nodded through. In light of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw The decision having been taken to move to fixed-term the amendment. Parliaments, and since we seem—for better or worse—to have moved into a situation where elections are held in Amendment 8 withdrawn. May, the Bill provides for elections in May. Therefore, it makes sense that we should have annual May-to-May Amendments 9 to 10 not moved. Sessions. I repeat: the current two-year Session is a transition. No doubt what we gain here is that there 9.45 pm is only a finite amount of legislative time in the Parliament as a whole if it lasts for five years. It would not be appropriate to put that in the statute. I am Amendment 11 grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity Moved by Lord Norton of Louth to reiterate the position and to flag up what my right honourable friend the Leader of the other place has 11: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (5) said on this matter. With these reassurances, I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I shall speak also amendment. to Amendments 15 and 17. These amendments remove Lord Grocott: I am grateful to the noble and learned the provision that enables the Prime Minister by statutory Lord, Lord Wallace, for that response. He simply instrument to vary the date of the general election by holds a fundamental view on the constitution. So do I, two months either way. We discussed subsection (5) in but it is a different one. He is comfortable with a some detail in Committee and, in the light of that legislative programme being neatly sliced and organised discussion, I came to the conclusion that rather than over a fixed-term Parliament, whereas I have been trying to build in safeguards or qualifications, as I straightforward with the House in saying that I am not sought to do on that occasion and as my noble friend at all comfortable with that. I like the flexibility that Lord Rennard seeks to do today, it would be best to normally obtains with our parliamentary system. I do remove the provision altogether. not even have the problem that he has with the last The principal reason why subsection (5) is included Session of a four-year Parliament quite frequently is because it is in the devolution legislation. It appears being a five or six-month pre-election Session. All that to have been included without much thought. I have the Bill will do is make sure that it is a 12-month still not been able to find anyone who can think of a pre-election Session instead of a six-month pre-election circumstance in which the provision to bring the election Session. It will also lead to a lot of uncertainty. forward by two months could apply. What sort of I was straightforward with the House in saying that emergency can one anticipate before it has happened? I was, in some respects, very uncomfortable with my Is there really any prospect of the Prime Minister own amendment. For the reasons I have already set announcing that the election should be brought forward out, I do not like putting our constitution in any more by two months because the Government anticipate of a straitjacket than it needs to be. I am very grateful that there may be a foot and mouth outbreak at the for the contributions that have been made. As ever, I time of the election? find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, It is also not clear why the subsection is needed, on most things, particularly his reference to the 1945 given the provisions of Clause 2. If there is all-party to 1950 Labour Government having been the greatest agreement that the election should be brought forward Labour Government. I would go marginally further by one or two months, one can introduce an early and say that it was the greatest peacetime Government election motion under Clause 2(1). That would cover in the history of this country; there is only a word’s it. The only difference between this subsection and difference between us. utilising a motion under Clause 2(1) would be that this 877 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 878

[LORD NORTON OF LOUTH] elections early if MPs vote for it by a two-thirds subsection provides a role for this House, because majority and this House endorses that proposal. I both Houses have to approve the order, but I do not have no doubt that if there is reasonable political see why we should be empowered to block an election consensus on the need to bring forward polling day being held up to two months early when we cannot and have an early election, that will happen. exercise a similar power over a motion to hold it some Amendment 16 deals with a power for which, I time in the preceding four years and 10 months. I also accept, there is a rather stronger case. That is the doubt that we would wish to challenge the will of the power for delay by two months. The commonly cited House of Commons on this matter. I thus favour the example of how a general election planned for one day removal of the provision for the Prime Minister to might be postponed for a short while is our experience bring forward a statutory instrument to bring forward in 2001, when the foot and mouth epidemic broke out. the date of the election by up to two months. My Everyone knew that we would probably have an election noble friend Lord Rennard seeks to do likewise. in May. We had planned to have local elections in May. I also favour removing the other half of the subsection. Those local elections were postponed and the general Enabling the election to be delayed by two months is election, expected to coincide with them in May, was an arbitrary provision. Why two months and not also postponed. I am therefore content that some three? A delay needs to be determined in relation to power remains in the Bill for a delay and am now fairly the particular crisis that prompts it. Given that, and convinced that there is at least some provision in the the likelihood that any delay will be required only in Bill to safeguard against abuse. That safeguard is this the most exceptional circumstances, I suggest leaving House, which would be asked to approve such a delay. it to the enactment of a specific Act tailored to the I was seeking through Amendment 16 to have a needs of the time, as happened with the foot and further safeguard built in for that—also a two-thirds mouth crisis in 2001. majority in the House of Commons—but I now look The requirement for an Act also emphasises that it at the changes that the Government have made by is exceptional and does not, as this provision may do, accepting Amendment 20. That dispenses with the tempt a Prime Minister to use his parliamentary majority role of the Speaker’s certificate. On that basis, I am to approve an order to delay the election for the prepared to accept that Amendment 16 is no longer purposes of political gain. Two months can make appropriate, and I will not press that case; but the case quite a difference. This House would be the only for Amendments 12 and 14 remains strong. They potential block on the provision being used in this simply retain the principle that if polling day is to be way, but we may wish to avoid the potential for a brought forward, it is Parliament by reasonable consensus major clash between the two Houses. and not the Prime Minister who should decide to My noble friend, Lord Rennard, seeks to retain the bring forward the election. provision, but subject it to similar safeguards to those The whole purpose of the legislation is to fix that apply under Clause 2(1) in relation to an early parliamentary terms at five years, notwithstanding the election. If one is to retain the provision to delay an amendment which this House narrowly approved some election by two months, I would very much support hours ago. We need to remove from the Prime Minister his amendment. However, on balance, we may as well the privilege of being able to hold the starting pistol in remove the whole subsection. There is no need for the a race where he is also one of the runners. Amendments “before” provision, and the “after” provision is likely in the same form as Amendments 12 and 14 received to be so exceptional—and may require a delay of more substantial support from across the House when they than two months—that we should leave it to Parliament were tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Norton of at the time to craft a measure appropriate to the Louth and Lord Rooker, in Committee. I therefore nature of the crisis. I beg to move. hope that the Minister will have had time since Committee to reflect on those amendments and to consider them Lord Rennard: My Lords, I rise to speak to favourably. Amendments 12, 14 and 16 in my name and those of Lord Pannick: My Lords, both the noble Lords, my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Marks of Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Rennard, proceed on Henley-on-Thames. Amendments 12 and 14 reflect the basis that the power to bring forward or postpone the position that I set out in Committee, when I made a general election would be exercised only in circumstances plain that I could not see any justification for a provision of crisis. It is very difficult—or impossible—to foresee to bring forward polling day in a general election by such a crisis. I give noble Lords a possible example of two months, in the way that the Bill originally suggested. when one would need to use such provisions where In all my consideration of the debates here and in there is no crisis. Suppose that this country is awarded another place, I have yet to hear advanced any argument the Olympics or the World Cup. Each of those events for why it might be sensible to say that a Prime Minister will occupy a period of two weeks, for the Olympics, might be able to foresee circumstances in which he or four weeks, for the World Cup. One would know of needed to bring forward the election by two months. such events years in advance, so there would be no As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said, no crisis, but it would be entirely appropriate for a general Prime Minister could be so prescient as to foresee such election not to take place by consent of all concerned events and decide to bring forward the election in during such events. anticipation of them. I simply do not see the justification for the provision. However, there will remain in the Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I had thought before Bill and in the detail now in Amendment 20, which we hearing the debate that I would tend to support the will come to later, a power for Parliament to have noble Lord, Lord Rennard, but I found what the noble 879 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 880

Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said powerful. Everyone in the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Norton indicated, appears to agree that the election is unlikely to be we looked at powers in the devolution Acts that allow called early anyway; if there is sufficient consensus for for the dates of general elections to the devolved it to be called early, that can be dealt with by the institutions to be delayed or brought forward. In the two-thirds provision. If it is to be up to two months case of the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, there late, that is a moderately massive exception and if it is would have been no point in bringing forward the to be done, there needs to be consensus. If there is that election. degree of consensus, it is extremely likely that emergency I accepted earlier that I had struggled to find a legislation can be got through in order to achieve it. reason why we might want to bring forward an election. We are much better off being certain. Having not The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested that the intended to take this view, I am afraid that I found Olympics or the World Cup might be such occasions. what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, rather powerful. We considered these as well. We know that the Olympics I invite the Government to reflect on what the noble are unlikely to be awarded again to Britain for the Lord said and perhaps bring the issue back at Third foreseeable future, given that they will happen here Reading. If the Minister brings back the issue at Third next year. Regrettably, England did not succeed in its Reading in a way that reflects the arguments of the bid for the World Cup, and I am not sure that Scotland, noble Lord, Lord Norton, or alternatively says, either Wales or Northern Ireland have a bid in preparation. now or at Third Reading, why the noble Lord is I offer as a piece of political trivia that, such is the wrong, I would not support the noble Lord. However, importance of the World Cup, the one parliamentary if he does not, my inclination is to support the noble election in recent times not to be held on Thursday Lord, Lord Norton, either now or, as seems more was the Hamilton by-election in 1978, which was held sensible, after the Government have had an opportunity on a Wednesday so that it did not clash with Scotland’s to reflect and come back at Third Reading. opening match in the World Cup in Argentina. I am not sure that it did Scotland much good. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, as has been indicated, the purpose of the operation of the order- Lord Bach: The noble Lord should not forget 2026 making power in Clause 1(5) is to provide, by a for the World Cup. resolution of both Houses, for a Parliament to be extended by two months or for an election to be Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My apologies. I am brought forward by up to two months because of an not sure that the World Cup has traditionally been at emergency or unforeseen circumstance. The Bill provides this time of year. It would clash with the exciting for five-year fixed terms and it is envisaged that elections climax to the Premiership and the build-up to the FA would happen on the first Thursday in May every five Cup final, the Scottish Cup final and the Scottish years. However, we are conscious that there could be a Premier League, whatever shape or form they may be short-term crisis that would mean that it would not be in by 2026. My point is that we have struggled and we practicable to hold the election on the prescribed date. cannot readily think of a situation in which one might As was discussed in earlier debates and again this wish to bring forward an election. evening, such a scenario occurred in 2001 when an It was our intention to future-proof the Bill, but, outbreak of foot and mouth disease meant that it was with regard to Amendments 12 and 14 in the names of necessary to delay the date of the local elections in my noble friends Lord Rennard, Lord Tyler and Lord England, which were set by statute, and primary legislation Marks, I do not believe that by accepting them we was required. As it was only four years into the Parliament, undermine what we seek to achieve in the Bill. As has it did not theoretically affect the date of the general been pointed out, if it was necessary to bring forward election, although the widely anticipated date of the a scheduled general election because the unforeseen election was postponed because of the outbreak. event that none of us can think of actually happens, it The power would allow the Prime Minister to vary would be open to the other place to pass a Dissolution the date by affirmative order by two months, earlier or Motion with the support of at least two- thirds of all later. It is worth bearing in mind that the Delegated MPs to trigger an early general election. That point Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee examined was made by my noble friend Lord Norton. In the this power and concluded that it, light of that, the Government would be willing to “does not consider the power to be inappropriate in principle”. support these amendments and I hope your Lordships’ However, it recommended that the Bill should be House would be willing to accept them. amended to require that a statement setting out the Prime Minister’s reasons for proposing the change of 10 pm polling date must be laid before both Houses at the Amendment 16, also in the names of my noble same time as the draft order. The Government considered friends Lord Rennard, Lord Tyler and Lord Marks, and listened to the recommendation and the case provides that an order made by the Prime Minister made by the committee and, as noble Lords will recall, under Clause 1(5) must be approved by a two-thirds made the appropriate amendment in Committee, which majority in the other place. That amendment also indicated that we were ready and willing to respond to provides a role for the Speaker of the House of Commons the committee. in certifying that the order was approved in a Division The power is deliberately framed to be non-prescriptive. and had the support of at least two-thirds of all MPs. It is intended to be used in emergencies when we I can see the thinking behind these amendments, as cannot predict what situation will arise, and to deal Clause 2 provides that a vote on an early Dissolution with a variety of scenarios. When including this power in the other place will require the support of at least 881 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 882

