Vol. 737
No. 11
Monday
28 May 2012
PA R L I A M E N T A RY D E B A T E S
(HANSARD)
HOUSE OF LORDS
OFFICIAL REPORT
O R D E R O F BU S I N E S S
Questions
Airports: Heathrow
Care Homes
NHS: Health Tourism
Taxation: Plastic Bags
Syria
Private Notice Question
Justice and Security Bill [HL]
First Reading
Parliamentary Privilege, Draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
Bill, Draft Communications Data Bill
Motions to Agree
Five Statutory Instruments
Motions to Approve
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Second Reading
Grand Committee
Infrastructure Planning (Waste Water Transfer and Storage) Order 2012
Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances (Abolition) Order 2012
Considered in Grand Committee
National Health Service Trust Development Authority (Establishment and Constitution)
Order 2012
National Health Service Trust Development Authority Regulations 2012
Motions to Take Note
Riots Communities and Victims Panel Final Report
Question for Short Debate
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/ld201213/ldhansrd/index/120528.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.
All prices are inclusive of postage.
© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2012,
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]
959
Airports: Heathrow
[28 MAY 2012]
House of Lords
Monday, 28 May 2012.
2.30 pm
Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
Airports: Heathrow
Question
2.36 pm
Asked By Baroness Kramer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
they have made of night flights at Heathrow.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Government are aware
that night noise continues to be a concern for residents
around Heathrow. We have extended the current night-time
flying regime at Heathrow for two years until October
2014 and will begin a review later this year on its
replacement. In considering a new regime, it is important
that we take care to strike a balance between noise
disturbance and the economic benefits of night flights.
Baroness Kramer: My Lords, local residents are
woken from 4 am onwards not because of capacity
issues at Heathrow but because of limits on departure
schedules at other airports. If the Government will not
commit to eliminating night flights, will they at least
undertake to negotiate with the relevant countries for
a timetable that is gentler for residents under the flight
path in this country? Will they also negotiate with the
airlines to get them to commit to put the latest,
quietest aircraft on these routes? I understand that
none has yet committed to doing so for early landings.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my noble friend makes a
number of points. She referred to aircraft coming
from distant countries. It is important to remember
that if we insist on a later arrival time in the UK, a
plane may have to leave the Far East later at night and
that may cause a problem there. My noble friend
talked about quieter and noisier aircraft. A quota
system takes into account the noisiest aircraft, which
cannot fly until later in the day.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, can the
Minister give an assurance that, when the Government
conduct their assessment into whether to allow more
night flights, they will take into account the economic
disbenefits, as well as the effects of sleep deprivation
and other social effects of night flights, set against the
economic benefits that may come from having more
planes arriving earlier?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that
we will do exactly that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, is the Minister
aware that more and more flights from Scotland are
being cancelled by airlines so that they can free up
slots for other destinations? Is it not about time that
the Government stopped dithering and made a decision
to go ahead with a new runway at Heathrow?
Airports: Heathrow
960
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord will know
that the slot allocation at Heathrow Airport is not a
matter for the Government.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, does the
noble Earl agree that the noise problem is not confined
to Heathrow Airport? There are considerable problems
with noise over Stansted Airport, for example, and I
declare an interest as a supporter of the Stop Stansted
Expansion campaign. Can he say whether the Civil
Aviation Bill, which is shortly to be introduced in this
House, will take any account of this issue and whether
it will contain any provisions for strengthening the
regime that limits night flights?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, as currently drafted, the Bill
does not say anything about night flights, although the
noble Baroness might tempt me with an amendment.
It is important to understand that the problem of
Heathrow is much greater than that of the other two
London airports. Some 228,000 people are affected at
Heathrow, whereas at Gatwick and Stansted the figure
is only between 1,000 and 2,000, so the problem at
Heathrow is much more serious. However, all three
London airports have noise controls imposed by central
government.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, if there were a
third runway at Heathrow, would that make any difference
to the pressure for more night flights?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I doubt it. The issue about
night flights is that flights coming in from the Far East
make connections at Heathrow.
Lord Bradshaw: The work that I have done on the
Civil Aviation Bill has shown me that there is a lot of
spare capacity at Stansted, Luton, Gatwick and
Birmingham, an airport which I am just about to visit.
The release of that capacity is dependent on improved
surface connections to all four airports. I urge the
Minister to look into that before we try to put everything
into Heathrow and so get some of the traffic spread
out because it is not all hub traffic.
Earl Attlee: My noble friend makes valid points.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, my noble friend
Lord Foulkes described the circumstances arising out
of his question, such as the slotting of aircraft. The
Minister replied to the issue of the slots but he never
replied to the point about the dithering over the decision,
for which the Government are responsible, about the
third runway at Heathrow.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we are not dithering about a
third runway at Heathrow. Coalition policy is that
there will not be a third runway at Heathrow.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Minister
may or may not be dithering about Heathrow, but the
Government have certainly dithered on the aviation
Bill when environmental issues have cropped up in
relation to airports. Will he take note of the fact that
we will use the opportunities provided by the aviation
Bill to examine thoroughly the Government’s position
961
Airports: Heathrow
[LORDS]
[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM]
on these important environmental matters? I am very
pleased today to see how many people, right across the
House, are concerned.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I can assure the House that I
shall listen very carefully to noble Lords’ input on the
aviation Bill as it passes through the House.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what is being done to
produce quieter aircraft?
Earl Attlee: Could my noble friend repeat the question?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Swinfen: Certainly. I asked my noble friend
what is being done to produce quieter aircraft.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, there is a great incentive to
produce quieter aircraft because of the quota system
at Heathrow. I understand that the next generation of
aircraft will be 50% quieter.
Care Homes
Question
2.43 pm
Asked By Baroness Bakewell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans
they have for making sure that care home ownership
delivers consistent and long-term care.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Care Quality
Commission, as regulator of health and adult social
care services in England, is responsible for providing
assurance that all care home operators, whether in the
public or independent sectors, meet regulations that
set essential levels of safety and quality.
Baroness Bakewell: I thank the noble Earl for that
Answer, but it does not quite meet the background
that has arisen since 30 April, when the private equity
firm Terra Firma acquired Four Seasons Health Care,
which is the largest elderly care provider in the UK.
Given that equity firms often favour a short-term
business plan model, and in the light of the collapse of
Southern Cross, would the Government consider a
“fit and proper person” test for care home ownership?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am aware that this idea is
circulating. Recent events have taught us that intelligence
about the market and scrutiny of providers should be
better. However, we are not convinced that a “fit
person” test is necessarily the right approach. Having
said that, we will be setting out our proposals shortly
and we will consult on those, so there will be an
opportunity for the sector to input its views. We should
bear in mind that anyone who registers with the CQC
as a provider of care must by law be of good character
and have the necessary experience. The provider is also
required to notify the CQC of any convictions or
cautions against them and of any voluntary insolvency
arrangements involving them.
Care Homes
962
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, does
the Minister agree that one of the greatest inhibitors
of long-term, consistent care is funding for individual
placements? I speak and declare an interest as the
president of Livability, which delivers long-term care
for some elderly and a large number of younger disabled
people. The great difficulty is ensuring that local authorities
will commit to funding in the long term at an appropriate
level.
Earl Howe: The noble Baroness is of course right,
which is why it is so important that we reach what I
hope will be a cross-party consensus on the future
funding of long-term care and social care generally.
We have committed to legislating as soon as we possibly
can on that subject.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree
that the delivery of a caring and efficient service is
dependent not only on training but on character? Is it
not true that throughout the health service, and not
merely in this area of welfare, there has been a sad
departure from reliance on something which was
fundamental to the hospital service when it was invented:
tender loving care? When will there be an insistence
that the right sort of people are admitted to the
profession of caring for the elderly and the sick, as
well as on proper training?
Earl Howe: My noble friend makes an excellent
point. I expect he knows that in the selection process
for nurse training, greater emphasis is now placed on
the applicant’s suitability as a person to undertake
caring duties. As regards healthcare assistants who
may not be qualified, it is of course up to the employing
organisation to make checks of that kind. We believe
that to be a variable practice. We need to focus on that
issue more than ever.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, why does the
Minister not reply directly to the question of my noble
friend Lady Bakewell? What, in principle, is wrong
with a “fit and proper person” test to apply in these
cases?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I made clear earlier, there
is already a test for those people who are in charge of a
care home. The CQC has procedures to verify the
acceptable status of such people. Furthermore, there
are very strict rules under the Financial Services Authority
regulations, which require company directors to pass a
“fit and proper person” test. We are not sure what
added value might be conveyed by a further test, as the
tests are already there.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield: My Lords, given the very
great anxieties experienced by care home residents and
their families on this issue, what steps are the Government
taking now to prevent another Southern Cross situation
arising, in both intelligence gathering and strengthening
the regulation and oversight of the sector?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government are working
with the Association of Directors of Adult Social
Services and the Care Quality Commission. We are
gathering greater intelligence on the social care market
963
Care Homes
[28 MAY 2012]
and its major providers, which will be used to give
early warning of impending problems. We will continue
to meet regularly with the major care providers to
discuss their trading performance, their financial situation
generally and how they are addressing any issues
which put pressure on their ability to continue trading.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, perhaps I may
raise a technical point in relation to a situation that
exists under the Companies Act where a company is
threatened with financial difficulties. The noble Earl
will be aware that under the Act, to continue trading is
a serious offence if there is a danger—not just a
certainty—that the company will not be able to meet
its financial obligations. Successive departments in
successive Governments have properly intervened in
the interests of patients. They were probably committing
a serious criminal offence. Will the Minister look at
the situation so that the law may be relaxed in the
interests of patients and of the community in general?
Earl Howe: The noble Lord made a very good
point. As he will know, there are existing oversight and
regulatory frameworks, with the CQC regulating the
quality of care and support services and local authorities
overseeing local providers. The point made by the
noble Lord is a major part of why the Government are
engaging with the sector, as I described just now to my
noble friend. The main point to stress is that under the
existing system no one will be left homeless should a
provider fail. In an emergency, local authorities have a
duty to provide accommodation to anyone, whether
they are publicly funded or self-funded, who has an
urgent need for it.
Baroness Wheeler: My Lords, this summer the Care
Quality Commission is conducting thematic inspections
of dignity and nutrition in 500 care homes with nursing
provision. Does the Minister agree that these will be
vital in providing evidence and guidance to ensure
improved standards of care? Will he assure the House
that these inspections will go ahead despite the
commission’s increased responsibilities and workload
resulting from implementation of the Health and Social
Care Act and other government policy initiatives?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right;
this is very important work. I am led to understand by
the CQC that the programme is due to proceed as
planned. We will place a great deal of reliance on its
findings. In the light of recent distressing and unfortunate
stories about the absence of dignity in certain care
settings and the shortcomings in care quality, it will be
important to learn lessons from the CQC’s programme.
NHS: Health Tourism
Question
2.52 pm
Asked By Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the
cost to the National Health Service of international
health tourism, and whether the Home Office has
NHS: Health Tourism
964
consulted the Department of Health on appropriate
assessments of likely health needs or conditions
before issuing visas to visitors to the United Kingdom.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): My Lords, estimated written-off
debt for NHS treatment provided to chargeable overseas
visitors in 2010-11 was £14 million. However, this will
include debts for visitors requiring unexpected treatment
as well as those actively seeking NHS treatment to
which they are not entitled. On 21 May, the Home
Office announced the introduction of pre-entry screening
for tuberculosis for long-term migrants from countries
with high TB incidence. The department and the Health
Protection Agency worked with the Home Office to
review current arrangements.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: That is a considerable
increase. In his Written Answer last year, the noble
Earl gave the figure for the previous year as under
£7 million, so the amount has doubled. I do not know
whether the £14 million includes the previous £7 million,
but obviously the amount is growing. In the same
Written Answer, he said that the Home Office was now
consulting. On screening—for TB, for example—does
the visa application ask applicants to declare any
pre-existing medical condition, as is the case in many
overseas countries?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Home Office, with our
agreement, drew up a list of high-risk countries where
TB was prevalent. In those countries, if someone seeks
a visa to come to this country for six months or more,
they will have to undergo TB testing. Questions on
other medical conditions are not relevant in this context.
We do not screen for other things. TB is an exceptional
case because it is an airborne disease and poses a
public health risk.
Lord Kakkar: My Lords, what assessment have Her
Majesty’s Government made of potential future health
tourism from eurozone countries facing imposed austerity
measures and cuts to their own local healthcare provision?
Earl Howe: The best answer I can give the noble
Lord is that this entire area of health tourism is one
which we in the department are looking at extremely
closely. A review has been carried out by officials and
Ministers are considering the recommendations flowing
from that. It is a complex set of issues but clearly the
context to which the noble Lord rightly refers will
need to come under the spotlight.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, if this is
devolved to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales,
how are the Government relating this particular problem
to the Assemblies and the Parliament?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are in constant contact
with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations.
The policy adopted in England need not necessarily be
replicated in those Administrations but we seek to
keep officials in those parts of the country fully informed
as we go forward.
965
NHS: Health Tourism
Taxation: Plastic Bags
[LORDS]
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, when I travel abroad
on holiday, which I am happy to say I do quite often
these days, I have to carry health insurance and it is
quite expensive. Because of my age and various other
problems I have to take it out each time I go on
holiday. I will not tell you how many times a year that
is. What happens in reverse when people come here on
holiday? Is it required of them to carry health insurance
in case they have any problems here?
Earl Howe: The rules are complex, depending on
whether the person is from the European Union,
where certain rules apply, or from other parts of the
world. There is no mandatory requirement for people
to carry health insurance unless there is a transparent
medical need when they enter the country. For example,
a heavily pregnant woman might be asked to produce
proof that she could pay for treatment if giving birth
was likely. There are clear rules for NHS trusts where a
patient who is chargeable presents. The trust must seek
either to secure payment before treatment or to bill the
person immediately afterwards.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, in answer to
the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of
Llandudno, the Minister rightly described the situation
as it currently is. Is the Department of Health doing
any study into the disaster that would happen in terms
of healthcare between Scotland and England if Scotland
were to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom?
If it is not doing a study, why not?
Earl Howe: My Lords, were that situation to occur,
the issues arising from it would be little different from
the issues today in that health is already devolved.
However, I cannot speculate on whether there would
be a different policy on immigration in Scotland compared
to south of the border as we are really not in that
territory yet.
Lord Swinfen: What checks are actually carried out
to ensure that patients are entitled to free National
Health Service care?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is incumbent on NHS
trusts when a patient presents directly to them to
ensure that the person in front of them is entitled to
NHS care, and they have various means of doing that.
However, primary care in this country—care delivered
by GPs—is not subject to any checks of that order.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, would
somebody from anywhere in the world who had a
British passport be entitled to NHS treatment were
they to be in this country at the time of need?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the answer is no because the
entitlement to NHS care is and always has been dependent
upon an ordinary residence test, so that the mere
possession of a UK passport does not necessarily
indicate that a person is ordinarily resident.
966
Taxation: Plastic Bags
Question
2.59 pm
Asked By Baroness Parminter
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
are considering introducing a tax on plastic bags.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): My Lords, the Treasury keeps all tax policy
under continuous review. The Government are aware
of the initiatives on the taxation of carrier bags in the
devolved Administrations and will be interested to see
the evidence of their effectiveness and administrative
costs.
Baroness Parminter: My Lords, each year we use
6 billion plastic bags in UK supermarkets. Does the
Minister recognise the success of the taxation schemes
in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales which have
resulted in a 90% drop in plastic bags and have raised
revenue to help deal with the environmental problems
caused by these icons of a throwaway society?
Lord Sassoon: My Lords, I have learnt a lot about
plastic bags over the past couple of days. As I am sure
my noble friend knows, there is a voluntary scheme in
this country which has reduced the use of single-use
bags by some 45% across the UK. The first evidence of
how the Welsh scheme, which started on 1 October
last year, will come out imminently. Scotland is about
to issue a consultation document about possible charging
for carrier bags which we will look at, and it is intended
that the Northern Ireland scheme will come in in April
2013. I think it is as yet a little early to see what has
happened in the devolved Administrations.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: The Minister says that
it is a little early to see what has happened in the
devolved Administrations, but surely the evidence from
Wales is already clear. When one goes to a supermarket,
one pays 5 pence for a plastic bag, and there has been a
very substantial reduction in their purchase—I heard
that it is 70% rather than 90%—as a result. Are we
now in touch with the Welsh Assembly Government,
who have got there first?
Lord Sassoon: My Lords, as I have said, we will
look carefully at the evidence. The first official figures
are due to be released shortly and we will see what they
show.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble
friend aware that over the past six years the issue of
plastic bags has decreased by some 40% and that
4 billion fewer bags are used now than six years ago?
More recycled plastic is used in the bags that are
produced so that the use of virgin plastic has reduced
by 61%. Is it not right that a lot of supermarkets have
quite sophisticated schemes for encouraging their
customers not to use plastic bags? When my wife and I
shop at a branch of Sainsbury’s in west London, we
are given a credit if we bring our own bags.
967
Taxation: Plastic Bags
[28 MAY 2012]
Lord Sassoon: My Lords, I agree with my noble
friend that progress has been made. We would like to
see more progress, of course, but all that has been
done without a minimum charge or any form of
taxation. The Government encourage all these initiatives.
Baroness Deech: Will the Minister extend his concern
to the equally wasteful and annoying practice of sending
out parliamentary mail in plastic bags that are very
difficult to open, not to mention the plastic bags you
have to use for little bottles of liquid when going
through airport security? However, the mail coming
from Parliament is especially wasteful of plastic.
Lord Sassoon: My Lords, I am sure that the authorities
of the House have listened carefully to that bit of
advice.
Lord Dubs: Is the Minister aware that he must be
the first Treasury Minister in history who seems not to
want the money when there is pressure for a tax?
The fact is that the voluntary scheme is useful, but
does he not agree that taxation could significantly
reduce the number of plastic bags in use, thereby
saving the environment and perhaps giving the Treasury
some more money?
Lord Sassoon: My Lords, this is also a Government
who take the burdens on business through red tape
extremely seriously. We have to balance the various
factors at play here.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, is the
Minister aware that the amount of plastic we are
saving from the shops has been overtaken by plastic
bags that purport to collect clothing for various charities?
Have the Government looked at this? They are very
useful for recycling in rubbish bags but I am sure it is
another unnecessary use of plastic.
Lord Sassoon: I am very happy to learn a bit more
about this subject. I thank the noble Baroness.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, when my
noble friend is considering this matter—bearing in
mind all that has been said and the dramatic diminution
in the use of plastic—will he also bear in mind that for
many people shopping is quite difficult and hazardous?
Even if you are only on a very modest diet of bread
and butter, butter and bread have gone up a very great
deal and it is a little hard for many people to have to
pay increased amounts for the things they really must
have to live, and then pay again to put it in bags to take
it away because they cannot carry it all by hand.
Lord Sassoon: My Lords, this is true, although I
note that as early as 1997, Waitrose introduced its
“bag for life” scheme; for 10p it sells a bag that is
replaced free of charge when it is worn out. There are
imaginative schemes out there that supermarkets are
taking on which will not incur large costs for the
consumer.
Syria
968
Baroness Corston: My Lords, the Minister referred
to the scheme in Wales and implied that it would be
very difficult for the Government to make an assessment
because the scheme is quite new. What assessment has
the Treasury made of the success of the scheme in
Ireland? That scheme is probably eight years old and
has been spectacularly successful. Dealing with the
point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight,
people take in their own shopping bags. There has
been a great public information campaign and preparation,
and a 90% reduction.
Lord Sassoon: My Lords, we take all the evidence
into account. As we have heard in this interesting
discussion, there has been a very significant reduction
right across the UK without compulsory measures.
We will look at the evidence from Wales and the other
devolved Administrations when it comes in.
Syria
Private Notice Question
3.07 pm
Tabled By Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light
of the United Nations statement this weekend,
what steps they plan to take to help end the conflict
in Syria.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg leave
to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My Lords, we are
outraged by the appalling events in Houla and have
condemned these in the strongest possible terms. My
right honourable friend the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made clear
that we are working with international partners to
make the Annan plan work. This aims to bring an end
to the violence and drive forward a political process in
Syria.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I share the
outrage expressed by the Minister. The massacre was
appalling and deplorable, and it is difficult to find
words to express the revulsion at the slaughter of vast
numbers of innocent people, including 49 children
and 39 women. UN condemnation is welcome but it is
not enough. What is the Government’s assessment of
the potential changes in policy by the international
community following the clear change of position by
the Russians, both at the UN and in discussion with
the Foreign Secretary?
Lord Howell of Guildford: The noble Baroness is
quite right that words are difficult and certainly
condemnation alone is not enough. She speaks about
the change in the Russian position. It is perfectly true
that Russia has joined in condemnation of these revolting
events—as all civilised and responsible nations must
do—but the question goes beyond that, to whether the
UN Security Council is prepared in a united way to
take a variety of further actions, including referral to
969
Syria
[LORDS]
[LORD HOWELL OF GUILDFORD]
the ICC, tougher sanctions and other pressures. That
requires the support of the Russians and the Chinese
in the UN Security Council.
My right honourable friend is in Moscow and has
had discussions this morning with Mr Lavrov, the
Russian Foreign Minister. Various views have been set
out by Mr Lavrov, and discussion continues internationally
about exactly what happened and precisely who is to
blame. But we are quite clear that the Annan plan,
requiring an immediate laying-down of weapons on
both sides and action by the Syrian Government to
withdraw their heavy weapons and tanks from all the
areas they have been bombarding, is an essential step
to taking this forward. The key is to get agreement in
the United Nations Security Council, and the key to
that is what my right honourable friend is working on
at this moment.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, can my
noble friend tell the House whether there is any discussion
within the Security Council, and indeed with the Syrian
Government, to increase the number of UN monitors
from 300 to potentially significant figures so that they
may be able to carry out their tasks effectively?