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] public health of the nation. As he indicated in moving two-thirds of all MPs. This measure in the Bill is this amendment, he now believes it would be better designed to ensure that an early general election can not to have it at all. take place where there is cross-party consensus on this. It is clear that the purpose of this Bill is primarily The two-thirds majority will put this power beyond that we expect Parliaments ordinarily to last five years. the reach of a Government, since no Government However, for reasons which, again, we have highlighted since the Second World War have enjoyed a two-thirds and discussed, it may not be possible or desirable to majority, and the technical specifics of this mechanism hold the election on the scheduled date. If primary have been broadly endorsed by the Constitution legislation had to be taken to move the date of the Committee of your Lordships’ House. scheduled election in an emergency, then as long as However, the order-making power of Clause 1(5), that Bill had the consent of your Lordships’ House which allows the Prime Minister to vary the date of a there would be no limits to extending the lifetime of scheduled general election by up to two months, is the Parliament. It could go beyond two months, as somewhat different. Unlike the power the Bill would happened during the Second World War. If the give the House of Commons for an early Dissolution, particular emergency arose which required that, no this power is limited to varying the date of a poll by up doubt legislation would have to be crafted, as my to two months. The key difference is that there are noble friend said. We are envisaging an extension for a different safeguards applied to the order-making power. very short period. We believe that it is properly contained First, any order to vary the date of a scheduled by the requirement for a majority in both Houses of general election would be subject to the affirmative Parliament and by the fact that we have accepted the procedure in both Houses of Parliament—a point recommendation that it will require the Prime Minister picked up by my noble friend Lord Rennard. It means to set out the reasons for it. I reiterate that having that an order would have to be debated and approved considered these matters, the Delegated Powers and by this House as well as the other place. Also, it must Regulatory Reform Committee did not consider the be accompanied by a statement from the Prime Minister power to be inappropriate in principle. Against that setting out the reasons for seeking to vary the date of background, I hope that my noble friend will be the poll. In this Bill, as I have indicated on previous prepared to withdraw his amendment. occasions in response to earlier amendments, we wanted to do what was strictly necessary to establish fixed Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to terms. Crucially, we have sought not to set out in all those who have taken part in the debate. In response statute parliamentary procedures where it was not to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I was thinking along absolutely essential to do so. I do not believe that this similar lines trying to anticipate possibilities. I thought amendment falls within that category. about things such as the Olympics, but although they I also think it is important to note that this amendment are not a crisis, neither are they an unforeseen would utilise the mechanism of the Speaker’s certification. circumstance. The same is true for the World Cup. No doubt we will return to this matter when we They are not something that would necessarily get in consider Clause 2 of the Bill. At this stage, I will flag the way, and those events would not require us to up to noble Lords that I have added my name to an delay the holding of a general election in any event. To amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord bring a general election forward, the provisions of Howarth, Lord Martin and Lord Pannick, and the Clause 2(1) could be utilised in any event. noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, which would remove My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace has the Speaker’s certification in the context of Clause 2. I accepted the provision that the Prime Minister would do not believe it would be appropriate to reinforce it have to make a statement about why this power should here. In the light of the safeguards attached to the be used, but I would have thought that if the Prime order-making power, I hope my noble friends will Minister planned to delay an election or bring it agree that this amendment is not necessary and will forward, he would in any event explain why. That agree to withdraw it. really confirms what would be the practice. I cannot I now turn to the amendments in the name of my imagine the Prime Minister deciding to delay the noble friend Lord Norton. The first would omit the election and not telling us why. order-making power from Clause 1 altogether; the I do not want to respond on behalf of my noble subsequent amendments are consequential. My noble friend Lord Rennard, but I am in a position where I friend has reiterated concerns that he raised in Committee suspect I might have to. An affirmative order requires that the power in Clause 1(5) involves an important just a simple majority, so that does not address the issue of principle—whether the Prime Minister should problem and the point made by my noble friend still be able, by means of statutory instrument, to extend holds. The only problem with his amendment is, as he the life of a Parliament by up to two months. At the admitted, in terms of drafting to refer to the Speaker’s moment, it would require an Act of Parliament to certificate rather than to the principle that he advanced. extend a Parliament beyond the five-year limit set out I still maintain the argument I advance, for which I am in the Septennial Act as amended by the Parliament most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Act 1911. In Committee, my noble friend tabled Falconer of Thoroton, who I have clearly persuaded amendments to say that such an extension could occur on this matter. My noble and learned friend really did under the new regime of a fixed-term Parliament only not provide a convincing argument in response to if the Prime Minister were satisfied that the situation what I said. Primary legislation could be introduced rendered holding the election at the scheduled time and could provide for quite a long delay, but that is impractical or injurious to the economic, social or true in any event as long as you have a parliamentary 883 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[10 MAY 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 884 majority. Youcould then craft it to the particular crisis Amendment 11 withdrawn. of the time. He mentioned wartime when Parliament had to pass an Act each year extending its life. The circumstances would be so exceptional that Amendment 12 they would need a response crafted to the particular Moved by Lord Rennard exception rather than just allowing a situation where a Prime Minister could come along and announce that 12: Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out “earlier or” he is bringing forward an SI to delay the election by Amendment 12 agreed. two months and all that would be required is a majority in the House of Commons. We would then be in a Amendment 13 not moved. position, if necessary, to block it, but I am not sure that the House would wish to invite a major challenge with the Commons, particularly on a matter of this Amendment 14 nature, so I would be very wary about that. I would far prefer that there was all-party agreement and that Moved by Lord Rennard legislation was introduced. If it was an emergency, you 14: Clause 1, page 1, line 17, leave out “earlier or” would require all-party agreement to get it through, and if you did not have it, you could not do so. I think Amendment 14 agreed. that is entirely appropriate. I hope that my noble and learned friend will take up the invitation of the noble Amendments 15 to 18 not moved. and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to reflect on this and to think further because I remain unpersuaded Consideration on Report adjourned. that this subsection should remain in the Bill. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. House adjourned at 10.09 pm.

GC 19 Arrangement of Business[10 MAY 2011] Immigration (Amdt) Order 2011 GC 20

order is required to be laid before both Houses of Grand Committee Parliament under the United Nations Act 1946, it is not subject to parliamentary procedure. Tuesday, 10 May 2011. The two instruments need to be considered in the context of two other orders, the Export Control (Amendment) Order 2011 and the Export Control Arrangement of Business (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2011. The Export Control Announcement (Amendment) Order 2011 introduces a new control on the export of uncirculated Libyan bank notes. The 3.30 pm Export Control (Amendment) (No. 2) Order revokes The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner the original order and embraces unused Libyan coins of Worcester): My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord as well as unused bank notes. Taken together, these Hunt of Kings Heath, moves his first Motion, I remind four instruments form a legislative response to the noble Lords that in the case of each statutory instrument situation in Libya, much of which follows the international the Motion before the Committee will be that the response to developments in that country. Committee do consider the statutory instrument in I want to make it clear that I do not seek to oppose question. I should make it clear that the Grand Committee these instruments; indeed, I support them. However, I is not being invited to agree or disagree with the thought that it would be useful, and a service to the instruments. In the very likely event of there being a Committee, if the Minister was in a position to provide Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for further information on the implementation of the 10 minutes. instruments. The travel bans order came into effect on 28 February 2011 and the Libya (Asset-Freezing) Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) Regulations came into force on 3 March. I would be (Amendment) Order 2011 very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, if he could say how implementation of the instruments has Considered in Grand Committee proceeded so far and whether any particular problems have been experienced. I would also be grateful to him 3.30 pm if he could say whether other countries are likely to be Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath affected by similar action, given the events that we are That the Grand Committee do report to the seeing in a number of countries in the vicinity of House that it has considered the Immigration Libya, about which there is great concern. I note that (Designation of Travel Bans) (Amendment) Order the asset-freezing regulations apply to small businesses. 2011 (SI 2011/547). Can the noble Earl tell me how many such businesses Relevant document: 24th Report from the Merits might be affected? Perhaps he can also say whether Committee. any further action is contemplated against Libya in this area. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall also Overall, I have prayed against these statutory speak to the Libya (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011. instruments because they have been drawn to the Both instruments were drawn to the special attention special attention of the House and there ought to be of the House by the Merits Select Committee, to an opportunity to allow the House to debate these which I am grateful for its assiduous attention to matters. As I have said to the Committee, I do not Home Office statutory instruments. object at all to what is in the statutory instruments, but The Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) it would be good to know what progress has been (Amendment) Order 2011, otherwise known as the made. I beg to move. travel bans order, adds UN Security Council Resolution 1970, issued on 26 February 2011 in response to the situation in Libya, to Part 1 of the schedule to Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I thank the Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) Order the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for giving 2000. The effect of the amendment is to impose travel us an opportunity to exercise our scrutiny function bans on Muammur Gaddafi, his family and certain rather better by putting some very apposite and relevant Libyan government officials. The helpful Explanatory questions on the table about the statutory instruments. Memorandum accompanying the SI says that the travel We Liberal Democrats welcome the imposition of a bans order thereby implements the UK’s obligations travel ban on Muammur Gaddafi and his family and under the UN resolution. certain other Libyan government officials, which has On 28 February, the Government also laid before allowed the implementation of the UK’s obligations Parliament the Libya (Financial Sanctions) Order 2011. under the UN Security Council resolutions in response The Explanatory Memorandum says that the financial to the situation in Libya. sanctions order implements in the UK the asset-freezing I, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, am concerned measures in the UN resolution and prohibits any about the practical implication of the implementation dealing with the funds and economic resources of of these statutory instruments. We undoubtedly agree certain individuals and entities, and making available that we must guarantee that the excluded persons funds or economic resources to or for the benefit of watch-list, which will be used both by staff overseas those persons. The financial sanctions order came into and at UK ports, identifies accurately people who are force on 27 February and was accompanied by a letter not to be admitted to the UK, and I hope that any to the Lord Speaker. Although the financial sanctions individual who is subject to the ban and who entered GC 21 Immigration (Amdt) Order 2011[LORDS] Immigration (Amdt) Order 2011 GC 22

[BARONESS FALKNER OF MARGRAVINE] are involved in moving their assets around, particularly the UK by deception, and so is in breach of the travel when there are these sorts of asset freezes, are capable ban, will be identified and treated as an illegal entrant of hiring smart white-collar advisers to tell them how and will be subject to appropriate action before the to buck the rules in one regime to another. I hope that jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, if here in the UK, not least to safeguard our reputation that applies. I say that advisedly because, having looked on money laundering, the Government ensure that at the list of people who are covered by the United companies monitor the position and keep abreast of Nations travel ban, and given that the International new legislation, new designations and potentially new Criminal Court’s criminal prosecutor is expected to licences. make an announcement in September, the months leading up to then will be when these people will attempt to flee to safe havens if they choose to do so. Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has asked the Committee to I am concerned to read that the ban could also be consider the travel ban amendment order and the lifted in very limited circumstances, and I wonder Libya (Asset-Freezing) Regulations that were laid in whether the noble Lord the Minister will tell us in February. Normally such technical measures attract what circumstances the ban could be lifted here in the little comment, but as the noble Lord says, they concern UK and what procedures we would go through for it important matters of public policy. It is therefore only to be lifted. I also wonder whether there has been any right that the Committee has the opportunity to learn record of an individual who is as yet subject to the more about the scope and purpose of such amendments travel ban and who has been arrested in the UK or and instruments and to question the Government who is known to have connections to the UK and about the circumstances that give rise to them. might already be here. These instruments are part of the Government’s On the asset-freezing regulations, I thank, through wider strategy to put pressure on the Gaddafi regime the Minister, his noble friend Lord Green of through the full implementation of the relevant UN Hurstpierpoint for his extensive response to me, in a Security Council resolutions and EU instruments. Noble letter dated 1 April 2011, on the travel order. It clarified Lords were able to explore something of this wider a lot of my questions about how the asset-freezing strategy on 26 April when my noble friend Lord regulations would be implemented in the UK. I am Howell of Guildford repeated the Statement made in further pleased to note that the UK asset freezes will another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign not be limited to assets that are held only in the name Secretary. I have no doubt, given the fast moving and of Muammur Gaddafi, that there are several other appalling events unfolding in north Africa and in the designated individuals and that the list continues to be Middle East, that there will be many such further updated. opportunities to question the Government about our country’s response. I am therefore sure that noble The issue for me is the extent to which Libyan state Lords will understand if I say that on this occasion I entities, or entities that have links to the Libyan state intend to focus on the subject of the noble Lord’s but that might not be official state entities, should be Motion rather than on the wider strategy. I should regarded as directly or indirectly owned or controlled also point out that yesterday the EU imposed sanctions by the Gaddafi family acting on behalf of, or on the on 13 Syrian officials, although I am not yet fully direction of, members of the Gaddafi family. I know briefed on those sanctions. However, the Government that the Treasury has issued guidance that the financial will make similar UK orders using the same methodology sector and other persons should bear in mind that as the Libyan regulations. Muammur Gaddafi and his family have considerable Noble Lords will be aware that UN Security Council control over the Libyan state and its enterprises in Resolution 1970 was issued on 26 February as the deciding how to conduct proper due diligence over international community’s response to the gross and any transaction that involves Libyan state assets. Although systemic violation of human rights and international we welcome the guidance, I have to say to the Treasury—I humanitarian law in Libya and the crimes that were have raised this previously—that it seems to us that and still are being perpetrated by Gaddafi and his UK financial institutions are not really clear as to how supporters on his own population. The resolution to deal with freezing the assets of individuals rather placed a number of obligations on UN member states. than of readily identifiable state organisations or Two of these—on travel bans and asset freezing—resulted commercial enterprises. That issue has gone on over in the implementing measures that were laid before the the years and I would like to record some concern that House in February and which the noble Lord, Lord Treasury guidance does not seem to be more specific. Hunt, has brought to the attention of the Committee. You speak to people in the banks who tell you that Before saying something about these measures, noble they have very limited means of identifying individuals Lords may be aware that they were the first of several because the money is laundered in so many different travel ban and asset-freezing instruments that have ways before it arrives here. Perhaps we need to invest, come into force since the end of February in response through HMRC or some other body—I cannot identify to events in Libya. There have been a total of three the body—a little more in clearer intelligence about all travel ban amendment orders. those front organisations that use the City of London Taking the measures listed in the noble Lord’s and other European centres to launder assets. Motion in turn, I shall first address the travel ban I conclude by saying that it is important to know order. When travel bans are imposed on particular that those sanctions and regimes differ from one another named individuals as part of a UN Security Council and from a US sanctions regime, and that people who resolution or EU Council instrument, the UK is obliged, GC 23 Immigration (Amdt) Order 2011[10 MAY 2011] Immigration (Amdt) Order 2011 GC 24 except in very limited circumstances, to refuse these or controlled by them. The UK gave effect to this asset individuals entry to or transit through the UK. There freeze immediately through an Order in Council to the are a number of ways of achieving this. The most United Nations Act 1946. On 2 March the EU adopted effective way is for the Government to add the resolution Council regulation 204/2011 implementing the UN to the schedule of the Immigration (Designation of asset freezes throughout the EU. European Union Travel Bans) Order 2000. That is done by means of an regulations have a direct effect in national law. However, amendment order. states are required to ensure that domestic measures are in place for enforcing EU regulations. The Libya 3.45 pm (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011, which we are discussing As any number of UN resolutions and instruments today, were laid and came into force on 3 March. They of the Council of the European Union are issued provide effective, dissuasive and proportionate penalties during a year, the Government’s normal practice is to for enforcing the EU regulation. incorporate them in a single amendment order laid in November. I assure noble Lords that steps can be The Government are committed to ensuring that taken to prevent those subject to UN and EU travel assets are not misappropriated by the Gaddafi regime bans from entering the UK before such an order is laid or used by them against the interests of the Libyan in November. In the absence of such an order, bans people. The robust and timely measures that we have are enforced by using immigration powers on a case- taken, including the regulations that we are debating by-case basis. The Government normally allow a three- today, have helped to prevent the misuse of Libyan week opportunity for comment before the order comes assets. I hope that noble Lords will welcome these into force, but once in force, the individuals named in measures, and I believe that they do. the UN and EU resolutions and instruments automatically The co-ordinated international effort has meant become what is termed “an excluded person”. Section that the regime no longer has access to frozen overseas 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 specifies: funds, including funds in excess of £12 billion in the “An excluded person must be refused … leave to enter the UK alone. This prevents the regime from misusing United Kingdom … leave to remain in the United Kingdom”. these funds and protects them for the benefit of the It also provides that any exemption that an individual Libyan people, which is a very important point. The may have had from immigration control, normally as UN sanctions against the Libyan national oil company a member of a foreign Government or diplomat falls have also helped to prevent the regime from misusing automatically. That enables us to deny such individuals oil revenues against the interests of the Libyan people. entry to the UK. The chair’s conclusion at the second meeting of the At this point I should clarify why the Government contact group on Libya in Rome on 5 May stated: considered it necessary to lay the amendment order on “The Contact Group called for a halt to any form of supply, in a Sunday, the day after the UN resolution giving rise particular oil and refined products, which could contribute to to it, and did not follow the parliamentary convention Qadhafi’s attacks against the Libyan people”. of allowing three weeks for comment before bringing I accept that the difficulty with oil supplies is determining the order into force. The timescale resulted entirely whether they are going to be used against the interests from the need to implement the travel ban measures of the Libyan people or have humanitarian benefit, immediately and put us in the position of being able to such as fuelling a hospital. refuse entry immediately to any member of the Gaddafi regime attempting to seek entry to the UK. I assure Last week, at the direction of the Prime Minister, the Committee that in departing from their normal the national security adviser directed the establishment practice the Government intend no discourtesy to of a small team with the objective of taking an overview your Lordships. on all oil issues relating to Libya. The team, which is FCO-based, is acting as a cross-Whitehall group, drawing Noble Lords may also wish to be informed of on expertise as required. A variety of measures and exemptions to the travel ban that could potentially activities are being employed or considered to achieve allow those subject to it to come to the UK. There are the objective outlined above. Open-source information a number of ways in which this is possible in principle. indicates that there is already a shortage of fuel among Both the UN Security Council and the EU Council the civilian population in Gaddafi-controlled Libya. instruments set out possible exemptions. Whether or not they apply to the circumstances of a particular The Government are also committed to ensuring individual is a matter normally decided by the relevant that the asset freezes are implemented proportionately UN or EU committees on the basis of an application so as to avoid disproportionate impacts on business. made by the member state where entry is sought. The In line with other countries, the Treasury has issued a circumstances specified in the UN resolution, for example, number of exemptions to licences to allow transactions are grounds of humanitarian need, including religious specified in the licences to be carried out. It is a obligation where entry or transit is necessary for the condition of all such licences that no funds or economic fulfilment of a judicial process and where the objectives resource can be made available to or for the benefit of of peace and national reconciliation in Libya persons designated by the UN or the EU. I hope that and stability in the region would be furthered. These noble Lords will welcome the Government’s approach exemptions are narrowly drawn so as not to undermine in ensuring a robust but proportionate implementation the effectiveness of the travel ban regime. of these important obligations. Turning to asset freezing, on 26 February the UN My noble friend asked how individuals are dealt Security Council adopted resolution 1970 imposing with under sanctions. The asset freezes apply in the an asset freeze against Colonel Gaddafi and five other UK, so assets held by those named individuals are Gaddafi family members, and against entities owned frozen. Licences can be issued to allow access to these GC 25 Immigration (Amdt) Order 2011[LORDS] Libya Regulations 2011 GC 26

[EARL ATTLEE] to the debate. Let me start by making it clear that we funds in specific circumstances and HM Treasury will support the two instruments before us and the other issue such licences only where it is satisfied that there two that are associated. I was not expecting the noble is no risk that the named person would benefit from Earl to give a detailed assessment of the Government’s the transaction. She also asked about lifting the travel overall approach to Libya and to the situation, but I ban. There must be evidence that an individual no take his point and I am sure that it would be welcomed longer meets the criteria for listing. They must then should there be further opportunities in your Lordships’ gain political agreement for delisting, which should be House for debates on these matters over the next few done either with the UN member state or the EU weeks and months. I have also noted that we might member state, depending on whether the individual is expect orders in relation to 13 individuals in Syria—I subject to an EU or a UN measure. Once there is think that that was what the noble Earl said—following agreement, the legal text will be updated and the action— delisting adopted. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked an important Earl Attlee: My Lords, I now understand that the question about the impact on business. It would be instruments will come into force at 6 pm tonight. helpful if I describe the situation in some detail since we are not short of time. The Government recognise Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was just that sanctions, especially on this scale, have an impact going to say that I welcomed that information, and the on business. This is unavoidable, given the intention of fact that action has been taken in this area. The noble the sanctions. Those most affected are companies that Earl has also explained the reason for departing from operate in Libya or that trade with Libya, especially normal practice in laying the travel bans order. I have the state-run Libyan banks. It is also important to no problem with that. He made some very interesting note that much of the impact on business comes not comments about the proportionate application of the because of the asset freeze but because of the situation asset-freezing regulations. I say again that I fully on the ground in Libya. understand the reasons for that proportionate approach. We seek to minimise the impact on legitimate businesses I hope that his department will be able to monitor that by issuing licences, which will be issued according to effectively, as experience shows that proportionate the principles outlined above to permit payments to be application sometimes leads to gaps that people can made by a designated person under prior contacts: for find their way through. Therefore, it would be good if example, where the goods have already been shipped. one could be assured that these matters will be kept There is no automatic ban on new business with Libya under review. I was glad that the noble Earl was able to unless it is with a designated person, but my understanding report that no particular practical measures have so is that, because of the situation, there is not much new far surfaced in relation to the instruments before us. commercial activity. Some might wonder whether the Overall, I am grateful to him for the information that sanctions prevent businesses that have exported goods he has given us. to Libya prior to the imposition of sanctions from getting paid. UK businesses have to be able to receive Earl Attlee: It might be helpful if I clarify the payments due to them when funds are available and position slightly. The asset freeze comes into force at the necessary instructions have been received by the 6 pm tonight, not the travel ban—that will come later. UK paying bank. However, I do not advise the designated people to try It may be helpful to answer the question about the to travel to the UK. basis on which licences are issued. The objective of issuing licences is threefold: to protect and maintain Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sure that we are all the value of Libyan assets so that they can be returned reassured by that clarification. to the Libyan people; to minimise the humanitarian impact of the asset freeze and the impact on legitimate Motion agreed. businesses; and to ensure that licences do not result in funds or economic resources going to the Gaddafi regime. Finally, the UK Government are in close Libya (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011 contact with key international partners, especially the Considered in Grand Committee US and France, to ensure that a common approach is taken. 4.01 pm It is worth saying that these measures, which may be seen as technical, are designed to put pressure on Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Gaddafi and those supporting his total disregard for the wishes and human rights of his own people. As That the Grand Committee do report to the such, they are a small but important part of the UK’s House that it has considered the Libya (Asset-Freezing) contribution to the diplomatic, economic, military Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/605). and humanitarian actions being taken against the Relevant document: 24th Report from the Merits Gaddafi regime by the international community. Committee.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am very Motion agreed. grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for that and to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for her contribution Committee adjourned at 4.02 pm. WS 37 Written Statements[10 MAY 2011] Written Statements WS 38

I am grateful to Cranfield University for its rigorous Written Statements and painstaking work. I am also grateful to the participating airlines that made their flight staff and Tuesday 10 May 2011 management time and their aircraft available to the project. Without this invaluable practical help, the Aviation: Air Quality research would not have been possible. The department will always take the health of persons Statement on board aircraft very seriously and I hope the publication of this thorough and independent analysis by Cranfield Earl Attlee: My right honourable friend the Minister University will provide reassurance on this issue. We of State for Transport (Theresa Villiers) has made the will continue to keep in close touch on all aviation following Ministerial Statement. health matters with the UK’s aviation regulator, the Cranfield University is today publishing its research Civil Aviation Authority. into aircraft cabin air sampling on commercial aircraft The department will now take forward the one in scheduled operation. A link to the report is being remaining cabin air study outstanding—the swab test provided on the Department for Transport website. research being conducted by the Institute of Occupational The consideration of this matter by the Committee Medicine in Edinburgh. on Toxicity (COT) in 2007 provided an important When that has been finished all the completed opportunity to examine this issue in depth. Further research projects will be submitted to the Committee scrutiny was provided by the investigation carried out on Toxicity for their consideration so that the public by the House of Lords Science and Technology can be assured that this matter has been thoroughly Committee. investigated. The department commissioned this independent research in 2008 (once tests had been completed to Child Protection find suitable scientific equipment for the task) as a Statement result of a recommendation by the COT—the first time such a study had been carried out by any country The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for in the world. Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): My honourable friend The main conclusion of Cranfield’s research was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children that there was no evidence of pollutants occurring in and Families (Tim Loughton) has made the following cabin air at levels exceeding available health and safety Written Ministerial Statement. standards and guidelines. Levels observed in the flights Few things are more important than helping and that formed part of the study were comparable to protecting vulnerable children and young people. I am those typically experienced in domestic settings. reminded daily of the immense dedication of professionals The study monitored a total of 100 flights in five and their unstinting efforts to keep children and young different aircraft types: Boeing 757, Airbus 319, 320 people safe. Despite this the system is not working as and 321 and the BAe 146. A series of air samples were well as it should. That is why, in June last year, the taken at defined points on all flights, with additional right honourable Member for Surrey Heath (Michael samples taken during any fume events if any occurred. Gove) asked Professor Eileen Munro to conduct a All flight crew, cabin crew and researchers were requested wide-ranging independent review to improve child to complete a post-flight questionnaire, including questions protection. about any fumes or smells that occurred during the Professor Munro was asked to set out the obstacles flight. preventing improvements and the steps required to The study’s objective was to analyse cabin air for improve child protection, including giving consideration volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic to how effectively children’s social workers and compounds, particles and carbon monoxide in normal professionals in other agencies work together. I am operations during all phases of flight (such as climb, pleased to announce that today, following her first two cruise, descent); and to detect and characterise any reports, Professor Munro has published the final report anomalous elevations of these elements during any of her review, A Child-Centred System. Copies have fume events where unusual smells or similar occurrences been laid before the House. were reported. Professor Munro has carried out a wide-ranging and The European standard “Aircraft internal air quality in-depth review. Her report makes 15 recommendations standards, criteria and determination methods” sets and signals a shift from previous reforms that, while safety, health and comfort limits for a number of well-intentioned, resulted in a tick-box culture and a substances, including two that were measured in the loss of focus on the needs of the child. study—carbon monoxide and toluene. The study’s I welcome Professor Munro’s thorough analysis of results indicate that concentrations of both carbon the issues. It is important that we consider carefully, monoxide and toluene remained within these limits. In with professionals themselves, how best to respond to the absence of specific cabin air standards for the her proposals to bring about the long-term reform other pollutants measured in the research, the study needed. referred to other standards and guidelines established, I am therefore establishing an implementation working for example, for domestic (home) or occupational group drawing together key individuals from the social environments. Again, none of these standards or guidelines work profession, local government, health, police, was exceeded. education and the voluntary sector. The Government WS 39 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 40 will work closely with this group, whose membership I possible degradation of building materials and the will announce shortly, to develop a full response to deterioration of thermal performance as a consequence Professor Munro’s recommendations before the Summer of the calculated maximum amount of moisture should Recess. be considered. The report was commissioned in 2003 I am very grateful to Professor Munro for all the at a cost of £158,560. hard work, professionalism and expertise she has shown Evaluation of Unventilated Pitched Roofs with Vapour in delivering this review and to the many professionals Permeable Membrane. This report by Faber Maunsell and members of the public, including children and identifies an ideal calculation approach to predicting young people themselves, who have contributed to it. condensation risk in unventilated roof systems might be via a whole building simulation package. It also identifies why the performance of roof underlays should Department for Communities and Local not be considered in isolation from the whole roof Government: Research system including moisture vapour movement from the Statement interior through the ceiling. The report was commissioned in 2003 at a cost of £113,103.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department Product Emission Labelling Scheme: Scoping Study. for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): The report by AECOM investigates the potential for My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing introducing a scheme to label building products for and Local Government (Grant Shapps) has made the their emissions of volatile organic compounds. It describes following Written Ministerial Statement. existing schemes, identifies relevant British, European, International and American standards, and outlines Today the Government are publishing a further research into the health effects of volatile organic group of reports presenting the findings from research compounds. The report was commissioned in 2005 at projects commissioned by the previous Administration. a cost of £45,972. There is a significant backlog of unpublished reports that were produced by the previous Government and Comparing PStar and Co-heating Test Results. This over the next few months we will be publishing further report by AECOM compares the PStar method for reports in groups themed on particular topics. determining heat losses from a dwelling with the more The reports and findings are of general policy established co-heating method. The study showed that interest, especially on the issues of building and the PStar tests take three days to complete and have the environment, but they do not explicitly relate to potential to be used for compliance purposes, but the forthcoming policy announcements and are not necessarily results they produce are different from co-heating test a reflection or statement of the current Government’s results, and further investigations are needed. The policy positions. We are publishing these documents report was commissioned in 2008 at a cost of £29,000. in the interests of transparency and as part of our freedom of information commitment to publish the Reducing Water Consumption in Buildings. This results of all commissioned research. For transparency, report prepared by WRc (as part of a CIRIA-led all completed work is being published regardless of consortium) addresses issues connected with reducing format or robustness. water consumption in buildings. The report recommendations were used to inform a comprehensive The six reports published today represent the findings review of Approved Document G to the Building from research projects at a total cost of £697,819. Regulations. The report was commissioned in 2008 at These findings cover the topics of building and the a cost of £117,859. environment. Domestic Sector Airtightness. This report by the At a time when public budgets must be reduced, the Centre for the Built Environment assesses the impact new Government want to ensure their research delivers on airtightness of different methods of construction best possible value for money for the taxpayer and and the implications for future building regulations that sums expended are reasonable in relation to the policy. The work found that certain construction types public policy benefits obtained. My department has are intrinsically more airtight than others, and that put in place new scrutiny and challenge processes for dry-lined masonry cavity and steel framed construction future research. require much greater attention to detail if they are to Any new projects will be scrutinised to ensure the reliably achieve high levels of airtightness. The complexity methodology is sound and that all options for funding of design can have a significant impact, and certain are explored at an early stage. This includes using approaches are likely to be more robust than others. existing work from other organisations, joint-funding This report was commissioned in 2003 at a cost of projects with other departments or organisations and £233,325. taking work forward in-house. Condensation Risk: Impact of Improvements to Part L and Robust Details on Part C. This report by Faber The reports and findings are of general policy Maunsell evaluates the impact of higher insulation interest, especially on the issues of building and the and airtightness levels on moisture performance and environment, but they do not explicitly relate to interstitial and surface condensation risks. It highlights forthcoming policy announcements and are not necessarily how hygrothermally robust detailing and appropriate a reflection or statement of the current Government’s workmanship is critical to the achievement of energy- policy positions. DCLG is publishing these reports in efficient, healthy and comfortable buildings; and how the interests of transparency. WS 41 Written Statements[10 MAY 2011] Written Statements WS 42