Lord Howell of Guildford: Yes. My right honourable
friend spoke to Kofi Annan over the weekend and
they discussed increasing the size of the monitoring
mission. It is just about coming up to its initially
agreed 300 but there is certainly further discussion of
whether a more effective and larger commission could
be developed.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I do not
know whether the Minister has seen an interesting
article by Patrick Seale in today’s Guardian. First, can
the Minister give the House the Government’s assessment
of the amount of financial and other assistance being
given by the Gulf countries and other members of the
Friends of Syria to the rebels or terrorists—call them
what you like—with the aim of bringing down the
Syrian Government?
Secondly, can the Minister please give the House an
assurance that any assistance that the British Government
are giving, and have been giving, to any faction in
Syria is being given exclusively through the United
Nations and international organisations?
Lord Howell of Guildford: I have indeed seen the
article by Patrick Seale that the noble Lord mentions.
It is very difficult to answer precisely because we do
not know the amount or nature of the assistance that
countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar are giving
to the rebels. There is also the question of the suitability
of the recipients. Are they people who will continue to
protect human life, or will they promote further terrorism
and destruction? There are real doubts on this matter,
as the noble Lord will well know with his expertise in
the area. Non-lethal assistance is being given to civilians
and the Syrian rebel forces on humanitarian grounds
at the moment. It is going ahead through nongovernmental international organisations and the agencies
of the United Nations.
Syria
970
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the situation
in Syria is certainly very complicated. I read recently
an account of very harsh treatment being meted out to
Christian communities in Syria by forces other than
government ones, whether you call them rebels or
terrorists—I am not certain. Can my noble friend say
whether these reports are true?
Lord Howell of Guildford: Again, I have to tell my
noble and learned friend that it is very hard to come
by precise records of exactly what is happening, who is
committing these atrocities and to what extent they
are intertribal activities by Alawite villagers against
others. All these things are possible and they may well
have happened. I cannot give a clear answer to my
noble and learned friend except to say that there are
many different cross-currents and many different groups
who fear for their future whether Assad remains
entrenched, rebel forces take over or the country descends
into civil war. The future of groups such as the Christian
communities is challenged by any of these eventualities;
so, too, is the future stability of Lebanon.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, Syria is likely to
go into a civil war, as the Minister has said. We have
been involved in the bombing of Libya and went to
war in Afghanistan and Iraq. To what extent do the
Government believe that we have helped the people of
those countries by our involvement?
Lord Howell of Guildford: The obvious answer is
that each one is a completely separate and different
situation on which one has to make a sensible judgment.
The Government and I believe, as I think most people
do, that the intervention in Libya to prevent hideous
massacres—although we are now looking at another
hideous massacre—was constructive and led to a new
start for Libya which we hope will lead to democracy,
liberty and freedom. I could stand at this Dispatch
Box well beyond your Lordships’ patience and analyse
the prospects of leaving Afghanistan in a better condition
than it was when it promoted al-Qaeda and the horrors
of 9/11. I could say the same about Iraq. It is now free
of one of the worst killers of the Middle East but it
had to pay a very heavy price. All these are separate
issues and we have now to look at Syria to see what
can be done. The willingness for the allies together—we
have to act together as no single country can do
this—to mobilise military might on a massive scale is
obviously not there, not least because it is not clear
exactly who the enemy are and where the sources of
instability are coming from.
Baroness Hussein-Ece: My Lords, given that Turkey
is on Syria’s doorstep, perhaps I may ask about the
role that it has tried to play in the past year in bringing
about a solution. What support is being given to
Turkey to play a more prominent role and to prevent a
potentially explosive situation whereby it could be
dragged into a war with Syria?
Lord Howell of Guildford: We are in close touch
with the Turkish authorities, which face some difficult
dilemmas. They are taking a lot of Syrian refugees
971
Syria
Health and Social Care Act 2008
[28 MAY 2012]
over the border. There are fears that the violence could
spread across the frontiers. There has been talk about
the possibility of buffer zones on Syrian soil to prevent
the situation getting worse. We are working closely
with all our allies, and certainly with a great nation
such as Turkey, to ensure that we act responsibly,
effectively and, if possible, together.
Lord Richard: My Lords, to clarify the position,
will the Minister say that the Government are satisfied,
first, that a massacre took place; secondly, that the
deaths that occurred in that massacre were of the
order expressed in the press; and, thirdly, that those
deaths were caused by Syrian government forces with
the connivance or indeed at the orders of the Government
in Damascus?
Lord Howell of Guildford: Frankly, the word “satisfied”
is difficult to put into this context; it is very difficult to
be satisfied precisely. General Robert Mood, the head
of the UN mission, has said that the situation and the
circumstances are still unclear. What is almost certain,
and what we are ready to accept, is that horrific
killings took place. There is clear and incontrovertible
evidence that dreadful things were done. Children
were slaughtered, perhaps by bombing and artillery
fire but also by shots in the head, throat-cutting and
other horrors. One has to analyse who on this planet
can be so uncivilised and evil in intent to do these
terrible things. We cannot yet be satisfied that the
situation is clear; if I said that we were, I would not be
believed.
972
Draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and
Investigation Measures Bill
Motion to Agree
3.18 pm
Moved By Lord Strathclyde
That it is expedient that a joint committee of
Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and
report on the draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention
and Investigation Measures Bill presented to both
Houses on 1 September 2011 (Cm 8166) and that
the committee should report on the draft Bill by
9 November.
Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.
Draft Communications Data Bill
Motion to Agree
Moved By Lord Strathclyde
That it is expedient that a joint committee of
Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and
report on any draft Communications Data Bill
presented to both Houses in the course of this
Session and that the committee should report on
any draft Bill by 30 November.
Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.
Police (Collaboration: Specified Function)
Order 2012
Justice and Security Bill [HL]
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary
Class Drug) Order 2012
First Reading
Motion to Approve
3.17 pm
A Bill to provide for oversight of the Security Service,
the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government
Communications Headquarters and other activities relating
to intelligence or security matters; to provide for closed
material procedure in relation to certain civil proceedings;
to prevent the making of certain court orders for the
disclosure of sensitive information and for connected
purposes.
The Bill was introduced by Lord Wallace of Tankerness,
read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Moved By Lord Henley
That the draft orders laid before the House on
27 March and 3 April be approved.
Relevant documents: 44th Report from the Joint
Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in
Grand Committee on 22 May
Motion agreed.
Greater London Authority Act 1999
(Amendment) Order 2012
Parliamentary Privilege
Health and Social Care Act 2008
(Regulated Activities) (Amendment)
Regulations 2012
Motion to Agree
Motion to Approve
Moved By Lord Strathclyde
That it is expedient that a joint committee of
Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and
report on the Green Paper on Parliamentary Privilege
presented to both Houses on 26 April (Cm 8318)
and that the committee should report by 31 January
2013.
Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.
3.19 pm
Moved By Earl Howe
That the draft order and regulations laid before
the House on 19 March and 27 March be approved.
Relevant documents: 44th Report from the Joint
Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in
Grand Committee on 22 May
Motion agreed.
Automatic Enrolment Order 2012
973
[LORDS]
Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger
and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order
2012
Motion to Approve
Moved By Lord Freud
That the draft order laid before the House on
26 March be approved.
Relevant documents: 44th Report from the Joint
Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in
Grand Committee on 22 May
Motion agreed.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Second Reading
3.20 pm
Moved by Lord Henley
That the Bill be read a second time.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
My Lords, the Crime and Courts Bill represents the
next stage of our reform of the justice system. Last
Session, we legislated to strengthen public accountability
of local policing by introducing directly elected police
and crime commissioners and by bringing forward
reforms to reduce reoffending and put the legal aid
system on a sustainable path. However, we need to do
more to protect the public and to improve further the
efficiency, responsiveness and transparency of the justice
system. This Bill is directed to those ends.
Part 1 will establish the National Crime Agency.
Organised crime costs this country between £20 billion
and £40 billion a year. It manifests itself in street
corner drug dealing, in the trafficking of men and
women forced into modern-day bonded servitude or
prostitution, in the online sharing of horrific images
of sexually abused children and in cyber-enabled scams
that deprive people of their life savings. With some
7,000 organised crime groups operating in this country,
we need a more effective response if we are to tackle
the human misery they inflict.
The question—why do we need a new agency when
the Serious Organised Crime Agency has only been
operating for six years?—has quite rightly been posed.
I pay tribute to all those working in SOCA. They have
had many successes and have earned a high reputation
in their dealings with overseas law enforcement agencies,
but the threat posed by serious and organised crime is
changing and our response needs to adapt and evolve
if we are to counter the threat effectively.
The National Crime Agency will have a wider remit
to tackle serious and organised crime at the borders,
fight fraud and cybercrime and protect children from
sexual exploitation. For the first time, the agency will
produce a single, authoritative intelligence picture on
organised criminal gangs and their activities that will
provide the basis for a co-ordinated national response.
Working in collaboration with other law enforcement
agencies, the National Crime Agency will prioritise
resources and ensure a joined-up approach to the
activities undertaken at the local, national and
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
974
international level to disrupt organised crime gangs
and bring their members to justice.
The National Crime Agency’s relationship with
police forces and others will be based on a partnership,
with the mutual exchanges of information and the
provision of two-way operational support. Importantly,
however, the Bill provides that the director-general
should, in exceptional circumstances, be able to direct
police forces in England and Wales to undertake a
specific task, for example to take action against a
particular criminal gang based in the force area.
I fully expect that this power will be rarely used, but
it is a necessary back-stop to underpin the strategic
policing requirement that supports chief officers and
police and crime commissioners in effectively balancing
local and national priorities.
In addition to its core crime reduction and criminal
intelligence functions, Clause 2 enables the Home Secretary
to confer counterterrorism functions on the National
Crime Agency. With the creation of this powerful new
crime-fighting agency, it is sensible that we build in
flexibility to confer on the NCA counterterrorism
functions if, in the future, there is a compelling case
for doing so. This is not the time for a review of
counterterrorism policing. For the present, we need to
focus on delivering a safe and secure Olympics and on
firmly establishing the National Crime Agency in fact
as well as in law. I recognise that any decision in this
area should be subject to particularly careful consultation
and scrutiny, and that is why we have made this
order-making power subject to the super-affirmative
procedure.
The National Crime Agency will be headed by a
director-general,operationallyindependentbutaccountable
to the Home Secretary and, through her, to Parliament.
The director-general will first and foremost be an
operational crime-fighter, and for that reason the Bill
provides a mechanism for the director-general to be
vested with operational powers.
Given the breadth of the agency’s remit, including
its central role in leading the operational response to
serious immigration crime and preventing the importation
of drugs and firearms, the director-general and NCA
officers will in appropriate cases need to be able to
exercise the full suite of powers of a police, immigration
and customs officer. In all cases, this will be subject to
proper training.
As a law enforcement organisation operating 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, it is essential that the agency
remains operationally effective at all times. We cannot
be faced with a situation in which public safety is put
at risk by operational NCA officers taking industrial
action. NCA officers who are designated with operational
powers will therefore be precluded from taking strike
action in the same way as police officers are. Our
preference is that we can reach a voluntary no-strike
agreement with the NCA staff and their representatives,
and in that event the statutory no-strike provisions
can be put into abeyance.
The provisions in Part 2 will further our reforms of
the courts and tribunals system so that it is more
responsive to the needs of users, more transparent to
the public in how it operates, more representative of
975
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
the communities it services and more efficient and
effective in its use of resources.
Responsiveness to users is the driving force behind
the creation of the single county court and the single
family court. The current structure of 170 geographically
and legally separate county courts, some dealing only
with routine civil cases while others also handle more
complex areas of the civil law, is both confusing to
litigants and an inefficient use of resources. There is a
similar confusing set of arrangements for dealing with
family proceedings, with different types of cases being
dealt with in the High Court, county courts and
magistrates’ courts.
County court users will be able to issue their claim
at the court that best meets their needs. That may still
be their local court, but equally it could be the nearest
to where they work or where waiting times are significantly
shorter. It will enable the court estate and the available
judicial resources to be utilised more efficiently to
facilitate the quicker resolution of cases across the
board.
Similarly, the creation of the single family court will
make it easier for users to navigate their way through
the system, and enable cases to be allocated to the
appropriate level of judiciary without the need to
transfer proceedings to a different level of court, thereby
reducing costs and delays.
Our proposals to introduce greater flexibility in the
deployment of members of the judiciary seek to secure
a similar outcome in improved efficiency. The deployment
of the judiciary is properly a matter for the Lord Chief
Justice and the senior president of tribunals. The Bill
does not change that, but it affords them greater
flexibility by expanding the list of judicial office holders
who are capable of sitting in each court or tribunal.
Such flexibility will enable the available pool of judges
to be used to best effect, thereby further contributing
to the quicker resolution of cases.
Our judiciary has a worldwide reputation for integrity
and independence. This, in no small measure, is down
to the process by which judges are appointed. That
process was the subject of significant overhaul with
the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act and the
creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission.
Those reforms have led to increased public confidence
in the appointments process by making it more
independent and transparent, but after six years of
operation it is right that we take stock of the new
regime to see where we can make further improvements.
One such area relates to judicial diversity. Progress
has undoubtedly been made over the past decade. Ten
years ago, little over 10% of judges were women and
around 2% were from a black or other minority ethnic
background. Today those figures are 22% and 5%
respectively. That is welcome progress, but we need to
do better to ensure that the judiciary fully reflects the
communities that it serves.
Of course, further legislation on its own is not the
answer, but there are some useful measures that we can
and should take to promote greater diversity. In particular,
the Bill will facilitate greater opportunities for part-time
working at the most senior levels of the judiciary by
providing for the statutory limits on the number of
High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
976
judges to be expressed in full-time equivalents. We are
also providing, where two candidates are equally
meritorious, that it will be possible to select the candidate
from an underrepresented group.
We are also taking the opportunity to achieve a
better balance between executive, judicial and independent
responsibilities in the appointments process. The Lord
Chancellor has a legitimate role to play in ensuring the
efficiency, effectiveness and integrity of the appointments
process as a whole. This does not mean that the Lord
Chancellor needs to have a hand in all judicial
appointments. Accordingly, the Bill transfers to the
Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals
the Lord Chancellor’s responsibilities for the appointment
of some judges below the High Court.
However, when it comes to the appointments of the
president of the Supreme Court and the Lord Chief
Justice, we believe it is right that the Lord Chancellor
should have a meaningful role in the process, given
that the holders of both these offices have a significant
influence on the administration of justice. We do not
consider that this change will politicise these appointments.
They will continue to be made solely on merit, and the
Lord Chancellor will be one among five or more on a
selection panel. Furthermore, where he sits on the
panel, the Lord Chancellor will lose his current right
to reject the panel’s recommendation.
Fines are the most common form of sentence imposed
in the criminal courts, accounting for nearly two-thirds
of all sentences. As with other non-custodial sentences,
the public must have confidence in this form of disposal.
Significant improvements have been made in the
enforcement of fines in recent years, but we need to do
more. This is why the Bill provides that, where an
offender defaults on the payment of a fine, the additional
collection costs fall to the offender rather than to the
taxpayer, thereby providing an added incentive to
offenders to pay their fines on time.
As I have indicated, it is vital that the law-abiding
public should have confidence in all non-custodial
sentences. While there are some good examples of
effective community sentences that reduce reoffending,
all too often such sentences fail to command public
confidence as a punishment. That is why we are consulting
on proposals to improve the effectiveness of community
disposals, including ways of ensuring that there is a
clear punitive element in every community order. The
current consultation runs to 22 June. Subject to
the outcome of that consultation, I give notice to the
House that the Government will bring forward
amendments to the Bill in Committee as part of the
next stage of our sentencing reforms.
Lastly, this part also contains an important provision
that will help to increase public understanding of the
justice system. Most members of the public have no
direct personal experience of what goes on inside a
courtroom. Their perceptions will be derived from TV
dramas that more often than not give a distorted view
of reality. Allowing the broadcasting of judicial
proceedings will help to demystify the workings of the
justice system and increase public confidence. Of course,
there is a balance to be struck between increased
transparency and the safeguarding of the proper
administration of justice. To this end, we want to start
977
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD HENLEY]
by allowing the broadcasting of advocates’ arguments
and judgments in the Court of Appeal before extending
this to sentencing remarks in the Crown Court. However,
I can assure the House that there is no question of
victims, witnesses, defendants or jurors being filmed.
Part 3 of this Bill makes two changes to the immigration
appeals system. First, we are removing the full right of
appeal against the refusal of a visa to visit family
members in the United Kingdom. No other category
of visit visa attracts a full right of appeal, and in the
Government’s view it is a disproportionate use of
taxpayers’ money. Moreover, the family visit visa appeal
right no longer serves its intended purpose. It is very
expensive to administer, costing around £29 million a
year, and has lengthy processing times, taking up to
eight months to conclude an appeal. In many cases
appeals are successful because new evidence has been
submitted by the applicant. If an applicant has new
evidence in support of a visa application, we believe
that the proper course is to submit a fresh application
and not to seek a new decision through the appeals
system.
Part 3 also removes the in-country right of appeal
in cases where existing leave has been cancelled in line
with a decision to exclude a person from the United
Kingdom on the grounds that their presence is not
conducive to the public good. A decision to exclude a
person on such grounds is taken personally by the
Home Secretary on the basis that their presence in this
country presents a risk to national security or public
safety. It is anomalous that in such cases the excluded
person should be able to enter, and remain in, this
country pending the outcome of an appeal against the
cancellation of their leave. The current arrangements
undermine the intended effect of the exclusion decision,
and the Bill will rectify this. We are not removing this
appeal right, but in future it will be exercisable from
outside the country.
Finally, Clause 27 introduces a new, specific offence
of drug driving. Figures for 2010 identified impairment
by drugs as a contributory factor in nearly 1,100 road
casualties, including some 50 deaths. We also know
from studies that the extent of the road casualty
problem is a lot greater than these reported statistics
suggest. We need to do more to tackle this scourge and
to protect road users. There is already an offence of
driving while being unfit through drugs, but there are
few convictions because of the requirement to prove
impairment. The new offence is modelled on the analogous
drink-driving offence, where it is not necessary to
prove impairment but simply that the driver had a
concentration of alcohol in his or her body above the
prescribed limit.
A person will be guilty of the new drug-driving
offence if found to have in his or her body a concentration
of a specified controlled drug in excess of the specified
limit for that drug. The maximum penalty will be the
same as for the analogous drink-driving offence: namely,
in the case of a person driving or attempting to drive a
vehicle, six months’ imprisonment or a £5,000 fine, or
both, and disqualification from driving for at least
12 months. The new offence will, we believe, make a
significant contribution to road safety and is one that
has been widely welcomed by road safety campaigners.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
978
The objectives underpinning this Bill are, I think, ones
that the whole House can support. The provisions
themselves are equally deserving of your Lordships’
support, and I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to
move.
3.37 pm
Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I am grateful
to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. I have
listened carefully to his comments and there is much in
the Bill that we can support in principle. It is the
Government’s flagship crime Bill, brought to your
Lordships’ House as one of the early Bills of the
Government’s second Session, and yet it is both
disappointing and deficient. We are now seeing increases
in crimes, including a 13% increase in personal acquisitive
crime, the cutting of 16,000 police from our streets
and budget cuts of 20% when Her Majesty’s Inspectorate
of Constabulary and the Audit Commission have both
warned that cuts of over 12% were unsustainable and
would lead to a worse service. Here we have a Bill that,
as its top headline, changes the architecture of how we
tackle serious and organised crime. It is not enough
and is a lost opportunity to tackle the issues that the
public tell us hurt them most. I have to say to the
Government that making such major changes at a
time of such deep and unprecedented financial cuts
increases the risks in making those changes.
We broadly welcome the creation of a National
Crime Agency but there are significant points of detail
that the Bill either fails to address or raises issues that
give cause for concern. I wonder whether the Bill has
been introduced before it is really ready and before the
detail has been worked out by the Government. The
Government have had two years to work out the detail
of their proposals but have brought forward a Bill
which may be worthy in principle but lacks the detail
that underpins those principles. I will give two examples
of that. The Bill is in three parts. The whole of Part 1
establishes the National Crime Agency, which is essentially
a reorganisation of existing organisations established
by the Labour Government, with a few changes. The
Bill makes provision for the National Crime Agency
framework document which will deal, to quote from
Schedule 2,
“with ways in which the NCA is to operate, including … ways in
which … functions are to be exercised ... and … ways in which the
NCA is to be administered (including governance and finances of
the NCA)”.
Basically, that is everything it does and how it will be
done. However, that framework document, which is
the basis for the whole operation of the NCA, will not
be available until the Report stage in your Lordships’
House. It will not even be available for our deliberations
in Committee. Why? It is not good enough that we will
not have this information for our Committee stage.
The second example is the community sentencing
in Clause 23. Clause 23 states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision
for, or in connection with, dealing non-custodially with offenders
aged 18 or over”.
Again, that is wholly inadequate. Why is there no
further information or detail? It is because the Government
have not yet completed their consultation on this
matter, so this clause cannot be taken sequentially, but
979
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
at some later late, after the Summer Recess, when the
Government will have to table amendments to the Bill.
Despite the fact that the consultation ends in June,
those amendments will not be available to your Lordships’
House before the Summer Recess starts. I have to say
to the Minister that this is a bad start to a Government
flagship Bill.