Copies of these reports are available on the Department supply responsiveness and productivity, especially in for Communities and Local Government website. Copies respect of the agricultural sector; and mitigate demand have been placed in the Library of the House. for commodities, in particular reducing the energy-intensity of future growth. ECOFIN Financial support to Portugal Following the request by the Portuguese authorities Statement for financial assistance and subsequent discussion at the informal ECOFIN in April, ECOFIN is expected The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord to adopt a council recommendation to Portugal with a Sassoon): My right honourable friend the Chancellor view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive of the Exchequer (George Osborne) has today made government deficit and a council decision on granting the following Written Ministerial Statement. Union financial assistance to Portugal. The Economic and Financial Affairs Council will Review of the economic adjustment programme for be held in Brussels on 17 May 2011. The following Ireland items are on the agenda: The Commission will present the outcome of the Regulation on Short Selling and Certain Aspects of first and second quarterly reviews of Ireland’s programme Credit Default Swaps by the IMF, Commission and ECB in April, and its Following further work, ECOFIN will be asked to assessment on whether to release the second tranche agree a general approach on the short selling regulation. of funds. The Government expect the assessment to be The regulation intends to harmonise both short selling broadly positive. The first tranche of the UK bilateral requirements across the EU and the powers that regulators loan is available to Ireland following the programme’s may use in exceptional situations where there is a third review, which is expected to take place in September serious threat to financial stability or market confidence. 2011. The Government believe that proposals should not Financing climate change, preparation of UN meetings impact market efficiency and liquidity, in particular in In preparation for discussions by the United Nations, relation to sovereign debt. ECOFIN will be asked to endorse the EU report on Draft general budget for 2012 fast start climate finance, and to approve council conclusions on issues and next steps for international The Commission will present its draft budget for climate finance. The fast start report sets out details of 2012. The Government believe that, in proposing a the ¤2.34 billion of fast start finance provided by the 4.9 per cent increase in payments, the draft budget for EU in 2010, and details of specific actions supported 2012 is unacceptable. In line with the agreement made by this finance. The UK welcomes the report and between the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands hopes that any conclusions build substantively on and Finland in December 2010, the Government’s previous council conclusions, as well as demonstrating opinion is that growth in the EU’s annual budget must our commitment to delivering our long-term climate be curbed in order to reflect difficult economic conditions finance target. and tough measures taken by national Governments to cut spending. The Government intend to work with Information on the informal ECOFIN meeting other member states to achieve the best possible deal The presidency will give a de-brief of the April for the taxpayer. informal ECOFIN. Savings taxation directive EU: Energy Council The savings directive forms part of the EU’s good governance in taxation agenda, which complements Statement G20 efforts to improve international tax co-operation and reflects latest OECD standards on tax transparency. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department The Council may hold an orientation debate on of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): My amendments to the directive, which seek automatic honourable friend the Minister of State for Energy exchange of tax information with the aim of combating (Charles Hendry) has made the following Written Ministerial cross-border tax fraud. The UK fully supports the Statement. aims of the amending directive, and hopes that the EU I represented the United Kingdom at the EU informal can move towards an agreement. Energy Council in Hungary on 2 and 3 May 2011. Financial sector taxation Discussions at the council focused on the 2050 energy roadmap. Commissioner Oettinger emphasised The Commission will present an interim report to the importance of a road map as providing a framework the council on financial sector taxation. The Government for the EU’s transition to a low carbon economy with are content with the report, which stresses the need to virtually decarbonised electricity generation and noted look at financial sector taxation in the round, notes the importance of considering intermediate milestones, the importance of establishing the purpose of any for example for 2030. Discussion by Ministers of financial sector tax, and sets out next steps. priorities for the road map touched on renewables Commodity markets deployment, infrastructure, low-carbon development, Following discussion by Ministers at the informal the importance of giving the right investment signals ECOFIN in April, the Council will agree conclusions and the need for scenarios to be underpinned with on commodity markets. The Government support the robust analysis, including of costs. I noted that a focus conclusions, which aim to: improve the efficiency and on both low-carbon development and energy security transparency of global commodity markets; improve was essential as was consideration of the full range of WS 43 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 44 fuel mixes. The discussion at the Ccouncil will feed I am pleased to announce today that the Court into the communication that the Commission is preparing Funds Office (CFO) will be working in partnership and planning to issue in the autumn. with National Savings and Investments (NS&I) to Over lunch, there was a discussion of external modernise the service it provides to clients. European energy relations, which will feed into a Under the Administration of Justice Act 1982, the communication that the Commission plans to publish CFO, acting on behalf of the Accountant-General of after the summer on energy security and international the Senior Courts, provides a banking and administration co-operation. This will be one of the priorities for the service for some 140,000 clients, with a total of £3.3 billion Polish presidency. cash and £0.2 billion securities held under the control of the civil courts in England and Wales, including the Judicial Appointments Court of Protection (CoP). It also acts as custodian Statement for any investments made with that money. The money held by CFO originates from three The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord main sources: McNally): My right honourable friend the Lord damages awarded to children as a result of civil Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Kenneth legal action in a county court in England or Wales Clarke QC) has made the following Written Ministerial or the High Court of Justice. These assets are held Statement. on their behalf until the child reaches majority I am today announcing that the criteria for appointing (18 years of age); judges who, on appointment, will be authorised to assets belonging to people who lack the capacity to chair restricted patients cases in the mental health manage their own financial affairs where the CoP jurisdiction in the health, education and social care has appointed someone else to manage their affairs; chamber of the First-tier Tribunal will be amended to and better reflect the needs of the jurisdiction. cases where money is held in court pending Restricted patients cases involve individuals who settlement of civil court action, or on behalf of are detained in hospital by virtue of a restriction order dissenting shareholders, widows and other clients imposed by the Crown Court, or by virtue of being whose funds are held under a variety of different transferred from prison by direction of the Secretary statutes. of State. The convention has been that retired circuit Working with NS&I will allow the CFO to take judges or recorder QC judges who chair the cases must advantage of the business transformation and service refrain from chairing cases once five years post retirement management skills, technology, and processes that are has passed. The convention was designed to provide already well established within NS&I. It will provide assurance that an experienced member of the judiciary customers with a more effective and efficient service would be involved in decisions on whether to direct and therefore an improved customer experience. the discharge of a patient and the concept of experience Clients will interact with CFO in the same way as was predicated entirely on current experience of criminal they do now and their accounts will be administered in sentencing. line with existing legislation. They will also continue The existing criteria no longer provide the most to use specific CFO investment products but will not appropriate basis for determining competency for hearing have access, under this arrangement, to NS&I products. restricted patient cases. While experience of criminal The Accountant-General will retain all their current sentencing remains central, I recognise that restricting responsibilities and be ultimately responsible for the eligibility to recorder silks for appointment to the safeguarding of funds in court. tribunal for the purpose of chairing restricted patient cases excludes non-silk recorders with heavy weight crime experience or substantial relevant experience in NATO Parliamentary Assembly such areas as restricted patients cases or the Parole Statement Board. I also recognise that requiring retired circuit judges or recorders to refrain from sitting after five The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth years on the panel, in the absence of other factors to Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My right honourable suggest they are not suitable, removes individuals with friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and significant and continuing experience of working in Commonwealth Affairs (William Hague) has made this specialist jurisdiction. The deployment of available the following Written Ministerial Statement. judges is a matter for the senior president of tribunals. My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Archie The changes will increase the pool from which Hamilton) has replaced my noble friend Lord Bates potential chairing judges are drawn, and will retain (Michael Bates) as a member of the United Kingdom the services of experienced judges. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Justice: Court Funds Office UK Trade and Investment Statement Statement The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My honourable friend the Parliamentary The Minister of State, Department for Business, Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Jonathan Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Djanogly) has made the following Written Ministerial Office (Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint): I would like to Statement. inform the House of a new strategy for UK Trade and WS 45 Written Statements[10 MAY 2011] Written Statements WS 46

Investment (UKTI), the lead UK government body focus for our trade and investment promotion efforts. for export and inward investment promotion. The new Finally, it explains new ways of working for UKTI. It strategy sets out the context for the Government’s will run from now to 2015. Alongside it a BIS economics approach to trade and investment, including through paper is to be published, Trade and Investment: the the recent trade and investment White Paper and Economic Rationale for Government Support. Copies growth review. It identifies pathways to balanced growth of the new UKTI strategy have been placed in the through trade and investment. It announces the new Libraries of both Houses.

WA 181 Written Answers[10 MAY 2011] Written Answers WA 182

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry Written Answers of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): I refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave on 5 May 2011 (Official Tuesday 10 May 2011 Report, col. WA 163) to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. Abdul Baset al-Megrahi Armed Forces: Medals Question Question Asked by Lord Laird Asked by Lord Ashcroft To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Verma on 1 April To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their (WA 309), why they cannot reveal the particular involvement in the setting up in Australia of the category of documents on Abdul Baset al-Megrahi independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeal described in the Cabinet Secretary’s report; and Tribunal to consider posthumous eligibility for the what are the reasons why the two particular documents Victoria cross. [HL8615] referred to cannot be released. [HL8587] Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Her Majesty’s Government Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I refer the noble Lord to have had no involvement in the setting up in Australia the Answer given by my noble friend the Baroness of the independent Defence Honours and Awards Verma on 1 April (Official Report, col. WA 309). Appeal Tribunal.

Arms Export Afghanistan Questions Question Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool Asked by The Earl of Sandwich To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they the Written Answer by Baroness Wilcox on 22 March are supporting a regional approach to political (WA 136), why they have not made any assessment reconciliation in Afghanistan; and what action they of the decisions by Germany, France and the United are taking to build support for this approach among States to introduce legislation to control the re-export other members of the International Security Assistance of arms; and what discussions they have had with Force. [HL8831] officials from those countries on that issue.[HL8616]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): As a member of the for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): International Contact Group (ICG) we encourage There has been no assessment by the UK of the Afghanistan’s neighbours and wider regional countries actual decisions of these countries to adopt re-export to support the Afghan Government’s work towards control measures, but the UK has actively engaged in an inclusive political settlement. The UK will play an discussions with our international partners on the active role in the work of the ICG’s regional working subject of re-export controls in the appropriate international group in the run-up to the Bonn conference in December fora. Discussions on arms export controls take place 2011. between EU member states in the Council Working We also re-iterate the importance of the regional Group on Conventional Arms and between participating approach through our regular bilateral contact with states in the Wassenaar arrangement. The information Afghanistan’s neighbours, the wider region, and we have received from EU partners—including France International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) partners. and Germany—on their re-export controls only serves Pakistan is a particularly important player. The role of to confirm the Government’s view that there are very the region in supporting an Afghan-led political settlement real problems with the enforcement of such controls was a key message during my right honourable friend that are common to all states that seek to operate the Prime Minister’s visit to Islamabad in April 2011. them. These problems stem principally from the fact that breaches of re-export provisions occur outside the legal jurisdiction of the exporting state and the avenues Armed Forces: Compensation for effective legal remedy are limited or non-existent. The Government therefore have not considered it Question necessary to conduct any additional consultations with Asked by Lord Ashcroft international partners on this subject and remain convinced that fully examining the risk of diversion of To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they arms before deciding whether or not to grant an intend to remove the cap on compensation for export licence, coupled with the negotiation and injuries incurred by serving members of the military, implementation of a robust and effective arms trade or to put their compensation on an equal footing treaty, is the most effective way to address the issue of with civilians. [HL8994] re-export. WA 183 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 184

Asked by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead audits are conducted of the quality of decisions in particular areas of interest, including trafficking and To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the gender-related persecution. timescales for consultation with non-governmental The UK Border Agency also provides case owners organisations, Parliament and the United Kingdom with a wide variety of training, policy, guidance and defence industry as part of the review of arms tools to promote high-quality decisions on asylum exports. [HL8654] applications. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Foreign and Asylum Seekers: Political Asylum Commonwealth Office is leading this internal review Question in close consultation with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Ministry of Defence. Asked by Lord Laird The Government will report back on the review to Parliament, as the Secretary of State for Foreign and To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Commonwealth Affairs, my right honourable friend will give political asylum to Zimbabwean citizen the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) said Nelia Kapenzi, Home Office Ref: K1294363. to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 16 March [HL8768] 2011. Any decisions arising from the review will be discussed in Parliament once the Secretary of State for Earl Attlee: The Home Office does not routinely Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has fully considered comment on individual cases. The noble Lord is welcome the findings of the review. to write to my right honourable friend, the Minister for Immigration. Arms Reduction Bahrain Question Questions Asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Asked by Lord Patten To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to 26 April (WA 8), whether they will publish their the Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford proposals for the agenda for the forthcoming P5 on 1 March (WA 292), whether they have received conference on 30 June in Paris. [HL8757] any further news concerning the welfare of Dr al- Singace following his release from detention and subsequent re-arrest. [HL8657] The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): UK officials are working closely with the French hosts and our other The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth P5 partners to prepare for a successful conference Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We remain concerned in Paris that both builds on progress made at the at events in Bahrain. Although the immediate situation 2009 London P5 conference and takes forward appears calmer, there continue to be credible reports the recommendations of the action plan agreed at the of human rights abuses. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference We urge the Government of Bahrain to meet all in May 2010. The detailed proposals for the agenda their human rights obligations and uphold political and the discussions themselves will remain confidential, freedoms, equal access to justice and the rule of law, but we expect the P5 to release a communiqué after including in the case of Dr al-Singace, on whose their conference. welfare we have not heard anything further. These obligations do not run contrary to security, but are integral to longer term stability. Asylum Seekers We encourage the Bahraini Government and leaders Question of both communities to show real leadership in promoting tolerance and to demonstrate a shared commitment to Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill the future of Bahrain. Dialogue is the way to fulfil the To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps aspirations of all Bahrainis. We urge all sides, including are they taking to improve the accuracy of initial opposition groupings, to engage. immigration decisions on asylum claims for victims Asked by Baroness Tonge of domestic violence and human trafficking. [HL8718] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to non-violent democratic protests Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The UK Border Agency in Bahrain. [HL8727] promotes a continuous improvement in the quality of all its asylum decisions through a detailed audit process Lord Howell of Guildford: The UK has made clear developed in conjunction with the United Nations High to Governments in the region, including Bahrain, that Commissioner for Refugees. In addition to auditing at they need to respond to the legitimate aspirations of least 10 per cent of all first asylum decisions, specific peaceful protestors with reform not repression if they WA 185 Written Answers[10 MAY 2011] Written Answers WA 186 are to enhance their long-term stability and prosperity. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department The UK is ready to support our friends in the region for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): in this time of change to help them deliver more open Decisions on the provision of accommodation for societies. Through our Arab Partnership, the UK is victims of domestic abuse are a local matter and it is working to secure bold and ambitious assistance to the responsibility of the individual local authority to the people of the Middle East and north Africa. We identify any gaps in service provision and put in place are using the UK’s weight and influence in the European appropriate solutions to address this. We would expect Union, the United Nations, the G8 and international local authorities to build services based on the needs of financial institutions to call for strengthened support their communities, taking account of locally available for economic, democratic and social reform. data sources. There is a range of support for victims of domestic Banking: Bank of Scotland (Ireland) violence. Some victims will be accommodated in refuges, Question but sanctuary schemes and mainstream local authority Asked by Lord Laird accommodation may be an option for others, while some victims will pursue independent solutions with To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to help and advice from support schemes as necessary. the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 1 April I also refer the noble Lord to my Answer of (WA 309–10), whether senior bank officials at the 16 December 2010 (Official Report, col. WA 238) Bank of Scotland (Ireland) operate in the United outlining the Government’s funding for Supporting Kingdom without vetting by a British authority. People and for new rape crisis centres. [HL8821] The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The acquisition of Halifax Bank of Scotland Energy: Oil and Gas plc (HBOS) in early 2009 by Lloyds TSB Group plc created Lloyds Banking Group. Question As part of the approvals process, the Financial Asked by Lord Hollick Services Authority assesses the fitness and propriety of senior management exercising significant influence To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light within the firms it regulates. In the case of subsidiaries, of the report by Professor Alex Kemp of Aberdeen it is the responsibility of the home state regulator (in University, what is their assessment of the impact this case Ireland) to ensure the firm’s senior management on employment and domestic production of oil and is fit and proper, in line with directive requirements. gas of the increase in tax on North Sea operators. [HL8907] Cyclists Question The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department Asked by Lord Laird of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): We do To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they not expect a significant impact on investment and have plans to discourage cyclists from using footpaths. therefore on production and jobs as a result of this measure. [HL8705] Professor Kemp’s analysis suggests that at a high Earl Attlee: Cycling on the pavement is not permitted. oil price, and using the hurdle rate most commonly It is an offence under Section 72 of the Highway reported to us by companies, the long-term impact Act 1835 and this is set out clearly in the section would be about 2 per cent of projects—the price of oil relating to cyclists in the Highway Code. In this case is a much more significant determinant. This analysis “pavement” refers to the footway, which is the path does not take into account any potential changes to with right of way for pedestrians running alongside the field allowance, which would support investment. the road. The road and the footway together comprise the highway. A footpath does not run alongside a road and is a highway in its own right. A footpath is a public right EU: Budget of way for pedestrians and cyclists do not have any Questions right to ride on one. However, there is no specific offence relating to this. Local highway authorities can Asked by Lord Inglewood enact a traffic order or by-law should they wish to To ask Her Majesty’s Government in what currency make cycling on a particular footpath an offence. the United Kingdom’s contribution to the European Domestic Violence: Refuges Budget is calculated. [HL8778] Question The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill Sassoon): The EU Budget is set in euros, but the UK To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps makes its monthly contributions in sterling. The process they are taking to ensure that local authorities by which member states’ contributions to the annual co-ordinate the provision of refuge places for victims EU Budget are determined is detailed in technical of domestic violence. [HL8716] annexe 1 to the annual European Union finances WA 187 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 188

White Paper. This can be found on pages 41 to 42 of The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord the latest edition (Cm 7978), which was published in Sassoon): Reports commissioned under Section 166 of December 2010 and is available in the House Library. the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) are a matter for the Financial Services Authority Asked by Baroness Tonge (FSA), which is independent from government. If To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the the FSA requires a firm to commission such a report, United Kingdom contribution to the European its contents would be protected by the statutory Union budget for official development assistance in confidentiality provisions in FSMA. (a) 2007, (b) 2008, (c) 2009, and (d) 2010. [HL8871] Finance: Regulation Lord Sassoon: The UK’s net contribution to the EU budget in these years was: Question Asked by Lord Myners 2007 £4,601 million 2008 £3,294 million To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they 2009 £4,339 million will introduce legislation to secure macroprudential 2010 £6,272 million regulation; and what steps are being taken in advance of this legislation to avoid the risk of asset bubbles. [HL8739] These figures are set out in table 3.1, page 21, of the European Union finances 2010 White Paper, published in December 2010 (Cm 7978) which is available in the The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord House Library. Sassoon): The Government will shortly publish draft legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny, setting out their planned reforms to financial regulation. These include the creation of the Financial Policy Committee (FPC) EU: Legislation within the Bank of England, which will be responsible Question for macroprudential regulation. In February 2011, the Asked by Lord Bowness Bank of England’s Court of Directors established the interim FPC, which includes four external members To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to appointed by the Chancellor. The interim FPC will the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Jones on undertake, as far as possible, the statutory FPC’s 26 April (HL8207), how many measures were adopted macroprudential role in the period before the legislation before 1 December 2009 under the Police and Criminal comes into force. Judicial Co-operation legal base (Title VI) of the Treaty on the European Union; and what was the subject of each such measure. [HL8673] Forced Marriage Questions Lord Wallace of Saltaire: There are between 80 to Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill 90 Acts currently in force that were adopted before 1 December 2009 under the Police and Criminal Judicial To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Co-operation chapter (Title VI) of the Treaty on the will continue to fund the Honour Network Helpline. European Union. Article 10(4) of the Protocol on [HL8715] Transitional Provisions (Protocol 36) to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applies to these Acts. This list is subject to change, as Acts that The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord are repealed and replaced or amended by new instruments McNally): In the financial year 2010-11 the Government cease to fall within the scope of Protocol 36. Officials provided £37,500 to the charity Karma Nirvana, which will be liaising with the European institutions to establish supports victims of forced marriage and honour-based a definitive list. In accordance with the Minister for abuse by means of its Honour Network Helpline. Europe’s WMS on 20 January 2011, Parliament will Karma Nirvana has applied for funding for the be kept informed of developments. three years to March 2014. The grant process has yet to be completed, but I can confirm that the organisation has been offered funding for the helpline for that Finance: Prudential period. Question Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill Asked by Lord Myners To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether steps they are taking to enable victims of forced marriages have been taken to ensure that it would be possible to withdraw their visa sponsorship of their spouses. to publish the report commissioned by the Financial [HL8798] Services Authority (FSA) under Section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 into the Earl Attlee: Sponsors can withdraw their sponsorship Prudential’s failed takeover of AIA if the FSA or of a spouse visa at any stage in the process. Sponsors HM Treasury wished. [HL8737] who are victims of a forced marriage can get further WA 189 Written Answers[10 MAY 2011] Written Answers WA 190 support in confidence from the Forced Marriage Unit Gulf War Illnesses (FMU), a joint initiative of the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. FMU staff Question understand that the individual’s confidence should be Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester respected at all times and that any approach to family, friends or members of the community may place the To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to individual at risk of harm. the Written Answer by Lord Astor of Hever on The FMU was established in 2005. The role of the 27 April (WA 131), why they do not compile centrally unit is to provide support and information to victims information of how many service men and women of forced marriage and to those at risk of being forced lost a limb or limbs, or were left with another into marriage. The FMU works closely with the UK long-term illness or disability, arising from service Border Agency to ensure, where possible, that foreign in the first Gulf War; and whether they will now nationals are not granted entry to the UK on the basis do so. [HL8779] of a forced marriage. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): While detailed Government Departments: Fraud information on individuals who lost a limb or limbs, Question or were left with another long-term illness or disability, is held in personal and medical records, data on where Asked by Lord Knight of Weymouth such injuries were sustained are not held centrally, because no requirement to do so was recognised at the To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they time. There are currently no plans to conduct a will publish a list of the counter fraud champions retrospective exercise to extrapolate this information. appointed in each government department.[HL8896] The Defence Analytical Services and Advice organisation now publishes statistics on personnel who Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Counter fraud champions have suffered amputations relating to operations in (CFCs) have been appointed to co-ordinate departmental Iraq and Afghanistan, but only holds data from April efforts against fraud. This system of cross-learning is 2006 onwards. in the initial stages and working effectively. There are no plans to publish the list of counter fraud champions appointed in each government department. Gun Amnesty The National Fraud Authority (NFA) is supporting Question the work of CFCs and has held events for CFCs to share good practice in tackling fraud as well as to Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark listen to presentations from suppliers of counter fraud solutions. The NFA would be pleased to field any To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the last issues or requests on behalf of the counter fraud gun amnesty was held in the United Kingdom. champions to ensure efficient communication across [HL8752] government. Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The last national firearms amnesty took place between 31 March 2003 and 30 April Government: Big Society 2003. A total of 43,908 guns and 1,039,358 rounds of Question ammunition were handed in. Between 16 April and 4 June 2010, a targeted national amnesty for Olympic Asked by Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield .380 BBM blank-firing revolvers took place to address the threat posed by the conversion and criminal use of To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the this firearm. specific responsibilities of each individual minister for aspects of the big society; and which Ministers Local gun amnesties have also taken place. The are responsible for the co-ordination and delivery Government believe that individual police forces, local of the programme as a whole. [HL8840] authorities and other partners are best placed to assess the impact an amnesty could have in their locality and to decide whether or not an amnesty would be an Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The big society is more appropriate response in their area. than a government programme or collection of policies, and it goes beyond a single government department—it is an approach which is at the heart of the Government’s Health: Paediatric Cardiology reforms across all policy areas. Cabinet Office, like other government departments, has a range of specific Question programmes which will contribute to growing the big Asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton society. These programmes are aimed at achieving the big society’s central goals of catalysing social action, To ask Her Majesty’s Government what emphasis decentralising power and opening up public services, has been placed on the co-location of paediatric and Ministers at the Cabinet Office are committed to services in consideration of the location of children’s the success of these programmes. heart surgery units in England. [HL8747] WA 191 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 192