After two years in Government it is hard to understand
why this information has not been made available to
your Lordships’ House. I suspect that the timing of
the Bill has been partially driven by clauses within it
that provide for the abolition of the National Police
Improvement Agency, when its dismantling is already
taking place before the legislative changes have been
made. I hope that Ministers will take these concerns
on board and look at ways in which they can improve
this situation. We would be happy to discuss these
issues further with them. However, as I have said,
there is much in the principle of the Bill that we can
support, but there are significant points of detail that
we will want to probe further in Committee.
First, I will raise the issue of governance and
accountability of the NCA. Obviously, we want the
NCA to be successful. After all, the Labour Government
set up the bodies that will comprise the bulk of its
work: the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Child
Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and the
National Police Improvement Agency. However, there
is a lack of clarity in some areas and there are also
significant changes that require explanation and some
justification from the Government.
What we know of the governance issues, given that
we do not have the framework document, is weak. The
legislation provides that the police and crime
commissioners can be consulted, but do not have to be
consulted, in setting the strategic priorities of the
NCA and the NCA’s annual plan. It is not clear what
that will mean in practice and what regard, or what
weight, the director-general of the NCA or the Secretary
of State will place on the collective opinions of the
PCCs.
The PCCs have to ensure that the chief constable
co-operates with the NCA. But what will happen
when the NCA priorities conflict with the PCC plans,
and PCCs have not had the opportunity to make a
contribution or feed into the strategic priorities of the
NCA, or if they have fed information in and it has not
been taken on board? How will any such conflict be
addressed and resolved?
The Government have made it clear, through the
Policing Protocol Order 2011 and the Police Reform
and Social Responsibility Act 2011, that the new
PCCs are responsible “for the totality of policing” in
their area, that they are publicly accountable, and that
they have the power to discipline and even remove a
chief constable from office. I can understand why it
could be desirable, in certain circumstances, for the
NCA to have the power of direction over chief constables.
However, it is a major and significant change, and the
Government have to explain why it is necessary and in
what circumstances.
I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say
in his comments, and he referred to this being used in
extreme or exceptional cases and only within the police
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
980
force area. I have to say to him that that is not in the
legislation. Although Clause 6 provides criteria, the two
that he gave in his speech today are not in the legislation.
That shows why we need greater clarity as to how the
power of direction sits with the statutory responsibilities
of chief constables and the police and crime
commissioners.
Until now, the Government have shouted from the
roof tops about the power and importance of localism.
We even had a Localism Bill, which your Lordships
discussed in the previous Session. However, this new
power of direction is a distinct and deliberate step
away and departure from that principle. I am still very
unclear how this will work in practice. I am not
convinced that the legislation is adequate to deal with
the competing pressures and competing accountabilities
between the centre—the National Crime Agency—and
the local—the police and crime commissioners and
the chief constables. The Government have a duty to
ensure that this legislation does not increase the risk of
unnecessary conflict because of a failure properly to
define accountability and roles, including that of the
PCCs that they have introduced.
I should also like to address the issue of the Child
Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. CEOP is
highly regarded and highly successful. Ministers will
be aware of the concerns that absorbing CEOP, first,
into the Serious and Organised Crime Agency and
then into the NCA, could dilute its effectiveness, which
led to the resignation of the CEOP chief executive. His
fear was that CEOP staff could be drawn away from
child protection work and deployed in other areas of
policing activity, possibly because of shortages of
resources or staff or a perceived emergency in another
area of policing. There was also a related concern
about how the pioneering multi-agency approach that
CEOP had developed, bringing in valuable assistance,
including funding, from private sector bodies and
children’s charities, might be jeopardised.
When this was first announced, the Home Secretary
and Ministers expressed strong support for CEOP and
reassured those raising concerns that this would enhance
rather than dilute that work. Those assurances were
widely and gratefully accepted. In Committee, it would
be useful to examine whether the Government’s view
has moved on in any way since CEOP has been part of
SOCA and also look at whether CEOP has maintained
the high level of skills and expertise that have made it
so highly effective and regarded. It could also be
helpful to look at the wider responsibilities related to
missing persons and human trafficking.
On the abolition of the National Police Improvement
Agency, to which I referred a few moments ago, again
the agency is highly regarded and undertook a whole
range of functions, some of which have taken a long
time to develop and get right. Given that range, there
is logic in bringing some of them into the National
Crime Agency, alongside SOCA and CEOP. I confess
that I am not yet entirely clear how all the different
functions of the NPIA will be carried out under the
new arrangements. It would be helpful if a complete
analysis of this was provided to your Lordships.
Understandably, we will seek some clarifications and
assurances in Committee to ascertain exactly what
Ministers are seeking to achieve and whether total
981
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[BARONESS SMITH OF BASILDON]
abolition of the NPIA is the right way to do that. We
will want to probe two areas further with the Minister:
the role and funding of the police professional body,
and the new police information and communication
technology company that is being set up.
I want also to raise the overarching concerns about
funding, staffing and skills. Ministers have provided
an indication of funding and have previously said that
organisations coming into the NCA will bring their
funding with them. However, that is the funding after
the spending review and there is no reference to funding
the new responsibilities and duties of the NCA. On
skills, I have already mentioned the concerns around
CEOP as an example that some expertise within the
agency could be diluted. We want the NCA to be
successful and able to bring together and co-ordinate
intelligence to make tackling serious and organised
crime more effective. We will look at this in more
detail to seek assurances that the funding is adequate
for the tasks and additional responsibilities. We will
also look for assurances that the new body will retain
the skills, expertise and experience of specialist staff
and ensure that it is not spread too thinly across
different areas.
If Ministers can help on this point, I would also like
information about the role of volunteers in the NCA,
particularly as, following the Olympics, the Secretary
of State will have the power to bring terrorism
investigations into the NCA. If, as expected and as the
Minister indicated, the Government bring forward
such legislation, a number of issues will need to be
addressed. The Minister acknowledged that in
his comments. There is an understandable fear and
concern that any agency that includes terrorism within
its brief could find itself diverting resources from
other areas to finance that work. The Government will
have to consider very carefully how this would be
managed if they want to pursue that.
My final point on Part 1 is about freedom of
information. As with its main predecessor body, SOCA,
the NCA will be exempt from freedom of information
legislation. However, the additional functions taken
on from the NPIA and the UK Borders Agency were
not previously exempt from FOI. This is a significant
extension of the exemption, for which I am sure the
Government will be able provide proper justification
and explanation.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with the court system and
judicial appointments. It probably raises fewer concerns
and is less likely to attract discussion outside the legal
profession which deals with these issues and is well
represented in your Lordships’ House, including by
my noble friend Lord Beecham. I have already expressed
the concerns about Clause 23 on community sentences.
However, there are other issues that we will want to
probe further and seek reassurances on. I look forward
to hearing from the expertise on these issues in your
Lordships’ House. My noble friend Lord Beecham
will say more about these issues when he winds up for
us at the end of the debate.
I turn briefly to Part 3 of the Bill. Clauses 24 to
26 deal with immigration. I want to say something
specifically about Clause 24, which, as the Minister
indicated, removes the full appeal rights in family visit
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
982
cases. I listened carefully to the Minister’s explanation
that there are many more appeals than anticipated and
63% of the appeals that the Government lose are
because new evidence is brought at appeal stage. However,
there are other factors that will need to be taken into
consideration, including the reasons why 37% of appeals
against the Government succeed. Ministers have made
the case that the new process is both quicker and
cheaper, but it denies the visitor the opportunity to
challenge a wrong decision and for representations in
support of the applicant to be made.
In 2011, the Chief Inspector of the then UK Border
Agency looked at entry clearance decisions where
there is currently no full right of appeal; that is, those
decisions that are currently subject to the limitations
that are sought in this Bill for family visit decisions. In
33% of the 1,500 cases he looked at, the entry clearance
officer had not properly considered the evidence. The
Government must prioritise better decision-making
on first-round applications. It is unfair to demand that
applicants make a fresh application as an alternative
to an appeal if so many applications are turned down
for reasons that are no fault of the individual.
The other issue in Part 3 is drug-driving. This is a
very important area, as the Minister indicated. It has
our support in principle, but this is, as he has
acknowledged, a complex and difficult area to get
right. The proposal is to look at this issue in the same
way as drink-driving in that a certain level of drugs
would be an offence even if there were no problems
detected with driving. I was struck by and interested in
the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher,
in a speech on the Queen’s Speech just a couple of
weeks ago, about the complexities of this area. Clearly
we will want to debate this further and seek assurances
from the Minister about how this could be put into
practice in an effective way.
In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, this is a
disappointing Bill, light on detail and confused in
places, but I am confident that it will benefit from the
scrutiny and advice of your Lordships’ House. I hope
that the Government will be willing to listen and take
on board comments and amendments made during
the progress of the Bill to ensure that we fully address
these issues in order that we may have an effective
crime-fighting and justice system.
3.52 pm
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, yesterday I was
asked—as we are so often—how we inform ourselves
when we have to consider government proposals. I
explained the range of sources, including interest groups
and organisations which brief us—lobby, in the best
sense of the term. On that basis, although it is obviously
not the only test, this Bill presents us with some issues
to probe and some where the probe may become a
challenge. It gives us the opportunity to seek to deal
with issues which are not included—as usual—or where
the flesh is not yet on the bones and the bones as well
as the flesh will be significant. There will also be a lot
that is genuinely interesting. The Bill has provoked
comparatively little opposition, but lest Ministers think
that this means a quiet life, I also explained to my
questioner that Members also bring their own experience,
expertise, curiosity and judgment.
983
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
My questions about Part 1, on the National Crime
Agency, come from curiosity as much as anything, and
from a concern that, however much one supports a
proposition—especially if one supports it—one needs
to be satisfied that it will work well. I am particularly
interested in the governance of the NCA, its relationship
with other players in the policing landscape, and its
powers. From what I have heard over the past few
weeks and months, it seems that there has been much
good will so far in the work to establish the NCA.
However, the tasking arrangements, the powers of the
NCA to impose requirements on police forces and
other agencies to undertake specific activity, need
clear and probably detailed structure. It is often easier
to find consensus over a principle than the particular
detail.
We spent a lot of time in this Chamber and elsewhere
in the last Session discussing chief constables’ operational
independence when dealing with the Police Reform
and Social Responsibility Act. It seems to me that
there are similar issues of accountability, transparency
and cost, as well as the possibility of clashes over
priorities and how to do things as between the NCA
and police forces.
The underlying rationale of the reorganisation is
that crime does not come neatly pigeonholed and
that organised crime of all sorts impacts at all levels—
international, national and local. Therefore, it is
understandable that there are concerns about the role of
police and crime commissioners, who have responsibility
for the totality of policing in their area. These governance
issues need a clear structure.
There is obvious concern—and the noble Baroness
mentioned this—that CEOP in particular should not
be fettered by being brought into a new agency. The
Government have said that it will retain its operational
independence and that that phrase is not just a formula.
The Government acknowledge CEOP’s innovative
partnerships and mixed economy of staff from different
disciplines. However, the culture in our policing service
is very strong, so determination will be needed to
preserve CEOP’s identity. The hope must be that the
imagination that CEOP has shown is far from being
muzzled but is a source of inspiration beyond that
command. How its governance, retaining external partners,
can be effective is bound to be an issue, as is how the
NCA as a whole sets its priorities.
CEOP is, in the jargon, a brand and so is SOCA.
Those who have worked on drugs issues, in particular,
tell of SOCA’s worldwide reputation—I have heard
Colombia mentioned—and that is among the good
guys, so presumably it has quite a reputation among
the bad guys too. That must be preserved.
I can understand the links between SOCA and
economic crime but I confess that I am not hugely
clear about the remit of the Economic Crime
Command—or, rather, in this context how it will
operate. Does ensuring a coherent approach to economic
crime across a range of agencies need a separate
command? Why is the Economic Crime Co-ordination
Board to remain, and why is the National Fraud
Intelligence Bureau to be left with the City of London
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
984
Police? Is it—or am I too much of a cynic?—that in
the latter case, at any rate, the turf war was just too
difficult?
I would certainly go along with the argument,
which I have heard deployed over the police—that if
something is working well it is best not to disturb it.
However, I am not sure how logical that is in this
particular context. I am puzzled, too, about why the
National Cyber Crime Unit is not a command. What
is the significance of the structural difference?
I turn from the largest part of the Bill—although of
course the word count and the length of the schedules
can be misleading—to the shortest, at any rate until
Clause 23 is replaced. I am delighted at the prospect of
a serious concentration on non-custodial sentences.
They are often much more effective, by which I mean
that they reduce reoffending, address an individual’s
underlying addiction or mental health problems, and
do not cause collateral damage to the offender’s family
or indeed to the offender, and of course they are much
less expensive. Therefore, there are excellent economic
and social reasons for having them.
I had not known that there is increasing recognition
of the effectiveness of community sentencing. The
Prison Reform Trust, among others, reports this. I add
to that Peter Oborne’s support in the recent Community
or Custody report under the auspices of Make Justice
Work. I question whether there is such a lack of
confidence in community sentences as is feared. Peter
Oborne was brave—and, I think, accurate—in saying
that political correspondents,
“report law and order issues in a false and often misleading way”,
with false distinctions between what is “tough” on
crime and what is “weak”.
Although I am very conscious of the knowledge
and expertise of all the speakers who will follow, I
shall express one area of concern and perhaps tread
on some toes. My concern is how the proposed punitive
element may play out, and whether extended curfews
and complex restrictions will themselves lead to a
breach of orders with the imposition of sanctions—
imprisonment—that will undo all the good. Community
sentences must not be a soft option. That is important
for victims as well. Restorative justice is not a soft
option for the offender or the victim but it is deserving
of development. We must all have had the experience
of suddenly—shockingly—seeing something through
another person’s eyes. One thing that a community
sentence, or any sentence, is not about is humiliation.
It is footage of defendants in the United States in
shackles that prompts both that comment and my
caution about having cameras in court. I said in our
debate a couple of weeks ago that the sky had not
fallen as a result of the broadcasting of Parliament.
However, that does not mean that I am an enthusiast
for unrestricted filming in court. I heard what the
Minister said today, as he has on previous occasions.
Probably what is most important is that the judiciary
retains control.
One provision that is not in the Bill—I do not know
whether we can squeeze it past the Long Title—is
reform of the Public Order Act. Do I have a right not
to be insulted? I do not believe so. More importantly,
if you insult me, should the weight of the criminal law
985
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[BARONESS HAMWEE]
be brought to bear? Insult is so subjective. Section 5 of
the Public Order Act is, in my view, bad law. It should
go, and so should the term “insulting” in Section 4A.
Another issue which it may or may not be possible
to edge in past the Long Title is a matter that my
colleagues in the Commons raised—the anomaly
regarding the citizenship of children born overseas to
an unmarried British man. The law changed to confer
British citizenship on such children born after 2006, as
the use of DNA progressed, but not for those before
born before that date. However, that issue would not
command the time that we will certainly give to the
immigration issues raised in the Bill. I doubt that the
powers of immigration officers will pass this House
unchallenged, particularly the investigative powers.
As for the provision on family visas, I would simply
observe at this point that if making a fresh application
is better for the applicant—rather than appealing, as
the Government seem to argue—then leave it to the
applicant to choose. What seem to be at issue, at the
heart of all this, are the standards, training and supervision
of the service.
I thought that we might have a year without a new
criminal offence. Driving under the influence of drugs
is, of course, to be condemned. Although our debates
will probe whether objective testing is possible, whether
there is a variable impact on different people, whether
there is more variation with drugs than with alcohol
and how prescribed and over-the-counter drugs—which
almost always seem to have warnings about not driving
or operating machinery—fit in, that does not mean
that we condone drug-driving. What about the new
psychoactive substances, with or without a temporary
ban in place? I note, of course, that the offence of
driving while impaired is not being repealed. There is
quite a lot to investigate there.
I look forward to our debates on the single county
and family courts, given the knowledge that noble
Lords can bring to bear on this issue. My only contribution
on it—my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford will
probably deal with it—is to have enjoyed reading the
impact assessment which describes the policy options
as “do nothing” or “do everything”. I also look forward
to our discussions on diversity in the judiciary. We
have come a long way since my first interview for
articles as a solicitor when, having asked about women
in the firm, I was told, “We are very broad minded. We
have a Nigerian girl working in the basement”.
The most cheering thing I have heard on the proposals
is that provisions for part-time working will be significant,
because of the significant number of women in—or
potentially in—the judiciary who are of an age to
which this will be significant. I am very happy that
that myth in my own thinking has been busted. This is
a Bill on which I will want to attempt only a small
amount of busting of my own.
4.04 pm
Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I hope the House
will forgive me for beginning with Part 2 and then
moving to Part 1. My late brother, Michael Havers,
had a dream in the 1980s of a unified family court
which he discussed many times with me. In 2012, I
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
986
therefore welcome very much the proposal for the
single family court in Part 2 of the Bill and congratulate
the Government on their acceptance of this
recommendation in the Norgrove report.
A single family court, however, is the framework or
the scaffolding, and it will be important to scrutinise
with care the inside of the building and which of the
other Norgrove recommendations—all of which I
support—are taken forward. The single point of entry
will provide a gateway for the direction of cases to
their most appropriate tribunal within the hierarchy of
the family courts. This will give, I assume, the responsibility
for distribution of the family work to judges, district
judges and justices’ clerks. This will also give the
administration of family justice something of the excellent
proposals which the noble and learned Lord, Lord
Woolf, provided in his seminal report on access to
justice in the civil courts in the 1990s.
We would hope, therefore, for greater flexibility in
the deployment of judges, improved performance, and
more efficient and swifter disposal of cases. I must
warn the Government that that desired result may not
be so easy to achieve when spouses, partners and
parents are fighting their emotionally charged family
disputes before judges and magistrates without lawyers,
as there will very likely be greater delays and a great
deal of clogging, particularly before the district judges
and the family magistrates.
A single family court will create the opportunity for
a stronger focus on the child’s best interests, welfare
and also rights; I remind the House that children also
have rights. There is an opportunity for a long-overdue
dialogue between family judges and directors of social
services, both at national and local level, which is very
much supported by the Norgrove report. I encourage
stronger emphasis on judicial training and judicial
case management, and that the training of social
workers include directors of social services who are
not trained as social workers. If judges can be trained—
and they are—so senior social workers, up to and
including directors, can perfectly well be trained too,
particularly when they come from the education field.
All this will be needed to meet the increasingly demanding
work of the family court.
The Magistrates’ Association has a certain concern
that, with the reorganisation of the family court, there
will be a lesser role for the family proceedings court. I
hope that the Minister will give the much needed
reassurance when he responds, as they are a crucial
part of the family justice system. There is also the
requirement for a limitation on the number of days
that a family magistrate is allowed to sit in the family
proceedings court. I recommend, as indeed the Norgrove
report does, that that inhibition be removed, as it
inhibits not only flexibility but the continuity of the
magistrates’ panel hearing repeat hearings from the
same family.
I am delighted by the repeal of media access in the
2010 Act. That is really good news. As far as I could
see, it was absolutely incomprehensible. Even the press
thought it was not going to work. I recommend that
any future legislation on publicity in family courts
should have in mind that children have views and
ought to be consulted. Older children have already
987
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
expressed considerable concern that they might have
to give evidence—or their parents might have to give
evidence—in particularly emotionally charged cases
with the public listening.
I support the flexibility of part-time working for
judges. It will undoubtedly help women to come back
into the judicial process when they have had families.
In 1970, when I was first appointed as a district
judge—in those days, a registrar—such a thing was
inconceivable. However, I wonder a trifle how the
listing officer will deal with a long, complicated care
case or a long criminal trial if the judge sits only three
days a week. The jury may want to sit four or five days
a week. Therefore, there will be certain problems for
listing officers, but in principle the idea is excellent.
I strongly support diversity when—and only when—it
equals merit. It will be very important that women—
particularly those from ethnic minorities—who may
not be able to bear the strain of the judicial process are
not placed in a position where they may find themselves
failing because there has been too much enthusiasm
for diversity and not enough for merit. This is very
important. I have a vivid recollection of a woman
judge many years ago who was a very fine pianist. She
should have remained a pianist.
I find it slightly difficult to understand the advantages
of a single county court. I hope that when the Bill
reaches Committee I will learn a bit more about them.
I turn now to Part 1 and the National Crime
Agency, which I welcome in principle. However, as the
co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on
Human Trafficking and as a trustee of the Human
Trafficking Foundation, I have several concerns. In
responding to a question after the Queen’s Speech, the
Prime Minister talked about repelling modern slavery.
It is not quite so simple, although I commend him for
wishing to do so. He may not be aware that 80% of
those who are trafficked in this country come here
legally and do not know that they are being trafficked
until they are caught up in labour exploitation, debt
bondage or prostitution. For instance, there was a case
in Newton Abbot or Totnes in the West Country of a
girl who came in entirely legitimately expecting to be a
masseuse, having been trained by her mother. She did
not understand that “masseuse” in some areas of this
country does not mean what it meant in eastern Europe.
She found herself in a brothel in Totnes, from which
she was brave enough to escape. Therefore, we cannot
repel them all at the border. I hope that the National
Crime Agency will be able to bring to bear a very
much more sophisticated approach to deal with traffickers
in this shocking but extremely lucrative trade.