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department autumn 2012 how much students have chosen to borrow. of Health (Earl Howe): The review of children’s heart At this stage, we see no reason to revise our spending surgery units, the Safe and Sustainable review, is being review assumptions. conducted by the NHS Specialised Commissioning Asked by Viscount Hanworth Team. We have however been following its progress. The service standards developed by the Safe and To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Sustainable Steering Group, against which current plan to restrict the number of students entering services have been assessed and are proposed as universities in the light of a predicted shortfall of designation standards for future services, include funds available to the Student Loans Company. 30 standards (out of a total of 156) relating to the [HL8639] co-location of other paediatric services and a further two on services for adolescents. Eight criteria were Lord Henley: We do not expect there to be a need to used to score current centres for the assessment and restrict student number allocations in 2012-13. The these include one on interdependent services (or costs to government will depend on student borrowing co-location). This criterion was ranked four and carried behaviour and the average fee loan once waivers and a maximum score of 70 out of 685. This process is set bursaries have been taken into account. We do not yet out in the pre-consultation business case, pages 50 to have robust information on either of those things. At 56. The scoring of centres fed into a wider evaluation this stage, we see no reason to revise our spending of the options for future services. review assumptions. The criteria against which the options for future services were evaluated included the consideration that “the negative impact for the provision of paediatric Housing intensive care and other interdependent services is kept to a minimum”. This was part of the deliverability Question criterion, which was weighted 22 out of 100. This is set Asked by Baroness Greengross out in the pre-consultation business case on page 65 and is available at: www.specialisedservices.nhs.uk/library/ To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they 30/Safe_and_Sustainable_Review_of_Childrens_ plan to publish the report commissioned in 2010 by Congenital_Cardiac_Services_in_England_Pre_ the Department for Communities and Local Consultation_Business_Case_l.pdf. Government from the Centre for Housing Policy at the University of York, about effective practice and Health: Physiotherapy the implementation of “Lifetime Neighbourhoods”. [HL8674] Question Asked by Lord Beecham The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): the interests of personalisation and patient choice I can confirm that we expect to be able to publish the and in the light of the experience in Nottinghamshire, Lifetime Neighbourhoods report in June. The report they will provide guidance in relation to referrals will offer a range of practice examples to prompt thinking about developing Lifetime Neighbourhoods for physiotherapy. [HL8762] and can be used as a reference by individuals, communities, planners, and local practitioners. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): It is for local National Health Service organisations to decide how best to use their Immigration: Detention funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health and to commission services accordingly. People Question can give their views on patient choice to the NHS Asked by The Earl of Sandwich Future Forum at: http://healthandcare.dh.gov.uk/ listening-exercise-how-to-get-involved/. To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many individuals are currently held in immigration detention; Higher Education: Student Loans from which countries they arrived; and what was (a) the cost, and (b) the average length of detention, Questions for each of the past three years for which figures are Asked by Viscount Hanworth available. [HL8829] To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to increase the funds available to the Student Earl Attlee: The requested items of information are Loans Company in the light of a predicted shortfall. unavailable. [HL8638] However the latest published figures show that as at 31 December 2010 2,525 people were detained in The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department immigration removal centres solely under Immigration for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley): Act powers. It is not possible to say which countries Any student entitled to grant or loan support from they arrived from. The average direct cost of holding BIS, administered by SLC, will receive the appropriate someone in an immigration removal centre for 2010-11 level of financial support. It will not be known until was £105 per day. WA 193 Written Answers[10 MAY 2011] Written Answers WA 194

Rather than calculate the average statistic for time Iraq; with international forces, including those of the spent in detention, the Home Office presents the data US, focused on training and supporting the Iraqi as ranges because this is a more informative overview Security Forces (ISF) in delivering this mission. We and is not subject to distortions by a small number of assess that the ISF will maintain these security cases with large values. The table below shows the improvements following the planned United States length of detention of persons detained solely under troop withdrawal at the end of 2011. Immigration Act powers at immigration removal centres More widely, the security situation in Iraq has been as at the last snapshot date in each of the past three transformed since 2006-07. Nationally, reported daily years. incidents—defined as the attempted use of deadly Persons in detention in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration force in attacks against civilians or the military—have Act powers, by length of detention (1)(2) declined significantly since 2005. People then spoke Length of about the possibility of civil war. They do not do so detention (3)(4) now. This is despite attempts by extremists to provoke As at As at As at sectarian violence by targeting civilians specifically 27 December 31 December 31 December 2008 2009 2010 belonging to a religious community. Asked by Baroness Tonge 7 days or less 205 180 215 8to14days 195 160 185 To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment 15 to 28 days 270 395 370 they have made of religious freedoms and sectarian 29 days to less 475 510 555 violence in Iraq; and what discussion they have had than 2 months with the Government of Iraq regarding the protection 2 months to less 245 300 260 than 3 months of religious minorities. [HL8683] 3 months to less 165 230 200 than 4 months 4 months to less 240 280 220 than 6 months Lord Howell of Guildford: The rights and freedoms 6 months to less 295 325 265 of minorities are guaranteed under the Iraqi constitution. than 1 year However, I remain concerned about the number of 1 year or more 150 210 255 attacks against religious minorities in Iraq. In the past Total 2,250 2,595 2,525 six months my right honourable friend the Prime (1) Figures rounded to the nearest 5 (- = 0,=1or2),maynotsum Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and to the totals shown because of independent rounding and Commonwealth Affairs, my right honourable friend exclude persons detained in police cells, Prison Service establishments and those detained under both criminal and the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) and immigration powers and their dependants. the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my (2) Figures include dependants. honourable friend the Member for North East (3) Relates to most recent period of sole detention. The period of Bedfordshire (Mr Burt) have all urged the Government detention starts when a person first enters the UK Border of Iraq to protect the rights of all Iraqi citizens, Agency estate. If the person is then moved from a removal centre including minority groups targeted in attacks. to a police cell or Prison Service establishment. This period of stay will be included if the detention is solely under Immigration Asked by Lord Hylton Act powers. (4) 2 months is defined as 61 days; 4 months is defined as To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether 122 days; 6 months is defined as 182 days. they will discuss with the Government of Iraq the (M) Management information. Amnesty International publication Days of Rage: Protests and Repression in Iraq, dated April The Home Office publishes statistics on detention, 2011. [HL8706] solely under Immigration Act powers on a quarterly and annual basis, which are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office’s Science, Research and Statistics website at: http://homeoffice. gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics. Lord Howell of Guildford: We have read Amnesty Q1 2011 figures will be available on 26 May 2011. International’s report with interest and share concerns on many of the issues raised. Our embassy officials in Iraq Baghdad maintain a regular dialogue with the Government of Iraq on human rights issues, and will Questions continue to raise issues of concern when appropriate Asked by Baroness Tonge to do so. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment In February, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of they have made of the security situation in Iraq and State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my honourable the ability of Iraqi forces to operate following the friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Mr Burt) planned United States troop withdrawal. [HL8682] issued a statement condemning heavy handed tactics employed by the Iraqi Security Forces at a provincial The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth demonstration in southern Iraq. Our consul general Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The US combat in Erbil has also raised concerns about the handling mission in Iraq ended in August 2010. The Government of demonstrations with the Kurdistan regional of Iraq now lead in maintaining security throughout government. WA 195 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 196

Ireland: Alleged Murder of British Citizens besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zintan, in 1920s and to return its troops to their barracks. UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorises military action Question and the taking of all necessary measures to stop Asked by Lord Laird attacks on civilians throughout the territory of Libya. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Government of Ireland Libya: Students regarding the alleged cleansing and murder of 60,000 Question British citizens in the 1920s in Cork and West Asked by Lord Hylton Cork. [HL8701] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth they, with other European Governments and the Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The events of this European Union collectively, are taking to protect period are now a matter for history and for debate bona fide Libyan students in Europe, and to ensure between historians. We do not see any grounds for the continuity of their studies. [HL8708] raising this issue with the present Irish Government. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Government Israel and Palestine: West Bank have been careful to implement the UN sanctions regime so as to minimise any adverse effects on Libyan Question students in the UK. Where necessary, HM Treasury Asked by Baroness Tonge has issued licences allowing the release of frozen funds to meet Libyan students’ educational and maintenance To ask Her Majesty’s Government what expenses in the UK. We are also working with the representations they have made to the Government universities and the Libyan People’s Bureau in London of Israel regarding restrictions placed upon Palestinian to ensure that Libyan students continue to receive building activity in Area C of the West Bank. funding. We are dealing with this as a bilateral issue; [HL8679] there are no plans to address it collectively on an EU-wide basis. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Israeli Government and the quartet representative announced a package Local Government: Finance of confidence-building measures in February 2011 Question that included an Israeli agreement to fast-track plans Asked by Lord Rooker for construction of schools and health clinics in Area C. Implementation is now key. We also want to see this To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much agreement extended to allow new housing in Area C to public funding is made available to the national accommodate the growth of the Palestinian population. bodies representing local government; and whether As the noble Baroness is aware, we are concerned at any restrictions on lobbying are imposed as a result the level of demolitions and evictions in East Jerusalem of such funding. [HL8766] and Area C and continue to lobby hard on these issues. We view any attempts to change facts on the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, ground as a serious provocation likely to raise tensions, Department for Communities and Local Government cause unnecessary suffering and damage the peace (Baroness Hanham): The department provides funding process. to the Local Government Group for the delivery of improvement services to all local authorities by top-slicing revenue support grant. The Local Government Finance Libya Settlement for 2011-12 and draft settlement for 2012-13 Question set out that, in those years respectively, £32.5 million and £29.25 million would be paid to the Improvement Asked by Lord Hylton and Development Agency (part of the Local Government Group, and trading as Local Government Improvement To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they and Development) through top-slice. The Local will seek the approval of the United Nations Security Government Group has published a prospectus setting Council for a 25-mile exclusion zone around the out the improvement services to be provided with this city of Misrata in Libya. [HL8707] resource and the outcomes to be delivered. This is available online at: http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/14340861. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth The department also provides funding for the Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): While we have not Planning Advisory Service through Local Government sought a UN-mandated exclusion zone as such, on Improvement and Development; £3 million will be 15 April my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, paid in 2011-12 and £2.65 million in 2012-13. Other together with President Obama and President Sarkozy, government departments may also provide funding to called for a genuine end to violence and for the Gaddafi the Local Government Group from time to time to regime to pull back its forces from the cities they are tackle specific improvement needs. WA 197 Written Answers[10 MAY 2011] Written Answers WA 198

These resources are separate from the Local Ministry of Defence: Security Government Association’s activities on behalf of its members, which are funded from other income, including Question subscriptions. In this context, it would be inappropriate Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey for central government funds to be used to lobby the Government. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of future security requirements for Ministry of Defence estates. [HL8781] London Underground: Line Extensions Question The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): A range of measures to determine the future requirement for guarding at To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans defence establishments is currently under consideration. they have to support the extension of the Central No final decisions have yet been taken and it is not Line on the tube network to Southall. [HL8824] appropriate to comment further at this stage. However, we will continue to safeguard defence sites, people, Earl Attlee: Any decision to extend the London assets and information and will never take any measures Underground network would be for the Mayor and that place these at undue risk. Transport for London, who would also be responsible for identifying any funding needed if such a scheme were to go ahead. National Insurance Question Ministry of Defence: Police Asked by Lord Laird Question To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey people have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom in the past 10 years; from which 25 countries the To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment most applications have been received; and how they have made of the effects of the strategic defence many such nationals from each have applied. and security review on policing requirements for [HL8893] Ministry of Defence estates. [HL8780]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The number of applications of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): Following the strategic received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding defence and security review and the comprehensive dependants, by the top 25 countries of nationality spending review, we are currently considering a range between 2001 and 2010 are provided below. of options that will determine the future requirement Further information on asylum is available from for the civil policing services provided by the Ministry the control of immigration publications available in of Defence Police on the defence estate. No final the Library of the House and the Home Office science decisions have yet been made and it is therefore website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/ inappropriate to comment further at this stage. research-statistics.

Applications(1) received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by the top 25 countries of nationality between 2001 and 2010 Number of principal applicants Total Country of 2001- nationality 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009(P) 2010(P) 2010(P)

Afghanistan 8,920 7,205 2,280 1,395 1,580 2,400 2,500 3,505 3,330 1,605 34,715 Iraq 6,680 14,570 4,015 1,695 1,415 945 1,825 1,850 845 365 34,215 Zimbabwe 2,140 7,655 3,295 2,065 1,075 1,650 1,800 3,165 5,600 1,410 29,850 Somalia 6,420 6,540 5,090 2,585 1,760 1,845 1,615 1,345 930 590 28,715 Iran 3,420 2,630 2,875 3,455 3,150 2,375 2,210 2,270 1,835 1,870 26.080 China 2,390 3,675 3,450 2,365 1,730 1,945 2,100 1,395 1,185 1,000 21,235 Pakistan 2,860 2,405 1,915 1,710 1,145 965 1,030 1,230 1,300 1,400 15,960 Sri Lanka 5,510 3,130 705 330 395 525 990 1,475 1,115 1,360 15,535 Eritrea 620 1,180 950 1,105 1,760 2,585 1,810 2,255 1,350 710 14,325 Turkey 3,695 2,835 2,390 1,230 755 425 210 195 185 150 12.070 India 1,850 1,865 2,290 1,405 940 680 510 715 615 520 11,400 Dem. Rep of 1,370 2,215 1,540 1,475 1,080 570 370 335 205 180 9,340 Congo Nigeria 810 1,125 1,010 1,090 1,025 790 780 820 680 780 8.920 WA 199 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 200

Applications(1) received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by the top 25 countries of nationality between 2001 and 2010 Number of principal applicants Total Country of 2001- nationality 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009(P) 2010(P) 2010(P)

Serbia & 3,230 2,265 815 290 155 70 : : : : 6,825 Montenegro(2) Sudan 390 655 930 1,305 885 670 330 265 215 575 6,220 Bangladesh 510 720 735 510 425 440 540 455 440 450 5,225 Vietnam 400 840 1,125 755 380 90 165 230 465 440 4.885 Algeria 1,140 1,060 550 490 255 225 260 345 235 270 4.825 Jamaica 525 1,310 965 455 325 215 240 240 200 215 4,690 Sierra Leone 1,940 1,155 380 230 135 125 85 55 80 80 4,265 Angola 1,015 1,420 850 400 145 95 95 80 45 50 4.195 Albania 1,065 1,150 595 295 175 155 165 160 210 170 4,135 Romania 1,400 1,210 550 295 115 75 10 * 5 5 3,660 Ethiopia 610 700 640 540 385 200 90 130 105 95 3.495 Palestine 375 365 345 460 370 260 425 290 255 185 3,325 Other 11,745 14,260 9,115 6,030 4,160 3,280 3,290 3,130 3,050 3,315 61,380 Total 71,025 84,130 49,405 33,960 25,710 23,610 23,430 25,930 24,485 17,790 379,485

(1) Figures rounded to the nearest5(-=0,*=1or2)andmay announcements about the British Council’s future not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. programmes overseas will be made once those discussions (2) Since 2007 Serbia and Montenegro have been recorded as are completed later this year. separate countries of nationality. (P) Provisional figures. Asked by Lord Judd : Not applicable. To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will finalise the plans for an official visit to London Organophosphates by the President of Panama. [HL8732] Question Lord Howell of Guildford: The UK regularly hosts Asked by The Countess of Mar official visits by Heads of State and Government from To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, when other countries, and the Foreign and Commonwealth publishing the discussion paper on organophosphates Office is currently considering the options for such poisoning by the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals visits over the next twelve months. All decisions will be in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, announced at the appropriate time. they will also publish the list of scientific literature Asked by Lord Judd reviewed by the committee. [HL8960] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what priority The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department they accord their relationships with Panama of Health (Earl Howe): A complete list of scientific economically, socially and politically, both in bilateral literature reviewed for the discussion paper on and regional matters. [HL8733] organophosphates for consideration by the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products Lord Howell of Guildford: The Secretary of State and the Environment will be published. for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right honourable friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) Panama (Mr Hague)’s Canning House lecture of November 2010 set the terms of the Government’s ambition to Questions renew and revitalise the UK’s relationships with Latin Asked by Lord Judd America. Panama is an important part of that ambition. For example, we recognise Panama’s emergence as a To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions Latin American trade and logistics hub where there they have had with the British Council about the are significant opportunities for UK companies. In the possibility of developing education and cultural past six months both the Minister of State for the programmes in Panama; and what was the outcome. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my honourable [HL8730] friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), and the trade adviser to my right honourable friend The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth the Prime Minister, the noble Lord Brittan of Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Foreign and Spennithorne, have visited Panama. This demonstrates Commonwealth Office (FCO) is involved in discussions the priority we accord our relationships with Panama with the British Council at a strategic level about their across a wide range of issues, including trade, crime priorities overseas, including in Latin America. Any and regional issues such as drugs trafficking. In addition, WA 201 Written Answers[10 MAY 2011] Written Answers WA 202 we are reinforcing and restructuring our embassy in demonstrated experience of having provided specialist Panama City to enhance its capability to support UK support to vulnerable victims; and companies. We will continue to work closely with the demonstrated the capacity to contract with a range Panamanian Government on areas of mutual interest. of specialist providers, so as to guarantee the provision of support sensitive to the particular needs of individual Papal Visit victims, including gender specific services and services for victims with disabilities or mental health needs. Question All unsuccessful bidders received detailed feedback Asked by Baroness Turner of Camden explaining the panel’s decision and were given the opportunity to attend debrief sessions. The debrief To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the information is commercially confidential to the unsuccessful Catholic bishops conference has now paid its share bidders. of the costs of the papal visit, due by the end of February. [HL8668] Portugal: Financial Support The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): Yes. The Foreign Question and Commonwealth Office has received the payment Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark due from the Catholic Church. To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they were first made aware that Portugal would need to Pensions apply for a bail-out loan. [HL8621] Question Asked by Lord Laird The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): On 6 April 2011, the Portuguese caretaker To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Prime Minister gave a televised speech stating Portugal the Written Answer by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on was seeking international financial assistance, and 6 April (WA 404), what were the total employee and made a formal request to her international partners. employer contributions in the past three years for The request was discussed on 8 April at the informal the civil service pension scheme, distinguishing, ECOFIN, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and where possible, accruing superannuation liability Financial Secretary to the Treasury attended. contributions from employer contributions.[HL8895]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Employers’ and employees’ contributions are shown in note 9, pension contributions Public Expenditure receivable, in the Resource Accounts for Cabinet Office: Question Civil Superannuation for 2007-08 to 2009-10. The employer Asked by Lord Wigley contributions shown in note 9 are all accruing superannuation liability charges. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the total public expenditure related to the 2012 London People Trafficking Olympics by (a) year, (b) country, and (c) region of the United Kingdom. [HL8712] Question

Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill Baroness Garden of Frognal: The public sector funding To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what grounds package available for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic it was decided not to award the contract for support Games is £9,298 million. This is used mostly to fund the Olympic Delivery Authority’s construction to trafficked women to the Poppy Project. [HL8714] programme, and to ensure the safety and security of the Games. It includes funding to convert venues and The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord infrastructure to legacy use after the Games. Although McNally): The Government’s decision follows a rigorous the majority of this expenditure is on the Olympic procurement process. A competitive tender was launched park in east London, suppliers are based throughout in December 2010 and included an open dialogue with the UK. The funding package also includes £290 million six interested organisations. A detailed specification, held and distributed by the home country sports councils informed by the dialogue stage of the process, was between 2004-05 and 2008-09 to provide for elite and published in March. Six organisations, including Eaves community sport and for training facilities. Housing, which runs the Poppy Project, submitted The 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games is a bids. national programme and, with the exception of the Bids were assessed by a panel comprising officials £290 million from the home country sports councils, from the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the UK expenditure is not broken down on a country or Human Trafficking Centre and the UK Border Agency. regional basis. To end March 2011 expenditure by year The panel considered how bidders had: (excluding the £290 million funding from the home addressed the tender specification; country sports councils) was as follows: WA 203 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 204

Earl Attlee: The immunisation costs are currently Expenditure from the Public Sector Funding Package being developed by Network Rail and we expect an Financial Year (£ million) estimate at the end of the GRIP3 stage of development work, which is now under way. Costs are not expected 2005-06 39.3 to be significant, as the new signalling in the Newport 2006-07- 257.0 area was immunised for electrification. 2007-08 568.3 2008-09 1,279.6 2009-10 1,633.1 Roads: Fatalities and Injuries 2010-11 1,812.0 Question On a country basis the distribution of the £290 million Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark home country sports councils funding (2004-05—2008-09) was as follows: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people were killed or injured on London roads in Sports the years 2000 to 2010. [HL8823] Training Community Elite Sport Facilities Sport Support Support Support Total Earl Attlee: The information requested is given Country (£ million) (£ million) (£ million) (£ million) below. Data for 2010 will be published in June 2011.

England 17.5 6.5 149.5 173.5 Casualties killed and injured in reported personal injury road accidents in London, 2000-09 Scotland 36.6 9.3 28.8 74.7 Casualties Wales 10.2 6.6 0 16.8 Killed Injured N Ireland 6.2 6.6 12.5 25.3 Total 70.5 29.0 190.8 290.3 2000 286 45,717 2001 300 44,322 2002 281 41,227 The purpose of the lottery contribution from the 2003 272 38,205 home country sports councils to the Olympic budget 2004 216 34,365 was to maximise the benefit to British sport of hosting the 2012 Games. It was not new money but a commitment 2005 214 31,691 from the sports councils from within their existing 2006 231 29,600 lottery allocation to spend the money on continuing 2007 222 28,212 support for elite athletes and coaches, facilities for 2008 205 28,000 elite and community use, and community programmes. 2009 185 27,838

Railways: Compensation Rome: Embassies Question Question Asked by Lord German Asked by Lord Laird To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many the Written Answer by Earl Attlee on 6 April passports the two United Kingdom embassies in (WA 405), whether they have made any inquiry of Rome have issued in each of the past five the train operating companies about the value of years. [HL8820] compensation vouchers that are not cashed. [HL8811] Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Over the past five years the British embassy in Rome has produced a total of 14,486 passports. Earl Attlee: The Department for Transport has not made any inquiry of train operating companies about 2006—3,859; the value of compensation vouchers that are not cashed. 2007—4,379; 2008—4,164; 2009—2,084; and Railways: Resignalling Projects 2010-0. Question The British embassy in Rome stopped producing passports in June 2009 as part of the passport Asked by Lord German rationalisation programme. All applications from Italy To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to are now processed in the Regional Passport Processing the Written Answer by Lord De Mauley on 26 April Centre in Paris. (WA 93), what is the estimated cost of the modifications The British embassy to the Holy See does not needed for the line between Newport and the Severn produce passports; all passport applications prior to tunnel to be fully compliant with electrification rationalisation were processed by the British embassy immunity requirements. [HL8813] Rome. WA 205 Written Answers[10 MAY 2011] Written Answers WA 206

Scotland: Revenue Tobacco Question Question Asked by Lord Roberts of Conwy Asked by Lord Laird To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to revenue accruing to the Scottish Government from the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 6 April (WA408) the devolution of taxation powers under the Scotland concerning second-hand tobacco smoke, what funding Bill will be deducted from the total grant allocated they propose to use in this financial year to promote to Scotland on an annual basis by HM Treasury. smoke-free homes and cars. [HL8771] [HL8858] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord of Health (Earl Howe): In mid-2011, the department Sassoon): The Scottish block grant will be adjusted will publish a new marketing strategy for tobacco to take account of the revenues accumulated by the control, which will set out further plans to encourage Scottish Government. The precise mechanism for people to recognise the risks of second-hand smoke adjusting the block grant will be determined in and to make their homes and private cars smoke-free. consultation with the Scottish Government. While the detail of these plans is not yet available, the work will be funded through the department’s public health communications budgets. Sri Lanka Question Transport: Heavy Goods and Passenger Asked by Lord Patten Carrying Vehicles To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Questions the Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford Asked by Lord Bradshaw on 28 March (WA 230), whether they have received To ask Her Majesty’s Government what effect any further news concerning Prageeth Ekneligoda; the public expenditure cuts have had on enforcement and which are the civil society organisations with and licensing for the heavy goods vehicle and passenger whom they have held discussions. [HL8658] carrying vehicle industries. [HL8786]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Earl Attlee: The Vehicle and Operator Services Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): Unfortunately there Agency (VOSA) are continuing to improve how they is no further news on the whereabouts and welfare of deploy resources. With improved targeting and use of missing journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda. Our high intelligence we do not expect any reduction in the commissioner raised media freedom with the Sri Lankan effective enforcement for the heavy goods and passenger Foreign Minister in March and we continue to engage carrying industries. There has been a minor reduction with a wide range of civil society organisations to in the budget provided by the Department for Transport discuss concerns on human rights. In our 2010 Human to VOSA in 2011-12 for goods and passenger operator Rights and Democracy Report (www.fco.gov.uk/en/ enforcement, down from £19 million to £18.7 million. global-issues/human-rights/around-the-world/ In addition to this budget provided by the Department human-rights-report) Sri Lanka is listed as a country for Transport, VOSA receives additional funding for of concern. The report highlights areas of progress, as enforcement through test fees that is in the order of well as challenges that remain. £19 million. Asked by Lord Bradshaw Sudan To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether an Question impact assessment, or any other analytical work, was undertaken of the recent change in emphasis Asked by The Earl of Sandwich from enforcement to education regarding traffic commissioners’ work with heavy goods vehicle and To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action passenger carrying vehicle operators; what were the they are taking to ensure that a United Nations results of any work undertaken; and what are the peacekeeping mission continues in south Sudan expected effects of this change in emphasis.[HL8787] after independence in July; and what major objectives they will recommend. [HL8828] Earl Attlee: There have been no significant changes in the way in which traffic commissioners fulfil their The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth regulatory role. Enforcement and the role that education Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We supported the has within encouraging compliance remain core functions technical extension of the UN mission in Sudan mandate of the Vehicle Operator and Services Agency (VOSA). from 30 April to 9 July 2011. The UN is now planning The aim of VOSA and the traffic commissioners in for a future peacekeeping mission, in consultation taking a more educative approach is to improve with the Sudanese. We will work with partners to the compliance of the industry through improved ensure any such mission supports peace and stability understanding. No impact assessment has been conducted in south Sudan. to date by the traffic commissioners. WA 207 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 208