I am glad that the Minister referred to trafficking. I
share the concerns of the noble Baronesses, Lady
Hamwee and Lady Smith, about CEOP. It has just
written a letter dated 25 May, which typically I have
left behind in my room here in the building. My
recollection is that it sets out in some detail all the
work that CEOP thinks that it is going to do. There is
not a single word about the trafficking of children,
which is crucial. I am very concerned about it not
being in this two-page letter. Children who are trafficked
must be part of CEOP’s remit. I understood that they
were, so I was very surprised by this omission.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
988
I also want to ask the Minister about the UK
Human Trafficking Centre in Birmingham. Will it be
in the National Crime Agency? If not, who is going to
gather the data? If the data are not going to be
gathered there, what work will the centre be doing? I
visited there and it is doing excellent work so I hope
that it will be encouraged and not just disappear. If it
is not going to be continued, then a national rapporteur
or an effective equivalent mechanism is crucial. I
suggest to the Government that the current equivalent
mechanism is by no means an effective one, by any
objective view. The restructuring of the National Crime
Agency needs to include a dedicated unit with centralised
focus on human trafficking, particularly on the trafficking
of children.
Lastly, I have had some dealings with SOCA personnel
embedded in various British embassies, particularly in
different parts of Europe, and have been very impressed
with the work that it is doing, including work on
human trafficking. I hope it will continue this admirable
work under its new title of the NCA but I would like
to be assured of that. Overall, I welcome Parts 1 and 2
of this Bill.
4.16 pm
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the right
reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham found
himself down to speak both here and in the Grand
Committee. Notwithstanding his character as a Lord
Spiritual, he did not feel that was possible and he also
felt that he had more to contribute in the debate in the
Grand Committee. I therefore have to fill his place in
the sense of taking it, although not in the sense that he
would have fulfilled it at as a Lord Spiritual. I also
wish to take this opportunity to express my gratitude
for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, as a
Minister in the Department of Justice and also as a
spokesman on legal matters in Opposition. I very
much appreciated his support and help and all kinds
of particular qualities that he had. I am delighted his
place has been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham,
with his great experience as a member of the legal
profession, making him well able to understand the
problems that beset it.
I intend to single out one or two items. Immediately
after me the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington,
who convened the Constitution Committee with its
very detailed consideration of judicial appointments,
will speak. I do not, therefore, intend to get too deeply
involved in that position. The noble Baroness will no
doubt raise questions about some aspects of the
recommendations which do not seem to have been
fully reflected in this Bill so far. I want to start by
talking briefly about the television provision in Section 22.
This is not a new problem and during my term of
office it became a very important issue. At that time
the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead,
who was then the Lord President of the Court of
Session in Scotland, issued a practice note as a result
of which the television authorities took a great interest
in televising a number of cases in Scotland—something
of the order of eight altogether. It was pretty obvious
to me that they were interested in setting that up in
places other than Scotland and in due course that
989
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFERN]
interest was manifested in that they prepared a video
with a considerable selection of television films of the
courts in Scotland which was presented to senior
members of the profession in England. It may be that
the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord
Lloyd of Berwick, will remember this. In any case, the
result of these presentations was that the English
profession was not encouraged to go down this road.
There had never been a statutory prohibition in Scotland,
although the courts were pretty cautious about it and,
as I say, while the position opened up a bit at the time,
it did not continue. However, noble Lords may have
seen on television recently the sentencing remarks in a
murder trial made by a Scottish judge who, following
the territorial method of description, is called Lord
Bracadale, after a most beautiful part of the Isle of
Skye. I think that his remarks were broadcast widely
and attracted a good deal of positive attention.
The Government proposals aim to open up the
courts to television on the basis of orders made by the
Lord Chancellor with the approval of the Lord Chief
Justice. I would suggest that, in the vast majority of
cases, the arguments and the decisions of the Court of
Appeal will not attract the immediate interest of our
public, whereas sentencing remarks will attract great
interest. One has only to look at the print and other
media to see that sentencing has a much bigger impact
than arguments in the Court of Appeal. Occasionally,
of course, a judgment from the Court of Appeal,
particularly if it surprises the media, is given a good
deal of attention, but I would venture that it would be
wise to bring forward arrangements for broadcasting
under the proper conditions appropriate to sentencing
remarks instead of leaving them, as it were, to the end,
which I gather from what I have seen so far is the
suggestion.
The other matter I want to mention briefly in
connection with television is that the exposure of the
Houses of Parliament to television does not seem to
have promoted a tremendous increase in the avidity
with which the public enter into politics. I do not
know the reason for that, although I could guess,
and some noble Lords may have the advantage of me
in that.
The next matter I want to mention is one that the
Constitution Committee has certainly considered, and
on this occasion I am going into its area to raise the
issue of diversity. I believe that it is extremely important
that there should be a sufficient amount of diversity
within the judiciary as a whole to make it look reasonably
fair in terms of job opportunities for all sorts of duly
qualified people in the community. I think it is
fundamental not to go down the road that people
must be tried by those who belong to the same community
as them; that would be completely inimical to justice.
On the other hand, diversity in the sense in which I
define it is highly desirable, and I believe that progress
has been made. The statutory recommendation is that
where two candidates are of equal merit, the consideration
of diversity should be allowed to prevail. The occasions
on which two candidates are of absolutely equal merit
are likely to be fairly scarce, but the emphasis put on
diversity in this statutory provision, although it may
not strictly apply all that often, will help those who
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
990
have to make these decisions to give effect to it as a
desirable aim. Therefore, this is to be welcomed. I
agree that it will not happen simply by legislation; a
good deal of work is required. Of course, we are told
that the new system is transparent—I am not sure
what is meant by that because I certainly do not know
exactly who is on the committees and so on—and
transparency is a great thing: you are able to see
through it in a way that you could not do when it was
done by the Lord Chancellor on his own. The system
has created a degree of breadth which the Lord Chancellor
alone could never have attained.
There are one or two other matters I want to
mention. In the clauses dealing with judicial appointments,
paragraph 4 talks about a “non-legally-qualified”member,
which might be a little ambiguous. Of course, it goes
on to define it by saying that if you hold or have held
certain judicial appointments that disqualify you for
the House of Commons, you are not non-legally-qualified,
and if you have ever practised or been qualified as a
lawyer, you are not non-legally-qualified. This helps to
emphasise the distinction between lawyers and judges
that some lawyers are keen to make. I do not intend to
pursue that, but later in the schedule you find that the
Lord Chancellor can define a lay person by order after
consulting the Lord Chief Justice. What is the difference
between a lay person and a non-legally-qualified person,
if any, for the purposes of this appointment?
That is rather an aside. I notice that the Lord
Chancellor is to take responsibility for a good number
of civil appointments. There may be a question over
whether it is any longer appropriate to call him the
head of criminal justice—I think he should be the
“head of justice”, and have thought that for a while.
The other matter I want to mention briefly is the
family court. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady
Butler-Sloss, has said, this has been some time in
coming. It was very much opposed in the 1980s, as I
recollect, and when I was asked to create legislation in
connection with the Children Bill, it seemed an
opportunity to get something done in this area and get
it past the Treasury, which was the obstacle in earlier
times. At that time, the noble and learned Baroness,
Lady Butler-Sloss, had just produced her report on the
situation in the north-east, which in effect recommended
a family court. Of course, I could not go the length of
having what we have now in this Bill, but by amendments
introduced by the Children Act I was able to create a
system in which all the levels were available for family
justice. This Bill does it in a different way. Apparently
mine was good enough to last for 33 years or so—I
hope that this one will last for much longer.
Finally, I think the proposals for the county court
are to do with questions of jurisdiction. The question
I ask is: in what sense is this universal court for the
whole of England a county court? There are a lot of
counties in England.
4.28 pm
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is a
pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. He is
right to predict that I will focus my contribution on
Part 2 of the Bill, specifically those clauses and schedules
that deal with judicial appointments.
991
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said,
the Constitution Committee—which I have the privilege
of chairing for another parliamentary Session—has
just issued a major report on this subject, following a
lengthy inquiry last year that lasted several months.
During that inquiry, we took evidence from a wide
range of serving and retired judges, lawyers, academics,
politicians involved in the process of selection, and the
Judicial Appointments Commission. Over this period,
the committee has also had a very productive dialogue
with the Government, and both the Secretary of State,
Mr Clarke, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, gave
oral evidence to us.
The Government took considerable notice of the
Constitution Committee’s recommendations during
their formal consultation on the Bill and last week
responded in detail to the report, which the Secretary
of State described as a valuable and timely contribution
to the debate. The committee is grateful for this
response and welcomes the fact that so many of our
recommendations appear in the Bill before your Lordships
today.
The essential premise of our report was to ensure
that the judicial appointments process remains
independent, open and transparent—as has been
mentioned already today—and produces a judiciary
that reflects the society it judges. We were concerned
that even in 2011 only 5% of judges were from minority
groups and only 22% were women. The Minister has
rightly said that this is an improvement but we felt that
it needed to go further. Frankly, the judge who inhabits
a courtroom in England and Wales is still stereotypically
a white male from a fairly narrow social background.
The Constitution Committee felt that it was
enormously important to emphasise the need for faster
moves towards greater diversity in future appointments.
Apart from the difference that this would make to the
profession, this is vital to maintain the public’s confidence
in the judiciary. I therefore join other noble Lords who
have spoken this afternoon in very much welcoming
the Government’s decision to seek to introduce flexible
working in the higher courts. As the Minister has said,
the provisions of Schedule 12 make possible for the
first time the appointment of judges at the highest
level—I emphasise, at the highest level—on a part-time,
salaried basis. As the Constitution Committee noted
in its report, the introduction of flexible working of
this nature must help to increase the number of women
in the higher courts, as has happened successfully in
other professions such as medicine, for example. It was
interesting that the chairman of the Judicial Appointments
Commission reflected the views of many of our witnesses
when he told us:
“This is the first profession that I have touched in my working
life where there is not easy access to flexible working arrangements
for senior positions”.
Having it, he said, “would be transformational”. We
have to hope that he is right, in spite of some of the
practical problems that have rightly been raised by the
noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Schedule 12 also introduces the so-called tipping or
tie-breaker provision for judicial appointments to increase
diversity within the judiciary. At present, the tie-breaker
provisions, which are explicit in the Equality Act 2010—we
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
992
must remember that that Act has not always been
uncontroversial—and enable recruiters to prefer
underrepresented candidates when candidates are judged
equal on merit, do not apply to appointments to
judicial office.
We may all agree, as has already been mentioned
this afternoon, that this situation may arise relatively
rarely but the Constitution Committee felt strongly
that, although judicial appointments in England and
Wales must continue to be made on merit, they should
also continue to be based on principles that enable the
adoption of the tie-breaker provision in the equality
legislation. I hope that now the Bill has done this, it
will not only provide a strong legal statement about
the importance of diversity but, more directly, will
lead to changing practice without undermining—I
emphasise this—the essential merit principle.
However, it is disappointing that the Government
have not placed the Lord Chancellor and the Lord
Chief Justice under a statutory duty to have regard to
the need to encourage diversity in the pool of applicants
for judicial posts in the same way as is now required
for the Judicial Appointments Commission. Such a
duty, which the Constitution Committee recommended,
would help to ensure that the Lord Chancellor and the
Lord Chief Justice properly recognise and fulfil their
leadership roles in promoting judicial diversity.
Improvements in diversity will occur only with decisive
and persistent leadership. Although I do not doubt the
commitment of the present holders of these offices, a
statutory duty would ensure a real and lasting commitment
to change in this field. It would also enable those two
senior judges to account for their actions in encouraging
diversity. The Government’s response to this proposal
by the Constitution Committee is sparse in its reasoning
and I suspect that we may return to the question of a
statutory duty to promote diversity later in the Bill.
The Government have also said, again disappointingly,
that they are not minded to relax the operational
restrictions on government-employed lawyers applying
to become judges. I suggest that this is probably an
unnecessary restriction. There is after all a clear public
interest in ensuring that high-quality lawyers are not
discouraged from entering the government service just
because they may now never be able to progress later
to the judiciary. It is also clear from the personnel data
about government lawyers that they are, as a class,
more diverse than other branches of the legal profession,
so it seems logical that opening up their judicial career
prospects would be likely to improve the general diversity
of the judges.
Overall, I hope that the Government will, as their
response to the Select Committee report suggests, give
greater weight to the work of their own judicial diversity
task force. Evidence to us from the previous advisory
panel suggested that some earlier proposals had been
sidelined. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, who I
am glad is speaking today and who chaired the panel
which reported in 2010, told us that,
“considerably greater progress could have been made on most of
what we said”,
and that,
“it did not require huge amounts of money, which has been the
excuse for why some of it has not happened”.
993
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[BARONESS JAY OF PADDINGTON]
Significantly, its proposal to introduce a formal
appraisal system for judges, which the Constitution
Committee also recommends, has not been accepted
by Ministers.
The Bill makes a number of alterations to the
structure of a judicial appointments process. As the
Minister has already said, the Lord Chancellor’s powers
to appoint judges below the level of the High Court
are to be transferred to the Lord Chief Justice. Similarly,
the Lord Chancellor’s role in appointing judicial members
of tribunals is to be transferred to the Senior President
of Tribunals. Both these changes are welcome, as they
will promote the independence of the judiciary from
the Executive and, I suspect, increase public confidence
in the appointments process by more accurately reflecting
the realities of judicial appointments at a lower level. I
also welcome the decision to end the anomalous position
whereby the President of the Supreme Court chairs
the panel which appoints his successor. This was certainly
something that the Constitution Committee felt was
important.
There are other structural changes which are in the
Bill and give cause for concern. In terms of constitutional
principle, the most significant is the decision to allow
the Lord Chancellor to sit as a member of the selection
panels for the Lord Chief Justice and President of the
Supreme Court. I have two concerns about this. First,
in spite of what the Minister said, the inclusion of the
Lord Chancellor on the selection panel risks the
politicisation of the process, which would clearly run
contrary to the principles behind it. Secondly, the
Government propose to balance the inclusion of the Lord
Chancellor on these selection panels with the removal
of his current power to reject the decision of those
panels. It would clearly be damaging for the fairness of
the process if a member of the panel also had a veto
over it. However, it raises the prospect, at least in
theory, of the Lord Chancellor being outvoted on the
panel and thus finding himself faced with a Lord
Chief Justice or President of the Supreme Court with
whom the Executive did not feel able to work. The
Government may need to think again about this proposal,
to which I am sure we will return in Committee.
Finally, I note that the Government have rejected
the Constitution Committee’s suggestion to create a
differential retirement age for judges. We propose 75 for
the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices, and
70 for all the others. The reason behind this proposal
is that we thought that the change would ensure that
while the most senior judges, where proven judicial
quality and experience are at a premium, would continue
to work to the later age, more posts would become
available earlier at the lower levels. The evidence to us
suggested that expanding opportunities in lower tiers
of the judiciary would encourage diversity, particularly
those who did not follow the traditional career paths.
This may well be another area that we return to later
in the Bill.
I am very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to
discuss the detail of the Bill further with the Constitution
Committee before the House begins consideration in
Committee. This once again demonstrates the great
importance of your Lordships’ Select Committees in
scrutinising and trying to improve legislation while a
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
994
Bill is making progress through the House but away
from the debate on the Floor. It is a very important
part of our role as a Select Committee.
As I have already mentioned to the Minister, I
apologise to him and the House as I may not be able to
be here when he gives his wind-up speech. Unfortunately,
I had already agreed to an evening engagement which
I could not postpone at the last minute when the date
of this debate was agreed. Looking at the long list of
very distinguished speakers, I suspect we may not
reach the end of it before I have to leave. However, I
have apologised to the Minister and I apologise again
to the House. I look forward very much to the next
stages of this extremely important Bill.
4.40 pm
Baroness Doocey: My Lords, I broadly welcome the
Bill, but I have some concerns about Part 1. My
greatest concern is how the Bill will affect the battle
against child trafficking and I endorse all the comments
made in this area by other noble Lords.
It is not clear to me where responsibility will sit in
the proposed new set-up or how the NCA will address
the trafficking of children as part of its remit. The
information available suggests that responsibility will
be split between two separate operational commands
of the NCA and child trafficking will not be a primary
duty of either of them. If this assessment is correct,
the Bill will create a very unsatisfactory situation. The
ideal solution would be the establishment of a single,
child-focused operational command within the NCA,
whose specific remit is to deal with all child-related
crime, including all forms of child trafficking and
child exploitation.
I would like now to turn to budgets. The NCA will
have a wider reach than its predecessors, yet it is
proposed that the NCA will be delivered within the
budget of its precursor organisations. This is to be
achieved through effective prioritisation and smarter
use of assets. But the NCA will be a major new
organisation, which will require considerable IT support
and equipment for it to be effective. I have great
difficulty believing that this can be achieved within
existing budgets.
I very much welcome the proposal to establish an
intelligence hub within the NCA, but it will not be
effective unless it is properly resourced, staffed with
real experts, and equipped with state-of-the-art
information technology. Efficient IT must play a key
role in the NCA. However, most existing police IT
systems are incompatible, antiquated and require the
endless keying and rekeying of the same data. Given
that the intelligence hub will be central to the functioning
of the NCA, and that IT will be central to the functioning
of the intelligence hub, it is absolutely essential that IT
systems facilitate easy access to electronic intelligence.
So we need to know how the Government propose to
resolve the issues around the interoperability of the
various IT systems.
The Bill is unclear about the relationship between
the NCA, chief officers and police and crime
commissioners. In particular, the directive powers of
the NCA, especially directed tasking, appear to conflict
with the statutory responsibilities of PCCs for the
995
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
996
totality of policing within their jurisdiction. The Bill
seems to assume that the priorities of PCCs will
automatically be aligned with the directive powers of
the NCA’s director-general. But what happens if the
NCA requests or requires police force A to provide
assistance to police force B just before an election,
when the PCC of force A wants his officers to concentrate
all their energy on local issues in order to get re-elected?
The Government need to provide greater clarity regarding
the interrelationship between the NCA and PCCs and
how conflicts will be resolved.
4.47 pm
The NCA will have considerable powers, so formal
scrutiny, investigations and inspections must be rigorous
and transparent. The NCA will be subject to investigation
by the Independent Police Complaints Commission
and to inspections by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of
Constabulary. The Bill proposes that the IPCC will
treat any wrongdoing in the NCA in the same way that
it treats ordinary police forces. Although the IPCC
may implement any of four modes of investigation, in
practice, in most cases, it opts for supervised investigations,
which effectively means the police force investigating
itself. The IPCC justifies this policy on the grounds of
limited resources.
I also welcome Clause 17, in so far as it favours the
creation of a new, unified county court. Surely, the
explanation for the name rests in the jurisdiction, not
in the fact that the court will be based in individual
counties. I hope that we will not lose the name “county
court”, despite the unification of all county courts.
The NCA will have far greater powers than an
ordinary police force. It therefore follows that any
wrongdoing must be independently investigated, so
that the public can have confidence in the processes
and procedures. Likewise, the proposal that HMIC
will arrive at an agreed framework for inspections with
the NCA is unsatisfactory. There also need to be
unannounced inspections to help maintain public
confidence.
At least some, and perhaps most, NCA officers will
have operational powers, but NCA officers do not
necessarily need to have held operational powers
previously. There is also a proposal to appoint volunteer
officers, similar to special constables. I very much
welcome that, because I think that it will enhance the
agency, but there will be a significant need for training
for both full-time officers and volunteers. This training
will need to be done on a one-to-one basis rather than
by officers sitting in front of a computer, so it will cost
a lot of money. Will the new professional police body
be responsible for organising training for the NCA, or
will training be split between various providers? If the
latter, how will consistency be maintained?
How will the culture and benefits of employees
who come from significantly different backgrounds
be brought together? How will police terms and
conditions be aligned with those of the security
services or Customs and Excise? If one employee has
a larger pension, does it follow that another gets
higher pay? If there are differences in pay and benefits
between NCA employees, that could cause internal
problems, but if the employees are all on similar
benefits, there could be disparities with the organisations
from which they are drawn. That could lead to perverse
incentives at one end of the equation or the other, with
either a glut or a drought of employees with particular
skill sets.
I hope that the Minister can address those concerns
in his response.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, my first impression
on seeing this year’s helping from the Home Office is
one of great relief because it is, at least by recent
comparison, relatively short and uncontroversial. There
is also relief because it contains only one new offence:
driving with drugs in the bloodstream, whether or not
your driving is impaired by the presence of drugs.
That brings drugs into line with existing law on alcohol
and is to be thoroughly welcomed.
I was less certain, I am bound to say, about the
family court, for a reason which I shall explain, but
having listened to the noble and learned Baroness,
Lady Butler-Sloss, I find that I am completely convinced
by her argument. Let me just explain the danger I
foresee. That is that the unified family court may prove
to be a step towards combining the High Court and
the county court generally—in other words, a unified
civil court. That has long been favoured in Whitehall,
but it has long been resisted in the Strand—at least by
some of us. Why? The reason is that it may tend
eventually to diminish the role of the High Court
judge. In my view, the High Court judge is the key to
the whole judicial structure, and if he should come to
be regarded as just another judge, as it were, just
another rung on the judicial ladder—this is certainly
how it looks from the list on page 115 of the Bill—the
structure would indeed be threatened. It would be a
step towards a career judiciary such as they have in
France, which I would greatly regret. In the end, in my
view, it would affect the quality of our highest judiciary.
When the noble Lord replies, I hope that he will at
least reassure me that there is no intention of creating
a unified civil court, at the moment at any rate.
I come to Clause 18 on page 16 and Part 1 of
Schedule 12 on page 167. Section 23(2) of the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 provides as follows:
“The Court consists of 12 judges appointed by Her Majesty”.
Nothing could be clearer than that. There is then a
provision in subsection (3) for that number to be
increased but not reduced. Now we are told that the
court is to consist of,
“the persons appointed as its judges”.