Turks and Caicos Islands 2010 (Official Report, cols. 40WS-41WS) detailed the milestones that would need to be met before elections Questions could take place. The UK Government will be able to Asked by Lord Ashcroft set a date for the elections only when the milestones have been reached. We hope that this will happen in To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps time for elections to take place in 2012. are being taken to stimulate economic activity in the Turks and Caicos Islands. [HL8610] Violence Against Women and Children The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Question Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The current Government in the Turks and Caicos Islands have Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill taken a number of steps to stimulate economic activity including the introduction of a progressive system of To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action stamp duties on property purchases; significantly reducing they are taking to ensure that local authorities fulfil rates for all but the most expensive properties; simplifying their obligation to protect services for vulnerable of highly complex system of customs duties, and in so women and children. [HL8645] doing reduced some significant burdens to the benefit of many businesses and of social welfare; approving Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Protecting vulnerable women the investment of US$70 million on an expanded and children is a priority for this Government. It is international airport to ensure it remains compliant essential that we continue to take a strong lead on this with international standards and to increase airlift; issue, demonstrating nationally the priority it merits generating interest from external investors seeking to locally. develop internationally recognised hotels; and introducing In challenging times we are freeing local authorities a support package and reforms to stimulate and support to focus on essential frontline services, and to invest in local agriculture and fishing. early intervention and prevention in order to produce Asked by Lord Ashcroft long-term savings and better results for those who are most vulnerable. This work includes: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their the early intervention grant, which provides funding marketing plans for promoting tourism in the Turks for early intervention and preventive services for the and Caicos Islands. [HL8611] most disadvantaged and vulnerable in society, will be un-ring-fenced and worth more than £2.2 billion Lord Howell of Guildford: Following the introduction per annum; of three additional airlines flying from the US and commitments made as part of the government action Canada into Providenciales (WestJet, JetBlue and plan supporting our strategy to end violence against Continental), the Turks and Caicos Islands Tourist women and girls, which includes providing over Board is now looking at other markets. These include £28 million of stable Home Office funding for specialist Europe, South America and the Caribbean, where a services to support victims of domestic and sexual significant growth in two-centre holidays is anticipated. abuse and piloting new domestic violence protection The board is confident that the 2010-11 growth in notices (DVPNs) and orders (DVPOs), which will tourist numbers will be maintained and enhanced. provide new powers for the police, allowing them to Asked by Lord Ashcroft step in and protect the victim when they are at their most vulnerable; To ask Her Majesty’s Government what secured investment of £6.5 billion for the Supporting consideration has been given to the appointment of People programme over the next four years under a politician or a businessman as Governor of the which approximately 1 million vulnerable people Turks and Caicos Islands on the replacement of the are supported at any one time; and current Governor in August. [HL8612] a review by the Department of Health of the legal framework for the provision of services to people Lord Howell of Guildford: Prior to confirmation of who need social care services, through its work appointment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the Law Commission; this includes clarifying does not comment on the recruitment of individual the local authority duty to safeguard vulnerable officers to specific posts. The next Governor of the adults. Turks and Caicos Islands will be announced in due course. Asked by Lord Ashcroft Violence Against Women: Sojourner To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the Project timetable for elections in the Turks and Caicos Question Islands. [HL8613] Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Howell of Guildford: The joint Foreign and To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Commonwealth Office/Department for International Sojourner scheme is limited to those with a spousal Development Written Ministerial Statement of 9 December visa. [HL8717] WA 209 Written Answers[10 MAY 2011] Written Answers WA 210

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The Sojourner project A new biometric permit is produced for the student was set up to support applicants who apply for settlement on conclusion of a successful application. under paragraph 289A of the Immigration Rules on Specific information on how many such changes victims of domestic violence. The provisions of Rule were made in the past six months is not held centrally 289A apply only to those who were admitted or given in the format required and could only be obtained at an extension of stay in the UK as the spouse, civil disproportionate cost. partner, unmarried partner or same sex partner of a person present and settled in the UK. Persons who are in the UK as the partner of a Voluntary and Community Sector person present and settled have entered the UK with a view to settlement. Their ability to continue their Questions route to settlement depends solely on the continuation Asked by Lord Beecham of their relationship with that person. If that relationship becomes abusive, the applicant may be pressured to To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they remain in that relationship as a result of their immigration will publish the research on central government status. It is for this reason that applicants who are in funding of the voluntary and community sector the UK on the basis of a relationship are offered an commissioned by the Cabinet Office for the years alternative route to settlement if they are a victim of 2006–07 and 2007–08. [HL8670] domestic violence. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether and Persons who are in the UK on other routes are not when they will commission reports on central relying directly on their relationship for their immigration government funding of the voluntary and community status, and have not entered the UK with a specific sector for the years 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11. view to settlement. Therefore it would not be appropriate [HL8671] to grant settlement under the domestic violence rule in these cases. However, it is open to such individuals to make an application for settlement outside the rules. Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The Cabinet Office is currently in the process of finalising “Estimates of Central Government Expenditure on Third Sector Visas Organisations, 2006-07 to 2007-08” and will publish Question this shortly. There are no plans at present to commission further Asked by Lord Laird reports. Officials are currently looking at the best way for central government departments to regularly report To ask Her Majesty’s Government why students publicly on spending, both in terms of baseline levels from outside the European Economic Area changing and how these levels chance through the spending their sponsor college can commence studies at a period. new college before receipt of the UK Border Agency’s decision on their application for permission to study with a different sponsor; at what point their passport visas are adjusted; and how many such changes Wales Bill were made in the last six months. [HL8990] Questions Asked by Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Students who applied for entry clearance or leave to remain under tier four on To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they or after 5 October 2009 are subject to a condition intend to introduce in the course of this Parliament tying them to their sponsoring education institution. a Bill for Wales, similar to the Scotland Bill, providing Students subject to this condition who wish to change for the National Assembly of Wales to set a rate of institution are required to make an application to the income tax for Welsh taxpayers. [HL8856] UK Border Agency to vary the condition of their leave, that is, to allow them to study at another sponsor. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to introduce in the course of this Parliament Since 23 July 2010, students who wish to move to a a Bill for Wales, similar to the Scotland Bill, devolving new tier four sponsor have been permitted to commence stamp duty, land tax, landfill tax and other taxes to study at the new sponsor institution when it has highly the National Assembly of Wales. [HL8857] trusted sponsor status and where the student has submitted an application to the UK Border Agency to vary their leave, before they have received a decision The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord on their application. This amendment means that a Sassoon): The Budget confirmed the Government are student can commence study promptly at the highly committed to fair and accountable funding for Wales, trusted sponsor institution without breaching the including taking forward discussions on all aspects of condition of their leave, should the course commence the final Holtham report. No decisions have been before they have received a decision on their application. made at this stage.

Tuesday 10 May 2011

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No. Col. No. Aviation: Air Quality ...... 37 EU: Energy Council ...... 42

Child Protection ...... 38 Judicial Appointments...... 43 Justice: Court Funds Office ...... 43 Department for Communities and Local Government: Research ...... 39 NATO Parliamentary Assembly ...... 44

ECOFIN ...... 41 UK Trade and Investment ...... 44

Tuesday 10 May 2011

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. Abdul Baset al-Megrahi...... 181 Health: Physiotherapy...... 191

Afghanistan ...... 181 Higher Education: Student Loans...... 191

Armed Forces: Compensation...... 181 Housing ...... 192

Armed Forces: Medals...... 182 Immigration: Detention...... 192

Arms Export...... 182 Iraq...... 193

Arms Reduction...... 183 Ireland: Alleged Murder of British Citizens in 1920s...... 195

Asylum Seekers...... 183 Israel and Palestine: West Bank ...... 195

Asylum Seekers: Political Asylum...... 184 Libya ...... 195

Bahrain...... 184 Libya: Students...... 196

Banking: Bank of Scotland (Ireland)...... 185 Local Government: Finance ...... 196

Cyclists ...... 185 London Underground: Line Extensions...... 197

Domestic Violence: Refuges...... 185 Ministry of Defence: Police ...... 197

Energy: Oil and Gas...... 186 Ministry of Defence: Security...... 198

EU: Budget...... 186 National Insurance ...... 198

EU: Legislation...... 187 Organophosphates...... 199

Finance: Prudential...... 187 Panama...... 199

Finance: Regulation...... 188 Papal Visit...... 201

Forced Marriage ...... 188 Pensions...... 201

Government: Big Society ...... 189 People Trafficking...... 201

Government Departments: Fraud...... 189 Portugal: Financial Support...... 202

Gulf War Illnesses ...... 190 Public Expenditure ...... 202

Gun Amnesty ...... 190 Railways: Compensation...... 203

Health: Paediatric Cardiology...... 190 Railways: Resignalling Projects...... 203 Col. No. Col. No. Roads: Fatalities and Injuries...... 204 Transport: Heavy Goods and Passenger Carrying Vehicles...... 206 Rome: Embassies ...... 204 Turks and Caicos Islands ...... 207 Scotland: Revenue...... 205 Violence Against Women and Children ...... 208 Violence Against Women: Sojourner Project ...... 208 Sri Lanka...... 205 Visas ...... 209 Sudan...... 205 Voluntary and Community Sector ...... 210 Tobacco ...... 206 Wales Bill...... 210 NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. [HL8587] ...... 181 [HL8714] ...... 201

[HL8610] ...... 207 [HL8715] ...... 188

[HL8611] ...... 207 [HL8716] ...... 185

[HL8612] ...... 207 [HL8717] ...... 208

[HL8613] ...... 207 [HL8718] ...... 183

[HL8615] ...... 182 [HL8727] ...... 184

[HL8616] ...... 182 [HL8730] ...... 199

[HL8621] ...... 202 [HL8732] ...... 200

[HL8638] ...... 191 [HL8733] ...... 200

[HL8639] ...... 192 [HL8737] ...... 187

[HL8645] ...... 208 [HL8739] ...... 188

[HL8654] ...... 183 [HL8747] ...... 190

[HL8657] ...... 184 [HL8752] ...... 190

[HL8658] ...... 205 [HL8757] ...... 183

[HL8668] ...... 201 [HL8762] ...... 191

[HL8670] ...... 210 [HL8766] ...... 196

[HL8671] ...... 210 [HL8768] ...... 184

[HL8673] ...... 187 [HL8771] ...... 206

[HL8674] ...... 192 [HL8778] ...... 186

[HL8679] ...... 195 [HL8779] ...... 190

[HL8682] ...... 193 [HL8780] ...... 197

[HL8683] ...... 194 [HL8781] ...... 198

[HL8701] ...... 195 [HL8786] ...... 206

[HL8705] ...... 185 [HL8787] ...... 206

[HL8706] ...... 194 [HL8798] ...... 188

[HL8707] ...... 195 [HL8811] ...... 203

[HL8708] ...... 196 [HL8813] ...... 203

[HL8712] ...... 202 [HL8820] ...... 204 Col. No. Col. No. [HL8821] ...... 185 [HL8858] ...... 205

[HL8823] ...... 204 [HL8871] ...... 187

[HL8824] ...... 197 [HL8893] ...... 198

[HL8828] ...... 205 [HL8895] ...... 201

[HL8829] ...... 192 [HL8896] ...... 189

[HL8831] ...... 181 [HL8907] ...... 186

[HL8840] ...... 189 [HL8960] ...... 199

[HL8856] ...... 210 [HL8990] ...... 209

[HL8857] ...... 210 [HL8994] ...... 181 Volume 727 Tuesday No. 147 10 May 2011

CONTENTS

Tuesday 10 May 2011 Questions Health: Cancer...... 767 Arts: Local Provision ...... 769 Children: Adoption...... 772 Bahrain...... 774 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Nitrous Oxide) Regulations 2011 Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010 (Permanent Effect) Order 2011 Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents for Interceptions) Regulations 2011 Representation of the People (Electoral Registration Data Schemes) Regulations 2011 Electoral Registration Data Schemes Order 2011 Taxation of Equitable Life (Payments) Order 2011 Motions to Refer to Grand Committee ...... 776 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Report (1st day) ...... 777 Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 Motion of Regret...... 848 Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 Motion to Annul...... 867 Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 Motion of Regret...... 868 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Report (1st day) (Continued)...... 868 Grand Committee Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) (Amendment) Order 2011...... GC 19 Libya (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011 Considered in Grand Committee ...... GC 26 Written Statements...... WS 37 Written Answers...... WA 181