If I may say so, that seems to me a masterly statement
of the obvious. What else could the court consist of
but its judges? As to the number of such judges, we are
told that it is not to exceed 12 full-time equivalent
judges. For the first time in our history we are going to
have part-time judges sitting in our most senior court.
There would seem to be no limit to the number of
part-time judges who might be so appointed. We
could have 24 half-time judges, or a mixture of full-time
judges and part-time judges. I am bound to say that
this is a development I would deeply regret. I wonder
whether the interest in flexible-time working and so on
justifies such a vital change in our most senior court.
997
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD LLOYD OF BERWICK]
Moreover, why is there a sudden need to provide for
an overall reduction in the number of judges of the
Supreme Court? Back in 2005 we chose the number 12
because that was the number of serving Law Lords. Is
the suggestion that the current judges of the Supreme
Court do not have enough to do and therefore the
number should be reduced to 11 or 10? Surely anybody
who looks at, or even glances at, the weekly law
reports can see that they have more than enough to
do—indeed, they are too busy rather than not busy
enough—yet there is the suggestion that their number
might be reduced.
Is the explanation, perhaps, that we do not have
enough money to pay for 12 judges? That seems even
more inconceivable, yet no other reason is given in the
Explanatory Notes for the need now to reduce the
number. Indeed, the extraordinary provision in
Schedule 12 says that there is a problem about having
“exactly 12” Supreme Court judges, almost as if we
could afford 11 and a half judges but not 12. I am
bewildered by the whole of this part of the Bill, and I
hope that we will have an explanation and that it will
be fully explored in Committee.
I turn to diversity, which is covered by Part 2 of
Schedule 12. How we can get greater diversity among
our judges, particularly in our higher courts, has
been a problem for as long as I can remember. My
recollection is that when we considered these
matters in 2004 in the Select Committee, we spent
more time on diversity than on any other single
issue. Everybody agrees that we should have more
diversity and that selection should be on merit. It is
very easy to say that. Then along comes Sir Colin
Campbell and others who, I remember, argued in
2004 that merit does not mean what one thinks—it is
just a threshold. Once one passes the threshold you
can take all these other matters into account, including
diversity. One finds exactly the same argument advanced
before the Constitution Committee by Professor Cheryl
Thomas, at paragraph 95 of its report. In 2004, we
rejected that argument out of hand. That is why one
finds “solely on merit” in Section 63(2) of the existing
Act, which entirely meets that argument whenever it is
to be advanced. I find myself therefore entirely in
agreement with paragraph 97 of the Constitution
Committee report—I am glad that it said what is in
that paragraph—which also said that “solely” should
mean what it says.
However, the Government now come along with
the bright idea that two candidates could be exactly
equal in merit. What then? Does that give us a kind of
loophole in which we can aim for diversity? I remember
the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, being asked in
2005 what would happen if two candidates for the
High Court were of exactly equal merit. She laughed
and simply brushed it aside, saying that if ever that
time were to come at least she would not have to
decide it. In truth, it is not a problem at all because, at
any rate for the higher courts, it is not possible to
imagine that two candidates in real life will be exactly
equal. I therefore find myself in entire agreement with
the views expressed in the Constitution Committee by
the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and by the noble
and learned Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Judge. It is
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
998
simply not a way through; indeed, it is slightly worse
than that. Suppose that one was a black judge who
had been appointed to the Supreme Court—
Lord Lea of Crondall: I have been following the
noble and learned Lord most carefully and apologise
for intruding on this discussion among the experts in
the field. I find the logic of what he has just said
impeccable but is he happy that 80% of judges went to
public schools, which represent 7% of the population
of this country? He can fob it off on to somebody else
but is he happy about that?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Of course I am not happy. I
am as unhappy as anybody in this Chamber at the
existing situation but we are trying to find a solution.
All I can say to the noble Lord is that things are slowly
getting better. We have put in provisions saying that it
should be the duty of the appointments commission
to search out, by widening the pool in which it looks,
to find candidates who would be the best. I entirely
agree with the noble Lord but I fear it is simply a
question of time until we get a reasonable number of
black people and white ladies among the judges. What
worries me is that the Government are finding some
way of trying to satisfy public opinion by saying that,
in these circumstances, they can choose to make the
Supreme Court more diverse. In fact, it is not going to
happen. It is simply wishing away the problem as if it
did not exist. If I had to describe the answer which
they have given, I would have to say that I find it
thoroughly trite.
4.59 pm
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, first, I apologise to the
House and to the Minister for popping out earlier to
speak about sewage in the Moses Room, although I
suppose I could rephrase that better by saying, “to
speak in the Moses Room about sewage”.
I will make a few remarks this afternoon about
border controls, in Part 3, and the problems that are
being experienced, such as the delays faced by people
coming into this country. It is interesting that the Bill
contains three pages about the power of immigration
officers but fails to address completely the fact that
there are not enough of them. The latest news on
Heathrow is that the MoD police have been drafted in,
along with clerks—anyone to reduce queues—but I do
not know whether they will have the powers conveyed
on them by this Bill if it sees its way through both
Houses.
The morale in the Immigration Service is said to be
at rock bottom, which is really not very surprising
when you have the combination of a 25% staff cut
imposed by this Government and a requirement for all
passengers to have a full check rather than using the
risk-based approach. I suggest that one, two or even
three hours of delays, as is reported, is pretty bad for
business. I am talking not just about the operators,
who I will come on to, but about those who do or want
to do business in this country.
The Government argued that cutting the top rate of
income tax was essential to keeping big business here.
Other people have argued that a third runway at
999
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
Heathrow is needed, otherwise the aircraft manufacturing
businesses will all move to France, which has no traffic
jams at its airports. I suggest that if the people to
whom presumably these remarks are addressed are
delayed by one, two or even three hours every time
they come into this country, that is probably even
more serious than where they set up their offices or the
quality of life here. As for the reputation that we may
well get if this happens before or during the Olympics,
it is pretty worrying.
I give just three examples of where this seems to be
going wrong. As I mentioned, at Heathrow, which has
had the most publicity, BAA confirms, according to
the Sunday Times yesterday, that the queues were up
to three hours long at passport control in April. If you
have just flown from Paris, Brussels or somewhere else
within Europe that takes less than an hour, to be held
up for another three hours is probably not very good.
Tony McMullin, the interim regional director of
the border force’s northern region, says in an e-mail
that attempts to send staff to cover at Heathrow,
Stansted, Luton and Gatwick were,
“pretty shambolic and did not work”.
I hope he does not suffer the same face as his predecessor,
Mr Brodie Clark, who quite rightly spoke out against
the problems and had to resign. It clearly is not
working and clearly needs more people.
The second example is Eurotunnel. I talked to
someone from Eurotunnel the other day, and there
was something in the media about a week ago about
the queues of cars going into the terminal at Calais
being so long that they were blocking the motorway.
The French motorway police phoned the company
and said, “We’re going to send everyone to Dunkirk or
back to Paris unless you sort out the queues”. Eurotunnel’s
only way of sorting out the queues is to send the trains
off to the UK half empty, because the immigration
people cannot process the people in the cars fast
enough. If this went on, it would have a serious affect
on Eurotunnel’s business. That is not the fault of the
Immigration Service but of Ministers. Do they care?
The same thing will probably happen to some of the
airlines.
Finally, there is the question of Eurostar. There has
been a lot of publicity about that recently. For many
years, passengers from Brussels going to Lille were
asked to go through British passport control in Brussels.
They objected; why should they have to show their ID
cards or passports when travelling between two Schengen
countries? Our immigration people in Brussels put in
something so that if you had a ticket to go to Lille you
did not have to show your passport. Of course, pretty
quickly those who wanted to come here illegally found
that the best thing was to buy a ticket to Lille and stay
on the train to get into this country.
Then the French Government threatened the British
Government and Eurostar, saying that unless they
sorted out this problem they could not run any trains
at all, which was not very helpful either. Now, if you
come to London, you have to show your passport in
Brussels and then again in London. We are back to
one or possibly two hours’ delay when you get to
St Pancras: again, a problem if you have come for only
a short time and were only on the train for an hour or
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1000
something. It is also pretty irritating if you have taken
a family for a couple of days to Euro Disney. I am told
that 95% of the passengers on the Disney trains have
British passports. These families with small children
are still subjected to this one or two hour delay. That
really is not right.
The Government have to come up with some solutions
pretty quickly. Eurostar announced in the last day or
two that it wants to run trains to Geneva, Frankfurt
and Amsterdam. Are we going to have outposts of
British immigration in every city that these trains want
to stop at, checking people’s passports? That does not
seem realistic. We have to come up with solutions. I
have one or two to put to the Minister and the House.
One short-term solution is to go back to a risk-based
solution by which those who are most likely to be in
need of full passport control get it and the others can
get through. Secondly, it is a minor detail but if every
passenger has to stand behind a red line and then walk
five or six yards to the immigration officer, that adds
probably 25% to the processing time. Why must you
have a line five yards away? Everything is done on a
computer reader now. Frankly, one yard away would
be perfectly all right.
The Government then have to staff-up to ensure
that there is a maximum delay for travellers, except in
an emergency. My first thought would be 15 minutes
coming from the EU and 30 minutes from outside.
This should be combined with a risk-based approach.
I do not know how many noble Lords have been
through immigration recently, but there are these iris
scanners now. They actually take longer than the
scanner that looks at your passport; they are both very
slow. There must be a quicker way of doing that.
For the through-rains, the only solution, and a
perfectly acceptable one, is to do the checks on the
train between Lille and Ashford if the train stops at
Ashford. You can have hand-held devices to look at
passports and any other ID cards that you might need.
The trains that Eurostar uses at the moment each have
two jails. They are quite nice jails. They are aluminiumlined and with nice hooks so that if you are in handcuffs
you can presumably be hooked up to the ceiling. That
means that people cannot run away when the doors
get opened at St Pancras, and they can be sent back on
the next train.
I know that the Minister will reject my final suggestion,
but what would really happen if we joined Schengen?
Would it be all that different? Why do we go through
all this? That is probably a step too far, but something
has to be done. It is getting chaotic, and getting worse.
We will look real idiots at the time of the Olympics.
Besides the Olympics, there are people trying to go
about their daily business who we want to live and
work in this country. They are getting seriously put
off. I look forward to the Minister’s comments when
he comes to reply.
5.09 pm
Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I will confine my
remarks to two clauses in the Bill: Clauses 1(1) and 23.
I raise Clause 1(1) because I suspect that I am not
alone in being somewhat confused about the Government’s
direction on policing. On the one hand, we have the
1001
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD RAMSBOTHAM]
formation of a National Crime Agency, and on the
other we have had the appointment of police and
crime commissioners, with the focus on the local direction
of policing. The two do not seem to fit. My interest in
policing in this country was stimulated by the Royal
Commission on the police in 1962, which I had to
study for the staff college exam at the time.
I remember being particularly taken by the
memorandum of dissent tabled by Dr AL Goodhart,
of Oxford. It was logical and to my mind entirely
sensible. In essence, he said that he was convinced that
it was essential to establish a centrally controlled police
force that was administered on a regional basis. He
believed that all these Royal Commissions, ministerial
committees and other inquiries would continue indefinitely
until necessary steps were taken to introduce a rational
and efficient system of government for the police that
does not currently exist. How right he has been. Since
1962, there has been a continual dialogue about the
governance of the police. It is still not resolved and I
do not believe that this proposal resolves it any further.
Dr Goodhart acknowledged that the commission
recognised that in modern conditions a certain amount
of joint action on the part of various police forces was
essential. Hear, hear to that. I had examples when I
was serving in the Army. You could not follow a drug
trail through England because some counties did not
have drug squads and therefore you could not follow
them. I realised that all was not well then, and although
there have been patch-ups since then I do not believe
there has been proper co-ordination.
Dr Goodhart concluded his report with the delphic
statement that he believed that the history of the
Metropolitan Police,
“illustrates how uncertain is an argument based on a prophecy of
what the public will or will not accept”.
That is something that we have been privy to recently.
The public not accepting something was not an argument
against setting up a national police force. However, he
says very clearly that responsibility is meaningless
unless it includes the power to direct.
One thing worries me about this proposal for the
National Crime Agency, which I support because it is
a national directive and in principle I am right with it.
We are left unclear about it because the protocol that
accompanied the appointment of police and crime
commissioners said that they were,
“responsible for the totality of policing”.
The National Crime Agency requires the police to
implement whatever they are following. The Bill says
that the Home Secretary,
“may determine strategic priorities for the NCA” .
Why “may”? Surely the Home Secretary is responsible
for the strategic direction of policing anyway. There
should be no “may” about it. If there is “may”, I
suspect that there will be even more confusion.
I wonder about these two-way tasking arrangements
and how the director-general “may” task police forces
and other law enforcement agencies to carry out specified
activities. Who is accountable to the public for all this?
I suggest that unless this is ironed out so that the roles
of the National Crime Agency and police and crime
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1002
commissioners is resolved and everyone knows in which
direction we are moving, there will be not just needless
conflict but continued confusion, which will impact
on the ability to resolve crime as intended. I merely
voice my confusion and say that I hope that this issue
will be resolved during the passage of the Bill to make
certain that everyone is absolutely clear about their
responsibilities in connection with this activity.
Clause 23 is very brief. It says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision
for, or in connection with, dealing non-custodially with offenders
aged 18 or over”.
At first glance, one wonders why that is necessary.
There are already non-custodial sentences for people
aged 18 and over, and hundreds of thousands of them
are issued and served every year. Of course, the clue is
in the statement that the Minister made about the
consultation document that is due to be concluded on
22 June and which he said might result in amendments
being tabled in Committee.
I have to admit that I am concerned about this
statement. Although the memorandum on delegated
powers says at paragraph 204 that this clause,
“is designed solely as a placeholder to allow the Secretary of State
to take forward proposals”,
I get the impression that this is opening the way for
secondary legislation, which I do not believe is satisfactory
for looking at young offenders in particular.
I detect some confusion between the Bill and the
Explanatory Notes. The Bill talks about offenders
aged 18 or over, and while that is strictly true of
children it does not differentiate between them and
young offenders, whereas the Explanatory Notes talk
about “adults”, although 18 to 21 year-olds are not
regarded as full adults, certainly in the prison system.
We have a wealth of evidence in front of us, most
recently an admirable document published last week
by the Transition to Adulthood Alliance, which talks
about ways in which young offenders, particularly the
18 to 25 year-old group, should be looked after, and it
is this group that I hope we will be able to focus on
during the passage of the Bill.
I am very disturbed that the word “punishment”
should appear so often in the Bill. I once had a
discussion with Michael Howard—now the noble Lord,
Lord Howard of Lympne—when he was Home Secretary.
He castigated me for saying that prison was punishment
and not for punishment. I said that I thought I was
speaking in accordance with the policy of his Government
because I had heard the phrase uttered by the noble
Lord, Lord Brittan, a previous Home Secretary. He
said, “I couldn’t disagree with you more”, so I asked,
“What sort of prisons do you expect me to find when I
inspect?”. He said, “Decent but austere with a positive
regime for tackling reoffending based on opportunities
for education and learning job skills”. I said, “Where’s
the punishment in that?”. He replied, “I think we’ll
resume this conversation some other time”, but we
never have. That, to me, has always reflected the
confusion in the rhetorical reference to punishment
without really thinking through what it means. The
punishment is the sentence awarded by the court. If
you add punishment later, you will encourage the
people who administer the sentence to say that inflicting
1003
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
punishment is one of their roles. However, it is not. I
find it very interesting that in commenting on the Bill
people are saying that introducing a punitive element
into the sentence is likely to remove some of the
rehabilitative content, and we do that at our peril.
I shall not go into all the details of the possible
community sentences that could be introduced for this
group because countless examples of how they work,
how much cheaper they are and how much more
effective they are can be found in masses of documents.
The examples include Rethinking Crime and Punishment,
a programme chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady
Linklater, in which I had the privilege to take part. It
has listed just how effective these things are. Examples
are coming out of people’s ears, so why do we need to
go through it all again? It is proven and we ought to
get on with it.
When people say that the public have no confidence
in a community sentence, I have often thought that
one thing wrong with them is that they do not do all
the things that are done in prison. Why should they
not, as in the state of Massachusetts, consist half of
education in the widest sense and half of community
reparation? By education I mean education, job skills,
substance abuse treatment, mental and health treatment
and social skills; in other words, all the things that are
done with people in prison. Why do you have to go to
prison in order to get those things? Why should there
not be proper male and female adult offender teams,
looking after such people in the community in the
same way as the young offender teams do, so that
there is proper, meaningful supervision.
All that has been said, so why do we need to say it
all again and why do we need secondary legislation to
introduce things that have already been proven? I am
confused. My appeal to the Minister is that if we are
seriously to help the Government move forward on
this, could they please ensure that at the end of our
debate in Committee people take note this time of the
fact that we cannot afford not to do these things. I
think of all the effort that was taken to introduce
changes, amendments, adjustments and advice during
the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment
of Offenders Bill, only to have it all rubbished down
the other end, where it was said that it was budgetary
and therefore we could take no account of it. These
things should not be dismissed for budgetary reasons
because there may well be savings, not least in the lives
of the people whom we hope to improve.
5.21 pm
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, in the debate
on the Queen’s Speech on 9 May in another place, the
Prime Minister said that the National Crime Agency
would be employed to tackle human trafficking. That
was very welcome news indeed. However, as there is
no direct mention of human trafficking in relation to
the National Crime Agency in the Bill, I would be
grateful if the Minister would set out how the proposals
for the NCA will change the Government’s approach
to human trafficking and improve the UK’s effectiveness
in tackling this terrible crime. Will the changes meet
the UK’s obligations under the European directive on
human trafficking under Articles 9(3) and 9(4),
“to ensure that persons, units or services responsible for investigating”,
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1004
human trafficking offences,
“are trained accordingly”,
and,
“that effective investigative tools, such as those which are used in
organised crime or other serious crime cases, are available to
persons, units or services responsible for investigating”,
human trafficking offences? Furthermore, can the House
be reassured that the commitment to tackle human
trafficking will be translated into resources, targets
and plans?
On a point of detail, I would be grateful if the
Minister would tell the House where the UK Human
Trafficking Centre will sit in this new organisation.
The Serious Organised Crime Agency website states:
“The UK Human Trafficking Centre … is a multi-agency
organisation led by SOCA. Its role is to provide a central point of
expertise and coordination in relation to the UK’s response to the
trafficking of human beings”.
As SOCA will be disbanded under this Bill, it is
important to be clear where the responsibilities for the
UK Human Trafficking Centre will sit. If it is to sit
within the National Crime Agency, it will be vital to
ensure that the focus on policing and tackling crime
does not reduce work on its other much needed functions
of protection and prosecution.
Noble Lords will be aware that I am particularly
concerned about the protection of human trafficking
victims, especially the care of child victims. The SOCA
website states that the UK Human Trafficking Centre
works,
“closely with partners across the public, private and voluntary
sectors to coordinate the provision of a full care, end-to-end
programme for the victims of human trafficking”.
Like others, I am deeply committed to the UK providing
full care and an end-to-end programme for victims of
human trafficking.
In the debate on the Protection of Freedoms Bill on
15 February, I moved an amendment and set out
evidence that suggests that we are not providing this
sort of care for trafficked children through the provisions
of the Children Act on which the Government depend:
namely, Section 26 on advocacy services, Section 23ZB
on independent visitors, and Section 25 on independent
reviewing officers. I made the case that these provisions
are not sufficient and should be made good through
the introduction of a legal advocate for trafficked
children, or somebody to act as a friend and a mentor,
who would know his way around the immigration
jungles to help them. My speech can be found at
columns 844 to 848 of Hansard for 15 February.
In response, the Minister said that the Government
were not ready to accept the introduction of this entity
for rescued trafficked children—a legal advocate or
whatever it would be called—but that he would invite
the Children’s Commissioner for England to review
the current arrangements for the care of child victims
of trafficking, with the intention of providing advice
to the Government on whether improvements in care
are needed. Three months on, can the Minister provide
the House with an update on whether there might be
scope within this Bill for the Government to take
forward any aspect of our amendment, which is deemed
useful by the Children Commissioner’s report?
1005
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
5.26 pm
Lord Touhig: My Lords, I will direct my remarks to
Clause 20 of Part 2, the provisions in the Bill that will
make offenders liable to pay new administrative costs
to the Courts and Tribunals Service in cases where
they do not meet fine payments in full or on time. In
particular, I hope that when the Minister comes to
reply he will specify the arrangements relating to
consideration of means in these circumstances. The
Government’s intention behind making offenders liable
for administration costs—which include those incurred
by Courts and Tribunals Service in recovery-related
tasks such as issuing payment reminders and tracing
outstanding sums—is to increase compliance with
payment plans and to make cost savings.
However, unless the offender’s financial means are
taken into account when applying costs, the change
may not achieve either goal. Instead we will force
more people further into debt, with little hope of
eventual repayment. Those working with the poorest
people in our communities understand that there are a
number of circumstances which may result in offenders
missing payment dates or not being able to meet the
prescribed sum at a given point. Many of those who
find themselves before the courts already face significant
personal challenges. Indeed, the Government’s own
impact assessment recognises that some offenders lead
chaotic lives. Other outstanding debts, unexpected
family situations or confusion about the system may
cause people to default.
I am certainly not advocating that additional
administrative costs presented by such situations should
fall automatically and completely to the taxpayer—far
from it. I believe that people should face up to their
financial responsibilities. However, if the amount owed
were increased without any reference to the individual’s
means, it could result in unnecessary hardship, even
when their intention is already to comply with payment
of the initial fine.
Furthermore, as the costs will be treated as an
increase to the fine and subject to the same sanctions
for late payment, it is feasible that people could find
themselves trapped in a downward spiral, with ever
less ability to repay growing costs. No one will benefit
from this. Such situations can be avoided if the new
liability for costs outlined in the Bill is subject to the
same consideration of means as the initial fine. These
are set according to the Criminal Justice Act and the
magistrates’ court sentencing guidelines, which require
the calculation of fines to be based on relevant weekly
earnings, disregarding housing benefit, child benefit
and tax credits. The guidelines state:
“The aim is for the fine to have an equal impact on offenders
with different financial circumstances; it should be a hardship but
should not force the offender below a reasonable ‘subsistence’
level”.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the important
principles of fairness and subsistence should apply
also to subsequent increases in the amount payable.
Should administrative costs be added at a standard
level rather than through a flexible means-based formula,
the poorest offenders will find themselves the hardest
hit and potentially struggling to meet basic living
costs—in direct contrast to the existing safeguards.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1006
I will take the situation of a single parent in receipt
of benefits who has been fined for a minor offence.
The fine, according to the guidelines, will be set at a
reasonable level, disregarding the benefits reserved for
covering his rent and supporting his children. However,
should he miss a payment for whatever reason he will
be liable, under the provisions of the Bill, for extra
costs. If his circumstances are again taken into account,
he may have to pay slightly less than the full costs. The
Courts and Tribunals Service will still recover some of
the expenditure incurred through issuing reminders
and managing his account, while he will continue to
meet other basic outgoings for himself and his family.
However, if his circumstances are ignored and he is
expected to pay the entirety of the costs or a standard
sum, he could feasibly be left struggling to meet the
increased repayment rate. In this case, his only recourse
might be to use his housing benefit, child benefit or
even a payday loan, to the clear detriment of his
family. This is surely not the Government’s intention,
but it has raised concerns among charitable organisations
and other groups, which feel that despite the
understandable principles behind this part of the Bill,
inappropriate and potentially unmanageable financial
burdens may fall on offenders. Caritas Social Action
Network, the social action arm of the Catholic Church
in England and Wales, has warned of a detrimental
personal and societal effect should the change leave
people unable to meet basic needs, particularly in
cases where they have dependent children or other
debts to cover.
I ask the Minister in conclusion to ease these concerns
by clarifying what consideration of an offender’s financial
means will be taken into account when deciding the
level at which the new costs will be imposed. Will he
also say how the principles of fairness and subsistence
underpinning the current process will be protected? A
great many people are anxious to know precisely what
the Government have in mind.
5.33 pm
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I will speak about the
NCA and in particular those aspects of it that relate to
policing arrangements in Northern Ireland and to
relations with the Republic of Ireland. Having glanced
down the list of speakers, I do not think that these
areas will be covered by other noble Lords. I am
particularly interested in this matter as a Northern
Ireland Member of your Lordships’ House, and also
as the Liberal Democrat co-chair on Northern Ireland
policy.
I will start with some general issues. When SOCA
was established and was due to absorb the role of the
Assets Recovery Agency, there was considerable concern
in Northern Ireland about the loss of the public effect
that the ARA had had in not only taking assets away
from criminals but making it very clear to the public
that this was happening, and sending a public shiver
down the backs of paramilitaries. Apart from the legal
effect, it had a serious public effect on people in
Northern Ireland from all sides of the community.
The Independent Monitoring Commission, of which I
was a member, expressed anxiety that after moving to
SOCA that might not be so evident. There were also
1007
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
concerns about whether SOCA would retain a footprint
and a strategy informed by the needs of Northern
Ireland.
It is my perception that the concerns were well
grounded and that in public terms, whatever SOCA
has done by way of assets recovery, it has not had the
same impact within the community. As we move to the
National Crime Agency, my concern is that it may be
difficult for a body that sets its priorities here in the
south-east of England to have a public impact on
some of these important issues in Northern Ireland. I
wonder whether the priorities will remain the same. It
was very clear to my colleagues and me that smuggling
across the border and fuel laundering, for example,
were massive in Northern Ireland but small beer for
HMRC, so they were not prioritised. The number of
officers put to task was minimal. As we move to a new
agency, my concern is that the problems connected
with the establishment of SOCA may be repeated.
When Revenue and Customs were brought together,
the new HMRC incorporated a lot of Customs powers
that had not been available to the Inland Revenue.
There was not a great deal of debate about that and I
am not sure that all those powers should have been
transferred to the new HMRC. I seek the following
reassurance from my noble friend the Minister. When
the new agency absorbs the responsibilities of other
bodies such as the National Policing Improvement
Agency, which does not have all the powers that
SOCA had, will there be any differentiation or will we
see simply a centralising and increasing of power by a
centralised and centralising agency?
On the new structures that will be established, I
wonder how well they have been explored. There is—at
least until Mr Salmond has his way—only one land
border for this country, which is with the Republic of
Ireland. I see that one of the four commands set down
is border policing. This is something of which we in
Northern Ireland have been very conscious. The noble
Lord, Lord Reid, who is in his place, was very aware of
that in his time. I am eager to know whether the Home
Secretary has had discussions with the Minister of
Justice in the Republic of Ireland, because I cannot
see how it will be possible to continue with the excellent
relationship that we have with An Garda Siochana
and the Ministry of Justice if we have not had direct
discussions with our colleagues in the Republic of
Ireland in advance of bringing forward a measure to
Parliament. Has this been discussed at the British
Irish-Council, for example? It is the kind of thing that
that body was put in place to discuss.
On the smuggling of drugs, people and fuel, the
land border is so permeable that it would be impossible
to deal with organised crime without addressing this—and
without addressing it in co-operation with our colleagues
on the other side of the border. Here I come to
another problem. The Bill proposes that it will be
possible for the agency to take over counterterrorism
functions; there is an order-making power. I find it
difficult to see how an agency of this kind could deal
with organised crime in a place such as Northern
Ireland if it did not incorporate counterterrorism functions.
While it is not the case that all organised crime is from
paramilitaries—the truth is absolutely the contrary—
nevertheless there is sufficient paramilitary involvement
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1008
to require an understanding of counterterrorism functions;
I cannot see how it will be dealt with without the
inclusion of those functions. In my work over a long
period of time I have been very struck by the fact that
An Garda Siochana incorporates the functions of
intelligence, organised crime and community policing
in one organisation. I am aware that it is good to bring
these things together but I am not absolutely convinced
that the Bill does that.
Where I have the greatest difficulty is on the question
of Northern Ireland itself and its policing arrangements.
Policing was the most exquisitely sensitive issue in all
the negotiations, far more so than many of the political
institutions and structures that many people thought
were the key issue. And yet it seems to me that we may
have a real dilemma in getting this Bill through because
this will require a legislative consent Motion in the
Northern Ireland Assembly, maybe even in more than
one department. I think for the Department of Social
Development there are some issues where an LCM
may be required but certainly in terms of the Department
of Justice it will be required. I know that my right
honourable friend and Secretary of State in another
place, Owen Patterson, and the Home Secretary have
engaged with David Ford, the Minister of Justice in
the Northern Ireland Assembly, and that has been a
fruitful engagement.
I know there were proposals that the director-general
of the NCA would have the powers of a constable in
Northern Ireland. That would effectively produce—
certainly in the perception of people in Northern
Ireland—a second police force in Northern Ireland
with completely different governance arrangements. I
fancy it might be difficult to get a cross-community
agreement for an LCM in the Northern Ireland Assembly
on that and so the Home Secretary has very sensibly
pulled that back. The director-general in the original
Bill could ask the Department of Justice to direct the
chief constable. Fortunately, there has been an
understanding that the Policing Board needs to be
involved in this kind of thing and the chief constable
needs to have these matters discussed rather than have
directions made and so there has been a removal of
some of the provisions and an instruction that any
changes would require the consent or approval of
PSNI and of the chief constable, which is very reasonable.
But I fear that if any consultation between the director
of the NCA is only with the chief constable and not
with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and
the Minister of Justice, you put the police chief constable
in a very political position where he or she might be
asked to make what would inevitably in Northern
Ireland be seen as a highly political decision to allow
the director of the NCA to extend the powers. It seems
to me we have done such a lot to try to take the issue of
the politicising of the police out of the situation that it
would be very ill advised to move in that direction.
Therefore, although there has been some improvement
in the Bill, I suspect that it will be necessary to ensure
that not just the chief constable but also the First
Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister
of Justice are consulted.
As I say, there are inclusions of a requirement to
consult the Policing Board and that is excellent but I
am wondering how the Bill has got to this point with
1009
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD ALDERDICE]
what I perceive to be real vulnerabilities on the Northern
Ireland front. Can my noble friend let us know whether
the Executive have yet discussed the question of a
legislative consent Motion not being able to be brought
forward successfully and given any indication? My
understanding is that the Justice Committee has not
been able to discuss it because the Bill has only become
public very recently. I fear that it might be very difficult
to get a legislative consent Motion through, in which
case it could well be that Northern Ireland would have
to be excluded from the Bill, and that is not without
political implications either for those on the Unionist
side of the House in Northern Ireland. So I look
forward to what my noble friend has to say in giving
guidance on this. There have already been very helpful
discussions with the Minister of Justice and substantial
movements on the part of the Home Secretary but I
rather suspect there may have to be more discussions,
not just with the Minister of Justice in Northern
Ireland, and perhaps more constructive engagement
from the Home Secretary and more movement on this
issue.
5.44 pm
Lord Condon: My Lords I declare my registered
interests in policing and the private security industry. I
want to speak primarily, as you would expect, about
Part 1 of the Bill and the creation of the National
Crime Agency. I warmly welcome the creation of the
National Crime Agency and I wish Keith Bristow, the
inaugural director-general, and his team every success.
I hope the new agency gets off to a confident and
successful start. However, I think the Government still
have a huge challenge to demonstrate to your Lordships’
House and beyond how the National Crime Agency
and their other proposals for policing all fit together in
a cohesive and comprehensive way. Their plans for
policing must work from the bottom up from the local
level of the police force and from the top down from
the new NCA in a joined-up way. The Minister
acknowledged this in his opening speech.
Sadly, I still have residual concerns that we may be
left with a disjointed patchwork of policing with significant
gaps and a lack of co-ordination. I will explain why.
Scotland, for example, is taking a different route.
Local, regional, national and international policing
issues will be delivered by a single police force with
local accountability being accommodated within the
single force structure. In November we will have
over 40 newly elected police and crime commissioners,
some of whom may be elected by less than 10% of the
electorate if the predictions for very low turnouts
come to fruition. These new police and crime
commissioners will, by definition, be intensely parochial.
They have to be. They will focus only on local issues
and will be looking for re-election exclusively on local
performance and local popularity. How, then, will the
National Crime Agency and any other regional or
national structures take care of the very important
regional, national and international policing issues
and concerns?
Before looking at the Bill’s provisions for the new
NCA, it is worth considering just for a moment what
is being simultaneously dismantled or potentially
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1010
downgraded by the Government as they create the
NCA. You have already heard that the Serious and
Organised Crime Agency has been in place for six
years and its staff and functions will provide the core
or spine of the new NCA. But the NCA must be far
more than just a change of name as SOCA becomes
the NCA. I mean no disrespect to the professionalism
or the endeavour of colleagues who have worked in
SOCA but the metamorphosis from SOCA to NCA
must be far more than in name only. The National
Police Improvement Agency which has looked at police
leadership, performance standards and information
technology will be disbanded and we have no clear
picture of how it will be replaced. The future of the
Association of Chief Police Officers is uncertain, with
its funding and its role still to be resolved, but there is
a strong presumption that, at the very least, it will be
downgraded in importance and role.
Against this background, how will the new NCA
provide all the policing needs above the local police
force level? I have three areas of concern: first, resourcing
levels, secondly, dealing with terrorism, and thirdly,
the gaps and grey areas that may be left out because
they do not fall comfortably within the NCA remit. I
am concerned about the planned resources for the
NCA. I have said many times in your Lordships’
House that the police service cannot be immune from
cuts and savings. I have spent the past 12 years in the
private sector delivering more for less and I am very
comfortable with that concept. However, I do have
real concerns about the resources being allocated to
the National Crime Agency. New bodies in the public
and the private sector inevitably have start-up costs.
Other noble Lords have mentioned their concerns
about resources. There is no new money for the NCA.
It will inherit the budgets and the 20% reductions of
the constituent bodies it is taking over. Despite my
enthusiasm for the new agency, its budget proposals
look perilously stretched. I hope the Minister can
reassure your Lordships that the NCA will be more
than just a rather feeble co-ordinating mechanism
sitting above the units that are already in existence, but
I fear that resource limitations may force it down that
avenue. The NCA must be better than the Serious and
Organised Crime Agency, and it must be better than
the UK Border Agency. Good leadership and
determination will go a long way to ensuring its success,
but this new agency must not be allowed to falter
through unrealistic budgets.
My second area of concern relates to terrorism,
which other noble Lords have mentioned. Clause 2
sensibly provides for the Secretary of State to make
further provision about the NCA counterterrorism
functions. In essence, what is at stake here is whether
the status quo should prevail, with the Metropolitan
Police retaining its national co-ordinating role with
operational hubs around the country, or whether the
co-ordinating role should be transferred to the NCA,
as the Home Affairs Select Committee in another
place recommended. Again, very sensibly, the Minister
said in opening that no decision will be taken until
after the Olympics.
I am genuinely relaxed if there is to be change, but I
urge those making the decision to do so on the pragmatic
grounds of what is likely to work best and what is
1011
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
likely to provide the best levels of protection for the
public. The decision on who should lead on terrorism
should not be about what looks tidy on an organisational
chart or the seductive impact of the word “national”
in an agency’s title. The fight against terrorism is as
much about hearts and minds as it is about dramatic
operations and arrests. With over 80% of terrorist
incidents happening in London and the successful
integration of neighbourhood policing, intelligence
gathering and hearts and minds projects in the community,
it will require strong empirical evidence and a compelling
case, as the Minister said, to prove that the new
National Crime Agency is better placed than the
Metropolitan Police to lead this endeavour. The only
assurance I seek from the Minister on counterterrorism
is that the decision as to who should lead on combating
terrorism will be based on what is most likely to
protect the public—no more, no less.
My third and final concern relates to gaps and grey
areas and things that the Bill is silent about. The
disbanding of the National Policing Improvement Agency
and the potential downgrading and functionality of
the Association of Chief Police Officers could—I
emphasise that it is only “could”—leave gaps and grey
areas which the National Crime Agency is not mandated
to deliver in any respect at all. Who in the police
family will worry about and take responsibility for the
police response to multi-location, multi-force riots
which historically take place every so often? Who in
the police family will worry about and take responsibility
for responding to national employment disputes such
as the recent tanker drivers’ threatened strike? Who in
the police family will worry about multi-force natural
disasters such as floods or diseases like foot and mouth?
Clause 5 is about the relationship between the NCA
and other agencies. It enables and encourages voluntary
arrangements and, in limited circumstances, allows
the director-general to direct co-operation from local
forces. Very sensibly, the Bill envisages more than one
force taking part, with the NCA, in a coalition of the
willing or, in extremis, a coalition of the directed, but
it does not deal with any of the concerns I mentioned
earlier. We need reassurance on who will worry about
and co-ordinate some of the issues that do not sit
comfortably within the NCA.
In conclusion, I genuinely welcome the Bill. I also
welcome the new drug-driving offence, which I think
will improve road safety. However, as other noble
Lords have said, there are some challenges in the
detail. I am excited about the potential of the National
Crime Agency, but I am concerned that inadequate
resourcing may hamstring it and reduce it to an anodyne
co-ordinating body rather than allowing it to be the
potent force for good that, in the public interest, it
deserves to be. I am concerned about counterterrorism
and that changes may be based on organisational
tidiness rather than on what is most likely to deliver
public safety. Lastly, I am concerned that as the
Government dismantle, downgrade and rebuild the
constituent parts of our policing model, they may
inadvertently—I think it would be inadvertently—create
gaps and grey areas which we need to think about
plugging and clarifying.
I know that the Government are still making up
their mind about some of these issues. However, they
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1012
have unleashed a programme of change that replaces
core elements of police accountability and independence,
most of which have been enshrined in our system since
1829. So it is the Government who are under an
obligation to convince your Lordships’ House that
what they are putting in place will provide the public
with joined-up policing locally, regionally, nationally
and internationally. The proposals for the NCA are an
important part of the overall police jigsaw, but as this
Bill passes through your Lordships’ House, I intend to
test whether the pieces of the police jigsaw genuinely
fit together, whether the Government really know
what the picture should look like, and which pieces, if
any, are missing.
5.56 pm
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I should declare
my interests as chair of the Audit Panel for the
Metropolitan Police and the Mayor’s Office for Policing
and Crime, and as an adviser to KPMG, Airwave
Solutions, Lockheed Martin UK and a number of
other companies that provide services to police forces
around the country. It is a privilege to follow the noble
Lord, Lord Condon, in the debate. I, too, want to
speak primarily about Part 1 and the new National
Crime Agency.
The Government’s intention to create a National
Crime Agency has been known about for almost two
years. However, we have yet to hear a clear explanation
of what the problem is with the existing arrangements
that these changes are required to fix. I am sure that
the Government’s policy is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix
it”, but perhaps it goes a bit further than that by
saying, “Even if it doesn’t need fixing, take it to pieces
anyway”, because we are not at all clear about which
problems will be solved by these reorganisations. Given
that the Government’s intentions have been clear for
the past two years, we have to ask what has been going
on during that period. We still do not have a definitive
version of the strategic policing requirement, and we
do not see any sign of the NCA framework document,
even in draft, although it is pivotal to understanding
how the new arrangements will work.
My understanding is that, because of this pending
reorganisation, senior people in SOCA and the other
agencies have spent the past two years sitting in meetings
arguing with officials from the Home Office and other
bodies rather than devoting themselves to their main
purpose, which is that of fighting serious and organised
crime. But all the meetings that have taken place over
the past two years seem to have failed to produce
anything definitive on how the new arrangements are
supposed to work. What we are told about the likely
organisational structure suggests that we are going to
have a series of silos that are spatchcocked together. If
that is all it is, frankly it is not clear why the reorganisation
is better than a general injunction on the different
organisations that currently exist to work together
better. Moreover, there remains a lack of clarity about
one of the central issues as to how the agency is going
to work—a lack of clarity about the powers of tasking
and co-ordination, whether voluntary or mandated.
We spent many happy months in your Lordships’
House discussing the Police Reform and Social
Responsibility Act. That Act clearly states, as does the
1013
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD HARRIS OF HARINGEY]
policing protocol, that elected police and crime
commissioners are responsible for the totality of policing
within their jurisdiction and that they alone are publicly
accountable for the delivery and performance of policing.
That responsibility is placed clearly in their hands on
behalf of the electorate.
Under this Bill, directed tasking arrangements allow
the Home Secretary to empower the director-general
of the NCA and allow the director-general of the
NCA to task police forces and other law enforcement
agencies to carry out specific activity. While the PCC
would have to be notified when such a direction is
initiated, this tasking would in practice interfere with
the operational independence of the chief officer as
set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility
Act, and interfere with the police and crime commissioner’s
responsibility for the totality of policing. My prediction
is that, unless this is handled correctly and there is
rather more substance to it than is contained in the
Bill, conflict is going to be inevitable.
The whole point of these new accountability
arrangements created by the Government is that police
and crime commissioners will be elected with a mandate
to deliver in respect of local concerns. That is what
they are there to do. What is going to happen when the
elected police and crime commissioner for Loamshire
or some such place decides that his or her number one
priority is going to be addressing volume street crime
in Loamshire and its larger towns and yet suddenly
there is a directive to divert resources from Loamshire
to somewhere else to help deal with particular problems
of organised crime, when for the public of Loamshire—the
electorate that elect the police and crime commissioner—
organised crime is not a particular issue facing that
local community? How that is going to be managed is
not clear from the Bill.
Indeed, the whole Bill poses a series of questions.
Who is accountable to the public for activity that is
being directed? When things go wrong—as they will—is
the Home Secretary or the NCA director-general liable
for any repercussions from this activity? How is this
going to interfere with the PCC’s setting of local
strategic priorities and indeed that accountability of
PCCs to the public that the Government tell us is so
critical? Will the police and crime commissioner for
Loamshire or for any other area be able to veto a
direction using his or her powers? Presumably that will
be the case if it is a voluntary direction because that is
my understanding of what “voluntary” means. What
if it is not? What are the implications if the chief
officer of police accepts a voluntary direction but his
or her police and crime commissioner says, “No, I do
not think that is in the interests of our local community,
which I am elected to defend”? How is that going to be
resolved? Who will be responsible under those
circumstances?
Of course, the Government have got a let-out clause,
as you would expect. I am sure the Minister is aware of
paragraph 30 of Schedule 3, which gives the Home
Secretary the power to amend the requirement to get
prior consent before issuing directions. So we are
actually being told that this is not going to be voluntary
but there will be this power to dispense with the
requirement to have prior consent. I suggest that this
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1014
is going to create more conflict and more difficulties.
Again, perhaps it is not very helpful that the detail has
not yet been worked out.
This situation is made all the stranger when you
observe that this new agency seems to have virtually
no governance arrangements. The director-general reports
and is accountable to the Home Secretary, who is in
turn accountable to Parliament. There is no board;
there are no non-executives; there are not even a few
token elected police and crime commissioners sitting
in that structure perhaps to provide some coherence
with the expressed wish of the local electorate about
police and crime priorities. There is no mechanism for
scrutinising what is happening. Even the elected police
and crime commissioners—which some of us were not
hugely enamoured of—had these scrutiny arrangements
created within the local authority structure. There is
no parallel here.
Of course, the legislation contains promises that
the director-general will be operationally independent,
but what will that amount to in practice? How will
it be enforced, and who is going to scrutinise that
operational independence in the absence of any of
those governance structures? Let us be clear: operational
independence is not all that it might appear or be
cracked up to be. It certainly does not apply to policing
equipment. I suspect that most chief officers of police
would think that their choice of equipment is very
much part of their operational decision-making. I do
not personally always agree with them on that, but
paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 allows the Home Secretary
to make regulations on the use of specified equipment
and the NCA director-general will be required to
comply. There is not much operational independence
there. This is the Home Secretary, to whom he or she is
accountable, saying, “You will or will not use this type
of equipment”. That hardly sounds like operational
independence to me.
Then there are the very strange provisions under
paragraph 4 of Schedule 5. I am sure that the noble
Lord, Lord McNally, will explain to us precisely why
these are here. Paragraph 4 creates an advisory panel;
a new quango, if you like—from a Government who
promised us a “bonfire of the quangos”—and what is
this new advisory panel going to do? It is going to give
advice to the Home Secretary on whether the directorgeneral has sufficient training to carry out his operational
powers. I wonder where they dream up things like
this—which cellar in the Home Office is responsible
for thinking up new committees to do this sort of
thing.
This proposal is certainly not a carry-over from the
legislation that created the Serious Organised Crime
Agency, because it was not thought necessary to have
an advisory panel to decide whether or not the directorgeneral of the Serious Organised Crime Agency had
the necessary training to carry out their operational
functions. So why is it here? Is it because the Home
Secretary is planning to replace the current director-general
with an individual whose qualifications are so questionable
that a panel is needed to test them? That is as may be,
but paragraph 5 explains how the Home Secretary can
ignore the advice of that panel under any circumstances.
1015
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
We have to question what model of organisation
was used for devising the governance structures for the
National Crime Agency. The best example of that,
one with which the Home Office is intimately familiar,
is the relationship between the Home Secretary and
that paragon of effective service delivery, the UK
Border Agency. That relationship has worked so well
in recent months, between the Ministers and the people
with executive responsibility of the agency concerned—
two impossible demands before breakfast and the
agency, of course, has to comply.
Finally, I will say a word about Clause 2, which
allows the Home Secretary by order—admittedly
subject to the super-affirmative procedure—to add
counterterrorism to the functions of the National
Crime Agency. I have to question whether a decision
of that magnitude should properly be done simply by
order. Let us also be clear: if counterterrorism becomes
part of the functions of the National Crime Agency, it
will totally transform the National Crime Agency.
This body that has taken two years in gestation merely
to talk about a series of organisational silos spatchcocked
together will suddenly have spatchcocked onto it an
even larger organisation completely distorting and
changing the priorities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said, it may or
may not make sense ultimately to have counterterrorism
as a function of a national agency of that form.
However, having been involved in the convoluted
discussions to get the current structure in place, I
think you have to be very clear about the case you are
making before you embark on those changes and very
clear about why you want to go ahead with them. The
experience in other countries—according to the FBI,
for example—is not always a happy one in terms of
relationships with local forces regarding counterterrorism.
There is a real danger of divorcing a counterterrorism
elite squad from ordinary policing, not only in terms
of intelligence but also in managing community relations
following operational decisions.
I am sure the intentions of the Bill are fine. The
Government had two years to move from intentions to
detailed proposals but in those two years we have yet
to see the fruits of their labour and to understand
exactly how these new arrangements are intended to
work.
6.10 pm
Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, I shall confine my
remarks to Part 2 of the Bill. I was honoured to be
invited to chair the advisory panel on judicial diversity
by the then Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, and to
continue its work under the present Lord Chancellor,
Ken Clarke. We made a number of recommendations
and were absolutely delighted and not a little surprised
to find that they were accepted by the Government in
their entirety. For that reason, I wish to congratulate
the Government, particularly the noble Lord, Lord
McNally, who I know has thrown his personal enthusiasm
behind all this, on what is proposed in the Bill so far.
In these provisions we have the beginning of a way
forward. There is a real need for the judiciary to be
more reflective of the community it serves, as the
noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern,
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1016
has said. As Lady Hale, the single female member of
our Supreme Court, put it in evidence to the Constitution
Committee:
“A woman litigant should be able to go into the Court and see
more than one person who shares at least some of her experience.
I should not stick out like a bad tooth, as I do at present”.
However, let us be clear. We did not think back in
2010 when we reported, and nor do we now, that
increasing diversity in the judiciary would be a speedy
process. Nor did we think that it was only for the
Government to change. Legal professionals, the judiciary
and some of our senior law firms will also need to take
ownership of these issues. We were encouraged by the
positive messages coming from some of the most
senior judges in the land, but enabling judges in the
most senior positions to work flexibly is only a beginning.
Of course we need the legislation to make it possible
but even more important, as the Minister said at the
beginning of this debate, is a change of culture within
much of the senior judiciary and beyond. They need
to begin to think differently about how people might
work and realise that things do not have to be done
just as they always have been.
We know that flexible working is possible and that
provisions have been made for sick and widowed
judges to work more flexibly on an ad hominem basis
in the past. If it is possible in these circumstances, it is
possible and—for diversity and other reasons—desirable
to do it more widely. So we applaud the measures in
Schedule 12. We like the idea of,
“no more than the equivalent of 12 full-time judges of the
Supreme Court, rather than exactly 12 judges”.
This provision, and the fact that it is being made,
sends important messages to women with children,
anyone with caring responsibilities and others for whom
an absolutely full-time role might be difficult.
We also welcome the so-called tipping point provision
in Schedule 12, which we also recommended. Clearly,
these changes should not and would not change the
overriding principle of appointments based on merit,
as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss,
has said. However, they should encourage clear career
progression—a judicial career, rather than a career
judiciary—and applications from a wider talent pool
than at present
Let us be clear. We have a wonderful judiciary in
this country. It is highly talented, highly independent,
not always beloved of Government—nor should it
be—and of great merit. None of this desire to increase
diversity is in any way a personal criticism of the
present judiciary. Perhaps I should declare an
interest here as sister-in-law of the Master of the Rolls.
However, he is on record as saying to the Constitution
Committee:
“The main problem is the cast of mind. Most of us think of a
judge as a white, probably public school, man. We have all got
that problem”.
I agree absolutely. Even that does not begin to tackle
something even more complicated, which is the nature
of the selectors if we are not careful. When I gave
evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee,
I said:
“We all have an inclination to appoint people who are like us”.
1017
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[BARONESS NEUBERGER]
I spoke from experience.
“I certainly found as Chief Executive of the King’s Fund that
an astonishingly large number of middle-class, white, rather
bossy women were being appointed”.
In jest I added:
“I cannot think why that should be”.
Of course, I can think exactly why that is, and I am
eternally grateful to David Bewers and others at the
King’s Fund who pointed out how we were appointing
people and made sterling efforts to broaden and widen
our pool. However, appointing people in our own
image is a natural human reaction. That is why, where
the judiciary plays an even greater constitutional role
than it did in the past, it is so important that the judges
should not be always in the majority—or arguably
ever in the majority—in appointing people to become
part of their own number. Like Lord Justice Etherton
in his evidence to the Constitution Committee, I think
that,
“the judges cannot be purely a self-appointing body”.
I am delighted that the most senior judges will not in
future be involved in the appointment of their own
successors. Having an independent lay person as chair
of the selection panels for both the Lord Chief Justice
and the President of the UK Supreme Court, rather
than a judge, is a very good thing. I am also pleased to
see proposals in the Bill to allow for easier transfer
between the tribunals and the higher courts, which
was one of our main recommendations for increasing
diversity, given that the tribunals are by and large
infinitely more diverse in their judicial membership
than the other courts.
However, and now speaking personally and not as
part of the advisory panel, I do not support the
measures to give the Lord Chancellor the right to sit
as a member of an appointing panel of the Judicial
Appointments Commission. The idea of the Lord
Chancellor sitting on the selection committee for the
appointment of the Lord Chief Justice or the President
of the UK Supreme Court worries me greatly. I have
no doubt that this Lord Chancellor would be scrupulously
fair and bend over backwards to do the right thing but
he will not be in post for ever and he cannot guarantee
his successors.
There is a constitutional issue here. The principle of
judicial independence is an important one and that
means that neither the Lord Chancellor nor Parliament
should be given enhanced powers to decide who becomes
a judge. That means that lay involvement of the highest
calibre and the greatest independence is essential in
the appointments process. That puts a huge burden on
the Judicial Appointments Commission. It is early
years for the JAC and I congratulate the noble Baroness,
Lady Prashar, on all the work she has done to enhance
diversity in her time, as has her successor, Chris Stevens.
My panel was delighted to the see changes in the
specific merit criterion about dealing fairly that were
made recently by the JAC. One of the changes was to
put in an awareness of the diversity of the communities
that the courts and tribunals serve and a commitment
to justice, independence, public service and fair treatment.
We wait with interest to see how people applying to
become judges measure themselves against those criteria
in the coming few years.
1018
The Constitution Committee argued hard that merit
should remain the sole criterion for appointment. We
also held that view strongly. The Constitution Committee
did not consider merit to be a narrow concept based
solely on intellectual capacity or high-quality advocacy.
It said:
“We refute any notion that those from under-represented
groups make less worthy candidates or that a more diverse
judiciary would undermine the quality of our judges”.
We absolutely agreed.
Therefore, we are left with much to do. The advisory
panel regarded it as essential to introduce appraisal
for the judiciary on diversity grounds, having been
told by many more junior judges and possible candidates
for judicial office what a difference that would make.
The Constitution Committee, as the noble Baroness,
Lady Jay, has said, absolutely agreed and supported
that. We know there are financial issues here, but we
believe that it is possible to have a less than gold-plated
appraisal system, fully owned by the judiciary itself—
possibly even 360-degree appraisal to allow judges to
feel confidence in their performance—which is particularly
important for those who do not come from the most
conventional backgrounds and legal experience.
Benchmarks in the appointment of judges should be
set and monitored, and the judicial diversity taskforce
should own that benchmarking, examine it and take
action regularly. Indeed, today’s Bill is evidence of the
Government’s willingness to take these issues seriously.
Sustained effort is also needed to improve things, and
that needs to be made jointly by the judiciary, the
professions and the Government.
I ask the Minister to assure me that the judicial
diversity task force will continue to own this field and
will benchmark and take action as necessary, with full
co-operation with all those who need to be involved. I
ask him also to say something about when funding
might be found to allow for appraisal in the judiciary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the chair of
the APPG on Drug Policy Reform of which I am
also a member, had planned to speak today but has
had to attend meetings in Brussels. She asked me to
say that she will contribute on that matter at later
stages of the Bill, as I imagine will people on all sides
of the House.
6.20 pm
Lord Prescott: My Lords, I should perhaps declare
my interest as standing as a candidate, if elected by my
party, for police commissioner. That has caused me to
look closely at what the Government are proposing. If
doubts have been expressed in this debate and by the
Constitution Committee about the courts and the role
of the police commissioner, they reflect not uncertainty
in the Government but a contradiction. On the one
hand, they say that there should be local control of
policing; on the other, they make sure that the control
lies at the centre with the Secretary of State. It is the
biggest centralisation of our police that we have witnessed
for many a year. All you have to do is read what the
Home Secretary said to the previous Police Federation
conference—not the last one; she had difficulties there.
On starting out on this road, she said:
“I’m not interested in running the police”.
1019
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
She later said:
“That principle—that we are best served by a police force run
by professionals rather than politicians—is at the heart of this
Government’s plan to cut crime”.
Since crime has fallen by 50% less than under the
previous Administration, and it is now being proposed
to break up the system then in place, perhaps that is
not the best example.
The Home Secretary talks about a change in the
policing landscape. She has announced in this Bill the
establishment of the National Crime Agency. People
have pointed to the conflict between the powers given
to the director-general of the institution and those
given to other bodies and the chief constable. If you
look carefully at this Bill, you see that it is undoubtedly
true that power is given to the director-general to
direct the chief of police—that is set out in Clause 5.
Curiously, the only exception, where you have to seek
the permission of the Secretary of State, is the British
Transport Police. I do not know why that is so. I
understand that it is a separate organisation, but it has
a right, if a direction is given by the director-general,
to get it confirmed by the Secretary of State. If that is
the case, it should apply to other areas.
We have to reflect on what the Government are
doing in this transfer of power. I have heard the noble
Lord, Lord Condon, and others talk about the fight
against terrorism. There is an article in the Telegraph—I
got it by mistake; it is not my usual paper—by a man
people will not be surprised to learn, given my background
with the Met, for whom I do not have great admiration,
John Yates. Entitled “A British FBI won’t make us any
safer”, it argues that taking responsibility from the
Met—I am not a great fan of it either—and distributing
it to another body will break up that co-operation of
the willing that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, talked
about, where chief constables in an area get together
with the director-general of the crime agency. That
seems common sense to me; I have no objection to the
crime agency. All Governments have tried to co-ordinate
efforts when crime has gone beyond an area of operation,
nationally and internationally—terrorism, drugs, et
cetera. That is right and I have no dispute with it.
However, I do not believe that the Government are
merely confused in what they are doing; I believe that
it is a deliberate policy to centralise power and to give
less power and fewer resources to the regions. Who is
going to be responsible for that? As the noble Lord,
Lord Harris, has pointed out, local responsibility belongs
to the commissioner and the police chief. I assume
that they will have a five-year plan for dealing with
police and crime. The power is given to the commissioner
to sack the chief of police if necessary. It would be
rather interesting if the chief of police was operating
on what he thought was a nod and a wink from the
Secretary of State. I hear that ACPO has not been
abolished yet, but apparently it is on the way. That will
be set up by the council of chief constables who advise
the Secretary of State. Do you think that this Secretary
of State might advise those chief constables on what
her priorities are? Will they have to go back and
change the plan that has been agreed with the police
commissioner? Who is running the local crime strategy
and the policy for delivering it? I know what will
happen—it is called localism under this Government.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1020
They do not give you the resources and they then say,
“You’re responsible”. They will then blame the
commissioner and the chief constable for not achieving
a reduction in crime. The very policy that they are
pursuing is to reduce resources by 20%, the police by
16,000 and achieve the increase in crime that we are
already coming to. But they will not be blamed any
more; rather, it will be these wonderful new commissioners.
That is probably why we are asked to swear a pledge of
impartiality. Cor blimey, if you held this Government
to that pledge of impartiality, you would have difficulty.
The Government claim on the one hand that the
police force should be run by professionals and then
create on the other a system that elects politicians.
Even the police and crime panels being set have councillors
on them. Of course the commissioners will have
background and of course they must be impartial—I
would not for a second think that any judgment that I
would be involved in would not be impartial—but
they would be judged by the electorate because they
would have to stand for election again. That is what
the Government say is one of the important democratic
accountabilities of the new system.
This is a policy that has been thought out. It is
about keeping the power at the centre, leaving the
responsibility for the local area and then stripping the
system of powers and resources. In my authority,
Humberside Police will lose £30 million out of its
budget and 400 police. Will that it make it easier to
carry out the crime policy in the area? Of course it will
not, but the force will be blamed for it.
ACPO had a reasonable amount of independence;
there are people here who know how it works. That is
now being stripped down to the council of chief
constables, and it will obviously be influenced by what
happens in the relationship between the Secretary of
State and the chief constables.
The other matter of concern is privatisation. I
heard the noble Lord, Lord Condon, say that he has
worked in the private sector, which has, I am sure,
done a lot of things to achieve the efficiencies that are
necessary. But this privatisation programme, whether
it is in the back office or the front office, is really about
reducing the police from a public police force to a
private police force. That is what is believed; that is
what is likely to happen; and it is all about getting a
cheaper kind of labour to replace the traditional force.
That raises questions and concerns over whether we
are replacing a public police service with a private one,
which, of course, many people feel is the case. All this
leads to grave concern about the role of the commissioner.
I am not resigning because I have discovered this; I
think that you will find that I might try to prevent
some of it. Unless I am crossing the line of impartiality,
I would think that if I am fighting for my community
and it tells me to reduce crime, I am going to be doing
all the damn things that I can to see that that happens,
even if it means arguing with the Government about
it. That is a reality of people being elected by the
community and who are accountable to it.
While the crime agency would not be involved in
tackling corruption in the police force, there is a worry
here. The report that Parliament has received from the
IPCC only this week, Corruption in the Police Service,
makes it clear that corruption is on the rise. The
1021
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD PRESCOTT]
178 allegations of officer corruption recorded by the
Humberside Police force have been a headline today in
my local paper, Hull Daily Mail; I saw it when I got on
the train. The figure in the Met it is 1,800 because it is
a bigger force. Of course there is a certain amount of
competitive unfairness—corruption can occur with a
league table—so the report proposes more resources
and powers to investigate some of the claims of corruption
and police complaints which are not being put forward.
I hope the poor Government are reading this report
and will give a response to it.
The report also highlights concern about contracts
that are being agreed between the police and the
private sector. The commission said that it could not
get access to the information to make a judgment
about such contracts. That is very worrying because a
number of senior policemen have joined these private
companies and are involved in the bidding. That is
wrong. The Government should make it clear to them
that they should not be involved in areas where they
have expertise and where contracts are involved. This
report makes it clear that the commission wants more
information on resources. That will be an issue for the
commissioner. I strongly think that is what is happening,
and that was evident in Surrey. In north Lincolnshire a
complete police station has been taken over—it is not
just a bit of backroom work; the whole lot has been
taken. We have now got C4 Security doing the high-profile
work as well, all rejected by the public and very
contestable. I think there is a growing concern about
these matters.
The Government want to get people into this field
as commissioner—and at the moment they are worrying
whether they can get independent people, and are
trawling businesspeople to encourage them to come
out and do this job—but why is the Home Office, as
opposed to in elections for the mayor and local
government, prepared to pay for information about
the candidates? Why is the Home Office doing what
we already do for MPs, MEPs and indeed other
candidates? But why is there a refusal to give out that
information about the candidates? I know they say
you can get it on the website. Some 7 million people do
not have access to the website, according to the Electoral
Commission. Let us look sensibly at what we are
doing. Of course there will be arguments. This is
about the centralisation of the police. It is actually
nobbling local policing, whatever they say, and that is
going to be an argument. Forgive me if I think that is
kind of political attitude and view. Judge it on the
evidence and that is what the election will be about.
6.32 pm
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, it is always
a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Prescott.
In general, I am quite happy to support this Bill, and
that is not something your Lordships will have heard
me say often about the Police Bills that I have debated
in this House since becoming a Member 13 years ago.
I will therefore restrict my comments to Part 1.
Although it is a long time ago, I must declare that
for a number of years I was chair of my local police
authority. Also, for some 30 years I have been and still
am involved in policing issues. I was a deputy chair of
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1022
the Association of Police Authorities—soon of course
to be abolished—and am currently one of its vice
presidents. I was also a member of the National Crime
Squad Service Authority and was a member of the
Police Negotiating Board, and I held other policing
responsibilities within the APA. I would like to thank
the APA for the really excellent work it has done over
the years. I was a founding member of that organisation
and we were blessed to have the professionalism and
guidance of Catherine Crawford as our first CEO. She
was inspirational in bringing together a rather disparate
group of police authorities and she made us into a
firm pillar of the tripartite arrangement. For the first
time, we spoke as a united body, and we owe her and
all the staff of the APA, past and present, a great debt
of gratitude, as we do all the members who have
worked so hard to deliver great improvements to policing
in their communities. The replacement of police authorities
by police and crime commissioners is something I
would rather not dwell on and my views are well
known. I simply did not want this Bill to pass without
acknowledgement of the fine work and recognition
the APA deserves as it gently vanishes into the sunset.
I have been pleased to see that a number of
organisations with an interest in policing have sent
briefing notes, in the main supporting Part 1. That is a
good start. However, their concerns reflect some of
mine. I remember that when SOCA was set up in 2006,
I was exercised then by its governance, feeling that it
was too narrow and lacked police authority member
input. All the vast experience of members of police
authorities of former regional crime squad bodies was
dismissed out of hand, and we were told that the then
chair was not prepared to consider any of those members
as suitable to sit on the SOCA board.
That proved to be a great mistake, and was partly
rectified by the current chair, Sir Ian Andrews, who
recognised the need to engage with a much wider
policing environment. I congratulate him and the former
director of SOCA, Bill Hughes, as well as the current
director, Trevor Pearce, on being much more open and
helpful to both police forces and police authorities
when they sought help. SOCA is a rather different
animal now than it was a few years ago. As we have
heard, SOCA will disappear shortly, as will the National
Policing Improvement Agency, the NPIA. I cannot let
this opportunity go by without saying a word or two
about the really excellent work this body has also
undertaken. It, too, has brought great improvements
to the police service and has been managing the national
infrastructure, research and analysis and review of
police leadership and training. The NPIA was initially
run by Peter Neyroud and more recently by the excellent
Nick Gargan as chief executive with Peter Holland as
chair. It would be utterly remiss of us not to thank
them all for their dedicated work over the years and
their determination to see their respective organisations
move smoothly to the new framework of the National
Crime Agency, and we do.
So it is around the governance of the new agency
that I have concerns, just as I did when SOCA was
introduced, not least now around the introduction of
police and crime commissioners. I believe that insufficient
thought has been brought to bear on exactly how this
will all work in a sufficiently joined-up way. After all,
1023
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
as the APA and a number of your Lordships have
reminded us, the PCCs are responsible for the totality
of policing, and we have heard an awful lot about that
this afternoon. Why not have a representative number
of them embedded in the NCA, an idea I spookily
share with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey?
It would be a good opportunity to link up both
national and local policing delivery. Who will oversee
the work of the NCA? It appears that it will simply be
the Secretary of State and I cannot think that will be
either practical or desirable. This was a view also
shared by my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns
when speaking to an amendment during Committee
on the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Bill.
She said:
“It is essential for the maintenance of the rule of law that law
enforcement agencies be subject to independent oversight and
that they have a measure of operational independence from the
Executive. It is highly undesirable that an agency with such
extensive powers in relation to information gathering, investigation
and prosecution should have such a close and exclusive relationship
with a single government department”.—[Official Report, 5/4/05;
cols. 599-600.]
There is no board of either specialist professional or
independent members as there is with both SOCA and
the NPIA. Would it not be at least beneficial to have
the Independent Police Complaints Commission scrutinise
their work as Liberty suggests?
How will the NCA be so very different from other
police forces, Customs and Excise, and immigration,
which have all been subject to scrutiny in the past? The
NCA will, arguably, be more responsible for a range of
policing functions. This is an area which needs revisiting.
My second concern is that the Freedom of Information
Act will not apply to the new NCA, as has already
been referred to. The Freedom of Information Act has
an extensive exemption regime ensuring that sensitive
information does not have to be revealed, and I do not
understand why the National Crime Agency is to be
exempt. Can my noble friend enlighten me? Can he
also confirm whether the officers of the NCA will
have the right to strike, unlike police officers?
I have a general concern about how the present
duties of SOCA and the NPIA would be apportioned—
again, that has been referred to. Can my noble friend
reassure me that that will be clarified very shortly? At
present, SOCA has identified about 38,000 individuals
as being involved in organised crime impacting on the
UK. In contrast, to deal with those people, SOCA has
3,984 members of staff and, as at March 2011, the
NPIA had 1,820 members of staff, although I think
that that will have changed radically, as many have
been made redundant. Those seem to be small numbers
to deal with such important policing matters, and
their merging into the NCA will need very careful
management. Can I assume that TUPE regulations
will apply to all staff moving over to the new agency?
Almost finally, what is going to happen to the
premises that SOCA and the NPIA have, some of
which, such as Harperley Hall in County Durham and
the police college at Bramshill, are superb and of
national importance?
Finally, I have a feeling that a great deal of this
work will need to be helped by critical systems analysis,
if it is all to move smoothly to the new policing
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1024
landscape. I encourage my noble friend to consider the
viable systems model—which I am willing to share
with him and his Bill team, but with which I shall not
press your Lordships’ patience this evening—which
would optimise joined-up, integrated working while
delivering high levels of autonomy at all levels, which
is just what we need if this new era of policing is to be
a success.
6.42 pm
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I wish to speak about
the part of the Bill which relates to judicial appointments.
In so doing, I declare interest as the former inaugural
chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission,
a post which I held from 2005 to 2010. I fully endorse
the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay
and Lady Neuberger, and commend them both for the
way that they have handled the issue of diversity and
kept it high on the agenda. Like them, I welcome most
of the changes contained in the Bill, but particularly
those which relate to part-time working. It was in 2008
that the JAC first recommended that change, because
the research which it conducted showed that for many
underrepresented groups, the absence of part-time
working was a real disincentive. Availability of part-time
working will have a positive impact on diversity. I
know that people have raised the issue of practicality,
but similar objections were raised when the JAC itself
was set up. It was suggested that making people apply
would decrease the number of applications and that
we would not get high-quality applicants. That has not
been the case: neither the quantity nor the quality of
the applications has diminished. I am sure that ways
can be found to get around some of those difficulties.
I am also disappointed that there has been no
relaxation on employed lawyers and no movement on
appraisals. I am very concerned that it is intended that
where a selection commission is convened to select a
person for appointment as president of the Supreme
Court and the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor
may be a member of the selection commission. The
process by which judges are appointed is of constitutional
significance, and the Lord Chancellor should have a
limited role in the appointment of senior members of
the judiciary. The rationale for establishing an open
and independent process for judicial appointments in
2005 was to ensure that there was appropriate distance
between the appointments process and the Lord
Chancellor. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 removed
the role of the Lord Chancellor as the head of the
judiciary and Speaker of the House. The position of
Lord Chancellor, which is legally and constitutionally
distinct from that of the Secretary of State for Justice,
is now a more political role than it was. That change
was one reason why the role of the Lord Chancellor
was restricted in the Constitutional Reform Act.
Furthermore, in my experience, the process has
worked fine in practice, so why the change? It is
difficult to see the rationale for it. Indeed, the Select
Committee on the Constitution states in its report that:
“The Lord Chancellor should continue to have a limited role
in the appointment of senior members of the judiciary; he should
be properly consulted and retain his right of veto in relation to
the most senior appointments. He must also retain responsibility,
and be accountable to Parliament, for the overall appointments
1025
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[BARONESS PRASHAR]
process. But he should not be permitted to select candidates from
a shortlist, nor should he sit on selection panels. Such changes
would risk politicising the appointments process and would undermine
the independence of the judiciary”.
I very much hope that the Minister will encourage his
department to withdraw that change.
I would also like two new provisions in the Bill. I
would like the duty contained in Section 64 of the
Constitutional Reform Act, whereby the JAC is required
to encourage diversity in the range of persons available
for selection for appointment, to be extended to the
Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. Promoting
diversity is a joint endeavour between the JAC, the
Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. The JAC
alone cannot bring about the desired change, and the
provision as it stands creates unrealistic expectations
of the JAC, because it carries the whole burden, and
issues which are outwith its responsibility are neglected.
For that reason, it is very important that that change is
included in the Bill.
My final comments are about the selection of the
JAC commissioners themselves. The independence of
the JAC is crucial; it is also a body of constitutional
significance. If we want an independent judiciary, the
body which selects judges should be independent and
be seen to be independent. It is important that the
membership of the JAC continues to be prescribed in
primary legislation and that any changes be brought
before Parliament. However, it is equally important
that how the members of the JAC are appointed is
prescribed in legislation.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 makes some
provision for the JAC commissioners, requiring that
they may not be appointed for more than five years at a
time, and not for more than 10 years in all. However,
there is a lack of specific detail about the process for
the appointment of commissioners. The Ministry of
Justice’spositionisthattheguidanceforpublicappointments
should apply, as the CRA does not make specific
arrangements. Public appointments guidance provides
Ministerswithconsiderableflexibilityinmakingappointments
and, importantly, choice in candidates recommended
for selections. In my view, it would be appropriate and
consistent if the provisions in the Constitutional Reform
Act for the appointment of judges, which were so
carefully crafted to ensure judicial independence, were
also applied to the appointment of commissioners and
prescribed in legislation. This would in reality and in
perception secure the independence of the body that
selects judges. In recommending this change, I am not
for a minute suggesting that the JAC is not independent
or that its current members are not independent; but
this change would ensure that this independence is
safeguarded in the future, because there is evidence in
other jurisdictions that attempts have been made to
criticise the selecting body in order to impact on the
appointments. So this small change will ensure that the
independence of the judiciary is guarded if the body
that selects judges remains independent.
6.50 pm
Lord Wasserman: My Lords, I very much welcome
this Bill, particularly Part 1 establishing a national
crime agency, and I shall confine my remarks to this part.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1026
I take very seriously the threats that this new agency is
being established to tackle: serious and organised crime,
economic crime, child exploitation and cybercrime. I
also believe that the policing of our borders could do
with some strengthening. These threats cannot be tackled
effectively by local forces on their own, by ad hoc
arrangements between forces set up by groups of chief
constables acting collectively, or by ACPO in response
to particular events or pieces of intelligence. For this
reason, I regard this new agency not as a desirable
feature of our policing landscape but as a necessary
one. I believe that there is degree of urgency to get the
NCA established. So, while I recognise the need for
careful scrutiny of this Bill, I hope that it will not be
long delayed in this House or in another place and
that the NCA can open for business relatively quickly.
When I returned to this country in 2008, having
spent the best part of 12 years working on policing
matters in the United States, I was amazed to discover
that, during this period, our policing arrangements
had taken a very odd turn. I found that local policing—
that is, policing aimed at tackling local crime and
anti-social behaviour—was being directed mainly by
officials and Ministers in Whitehall, and occasionally
by the Prime Minister himself.
National policing, on the other hand—that is,
policing aimed at serious and organised crime and
other threats that transcend force boundaries—was
being directed not by the Home Office but on an
arm’s-length basis by an independent agency. This
agency was responsible to a board chaired by a former
civil servant, who had no crime-fighting experience,
and included a number of distinguished and, no doubt,
very able members, none of whom had ever walked
a beat or felt a collar. To me, this made no sense at
all either in terms of effectiveness or democratic
accountability. That is why I welcomed the changes to
our local policing arrangements introduced by the
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and
why I welcome the Bill that we are debating today. The
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act transferred
responsibility for local policing from the Home Office
in Whitehall to local communities, where it belongs. It
did this by making local chief constables and their
forces directly accountable to individuals who live
locally—local chief constables who have been chosen
democratically by their fellow residents through the
ballot box.
This Bill tackles the other aspect of the mismatch in
our policing arrangements that I mentioned a moment
ago. It puts responsibility for national policing where
it belongs, with a Secretary of State accountable to
Parliament. It is he or she, not an independent board,
who will appoint the director-general as the operational
head of the NCA and who will decide on the agency’s
functions and strategic priorities. This Bill provides
for these priorities to be set in consultation with
“strategic partners”, but they will ultimately be the
responsibility of the Home Secretary. For me, this is
the heart of Part I of this Bill and is why I welcome it.
While I recognise that there are details to be considered,
and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has
already put us on notice that we will debate them in
detail, I still think that there is a fundamental principle
there, and I welcome that principle.
1027
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
Fighting serious and organised crime, economic
crime and other national threats that face us is not a
job for enthusiastic amateurs. It requires a specialist
organisation established, equipped, staffed and managed
for this purpose. It also calls for leadership of a high
order, leadership that can command the respect of the
whole policing community because it is based on a
record of successful crime fighting. Keith Bristow has
demonstrated such leadership, having served as a chief
constable and as chair of the APCO crime business
area. Like the noble Lord, Lord Condon, I welcome
his appointment as the first head of the agency, and I
particularly welcome the fact that he is already at
work in the Home Office playing a major role in
setting it up.
I would, however, like to put on record one concern
I have about the role of the head of the NCA. While I
strongly endorse the view of my right honourable
friend the Home Secretary that the head of the agency
should be a successful crime fighter and that he or she
should be given operational independence to get on
with the job, I believe it is essential that this operational
independence should not—I repeat, not—be interpreted
by the head of the agency as the freedom to spend
taxpayers’ money as he or she thinks fit, regardless of
any consideration for value for money. That is why I
very much welcome the provision in the Bill for the
agency to be subject to inspection by Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Constabulary with a view to reporting
on its effectiveness and efficiency.
Finally, I return to what I said earlier about our
local, as opposed to our national, policing arrangements.
In less than six months, on 15 November, the electorate
across England and Wales—except, of course, in
London—will have the opportunity to choose their
police and crime commissioners. These elections represent
the very first time that the electorate will be able to
express their views, through the ballot box, about the
kind of policing they want for their communities.
These elections represent an enormously important
extension of democratic accountability, and I very
much hope that members of your Lordships’ House
will play an active role in encouraging the electorate to
take advantage of this historic opportunity.
6.58 pm
Lord Judd: My Lords, in one sense, the message of
the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, is very powerful:
modern organised crime knows no national frontiers;
the dividing line between what is crime and what is
so-called orthodox business becomes increasingly fudged;
we have all the issues of cyberspace, and the rest. The
challenges are formidable, and it is necessary to make
sure that the police are organised to meet those challenges.
What I would counsel to the noble Lord, Lord
Wasserman, is that we live in something rather precious.
What is it that we want to live in? We want to live in a
free democracy. We want to live in the kind of society
in which the relationships between institutions is very
complex, in which there are checks and balances, but
one in which we are not building up great independent
authoritarian bodies in our midst that are not a living
part of that complexity. We also want a society, surely,
in which citizens are citizens, not merely consumers of
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1028
a type of democracy, and, as citizens, are playing their
part in ensuring a stable and secure society. Local
involvement in the responsibilities of policing is therefore
a crucial part of democracy.
I have never talked to a serious policeman with real
professional experience anywhere—and I have talked
to quite a number in my life—who has not sooner or
later said, “We can do our job effectively only if we are
working with society and if people are working with
us and see us as part of the society which is theirs.
Then we can get on with the job. If we have a suspicious,
hostile, questioning society out there, which is simply
delegating responsibility to us, our effectiveness will
be limited”. In the cause of the kind of society in
which we want to live—one which we recognise is
threatened by the most sinister kinds of development
in crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, was
spelling out, but nevertheless one in which society
remains in the driving seat—and the things that make
our society worth living in, we have to take these issues
of balance and, perhaps, the dispersal of power rather
seriously. There have to be checks and balances, not
just formally and structurally but in the very dynamic
of society itself.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with my noble
friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I have always felt,
having been around in politics quite a long time now,
that one of the mistakes that Governments make,
whatever their political persuasion, is so often they
come rushing along to the Dispatch Box with a superb
solution to society’s problems without first having
built up a public understanding and consensus of
what problem the legislation is supposed to be tackling.
I do not believe that that mistake has been avoided by
the Government in this context and, in another way, I
think my noble friend would agree that that was very
much the point that he was making.
It is also a matter of culture, not just of organisation.
That is related to how far the police are integrated
with society as a whole. Most people out there—and, I
imagine, within Parliament itself—are really quite exercised
and worried at the moment about the amount of
police corruption. That is not just an organisational
issue but a cultural issue. If one goes down the road of
independent agencies which are not integrated in society,
does that become easier or more difficult to tackle
effectively in the long run? It is not a one-way argument
because some will claim that the more you are involved
in society, the more the temptations arise. On the other
hand, it seems to me that if we take these issues
seriously we will have to look at the details and implications
for society in what is being proposed very carefully as
the Bill goes forward.
That takes me on to the issue of law, in so far as this
Bill deals with it. I am sure I am not alone in being
disturbed by the parallel systems of justice that we are
beginning to develop in this country. There are too
many discrepancies. If we are talking about law and
justice, we must recognise that they are not necessarily
the same thing but that we want law which is advancing
justice. If we are talking about justice, we are talking
about habeas corpus and equality before the law—of
course we are. We are talking about law being not only
done but seen and felt to be done. In some aspects of
our new approach to administrative law—I do not for
1029
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD JUDD]
a moment minimise the challenges and agonising problems
which are there—we are beginning to diminish those
qualities. We know that we have people interned who
are not told why they are interned. We know that we
have advocates working in our courts who are not able
to discuss with their clients what they are defending
them against. How do we reconcile that with what we
have always understood to be fundamental to the
system of justice in our society? We cannot reconcile
it. There may be an exception which we come to say is
unavoidable, because of the pressures that are there.
However, we had better be pretty careful that we are
not beginning to let this become a rather convenient
habit of organising our administrative law and thinking
that we can make exceptions here, there and in the
other place.
This brings us quickly into the realm of immigration,
because any of us who has had anything to do with
immigration knows that its administration is a disgrace
in this country. That is not a partisan point; it has
become so over successive Administrations. One has
only to look at the number of immigration cases
which, on appeal, have been proved to be absolutely
up the creek and wrong. Now we hear Ministers
cheerfully telling us, “Well, it would be much more
sensible and rational not to have appeals against these
things. If it is not working in a particular case, then it
would be better to start again”—rather like snakes
and ladders—“and we’ll get much more speedily to
the conclusion”. That is not quite the point, is it? In
law and justice, you want to know what is wrong and
why. You want to pursue those matters, and not just
say, “Oh well, that didn’t work. That was unacceptable—
try again”. It is actually about finding out the lessons
that are there to be found out. I am really rather
uneasy about some of the arguments that have been
slung around by government in this context.
It also seems that we have some strange contradictions
about our culture in this area, because the Government
keep telling us of the importance of family as the basis
for a stable society. Family and family relationships
are crucial to the well-being of people and of society
as a whole—unless of course it comes to the realm of
immigrants. Then families can be treated completely
differently. If we are doing a bit of joined-up thinking
about the issues that face us, we also have the challenges
of security and stability in the age in which we live.
Immigration is central to security and stability. Extremists
operate where there is a climate of disenchantment
and where there is not a sense of positive good will
towards the authorities, the police and society as a
whole but a sense of frustration. There are too many
bad examples and heartrending experiences. If we are
to have security and stability, we had better be looking
to that. Every immigration officer doing a job anywhere
is fighting the battle for security by asking not simply,
“Is this person a terrorist?”, but, “Are we giving this
person a good, reasonable experience in a terrible
situation?”. We all understand that so often their
situations are terrible, but are we giving them another
bad experience which is likely to lead to alienation and
the rest?
I would like to conclude with a brief word about
alternative sentences. We have to stop prevaricating
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1030
and playing it both ways. Do we want to protect the
British people or not? If we want to protect the British
people, do we really believe that one of the best ways
of doing that is to achieve rehabilitation? In that way,
one gets to the roots of the problem with the offender
and to the issue of how that person ceases to be
culturally an offender and becomes a positive member
of society. If we really believe, as I do, that rehabilitation
is therefore the overriding priority—for the individual,
for society, and economically, because it makes economic
nonsense not to have rehabilitation there at the top—why
do we always slip into legislation, proposed legislation
and the discussion about legislation the need to bring
the public on board and to understand the anxieties of
the public, and so on? If we believe that the public are
being misled by a stupid press, or too much of a stupid
press, then it is no good trying to appease the attitudes
that result from that. It is a matter of giving the public
an alternative around which they can coalesce. It
means speaking out very strongly for the alternative
concepts that we see as relevant, effective and right.
We all know that if we were starting again from
scratch we would not have the prison system as it is.
We would have lots of different types of specialist
institutions for different types of people; we would be
much more person-orientated, getting the person right.
Of course the person must be punished for behaving
badly, for breaking the law, for doing damage to
society, but rehabilitation remains the issue—winning
that person back into a positive role in society.
I hope that in our approach to alternative sentences
we do not make the same mistakes that we have made
in the prison system of having to say “No, we’ve got to
demonstrate that we’re ruthless and tough with prisoners
and offenders”. We have got to say, “No, we’re getting
it right with offenders. We’re doing what is really going
to make a difference to these offenders”. That is the
issue and we have got to fight for it. We had better not
think that it will be a cheap option, because it is not. If
we are to do this work well, we have got to have the
people in place with the right skills, the right backgrounds,
the right understanding, in order to be able to do that
constructive work.
We made mistakes with lunatic asylums. We said
“They’re dreadful places and we ought to get rid of
them” and we turned a lot of people out of asylums
without the provision in society to care for them. We
saw families broken because of people coming home
with whom they could not cope. This is not a cheap
alternative. It will need a lot of resources, a lot of
attention and a lot of care. There is a hell of a lot to do
on this Bill, and I am sure that we will do it constructively.
7.11 pm
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, it is
always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
He always says such nice things about me, so I take
this opportunity to say that we have been listening to
the voice of experience, of wisdom, and of sweet
reason, so it is an honour to follow him.
We put the LASPO Bill to bed a mere couple of
months ago, and with this new Bill we now find
ourselves addressing more changes to other elements
of the criminal justice system. I hope that the day will
1031
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
come when we take time to let new legislation bed
down before creating any more, so that we can reflect a
little on what we are actually achieving and where we
are going: not to speak of giving time for, in this case,
relevant government consultations to be completed so
that they can be discussed fully and properly.
My particular interest is in Clause 23, entitled
“Community and other non-custodial sentencing of
adults”, which is designated a “placeholder” for the
time being, while the White Paper Punishment and
Reform: Effective Community Sentences is still ongoing.
It will give the Secretary of State the power to make
regulations on the provision, content and enforcement
of community sentences and to take forward proposals
in the consultation paper once final policy decisions
have been taken, with amendments tabled later in the
Bill. This is encouraging because it flags up the
Government’s commitment to alternatives to custody
more clearly than ever before.
I have often spoken in your Lordships’ House about
the importance of community sentencing and how
much more effective it is than short custodial sentences
in reducing reoffending by a factor of 8%, which is
affirmed in the White Paper. I sincerely hope that this
means that this placeholder clause represents a real
commitment by the Government to support, develop
and strengthen the provision and its availability,
particularly by probation and the voluntary sector, in
the midst of the new competitive environment that the
Government seek to develop. Partnership working,
the hallmark of the voluntary sector, often works
better in the interests of clients than the blunt instrument
of the free market. The private sector must be seriously
encouraged to adopt the greater benefits of co-operation
or partnership where clients’ interests are concerned,
which is what really matters and really works. I will
return to this when the Government’s proposals become
clearer.
I have just had the pleasure of once again being a
judge in the Howard League’s annual community awards,
which highlight and recognise best practice in working
with offenders and ex-offenders in the community and
which demonstrate just how much creative, constructive
and really effective work is now being done all around
the country by probation and the voluntary sector. It
is like an annual litmus test that shows that this
approach to offending is unarguably successful in
practical terms and right in human and economic terms.
I was also recently invited to Liverpool by the
Merseyside Probation Trust’s chief probation officer
to see the range of its community-based work, which
is truly impressive. I spent some time with a girl who
was on an intensive alternative to custody order—an
approach for young adults with entrenched problems,
involving intense work over a limited span of a year—and
I heard from her and her worker how and in what ways
her significant problems were being addressed and
how her life really was being transformed. I am pleased
that the Government are now focusing on these orders.
They are still being piloted, of course, now for 15 to
18 year-olds, who account for a third of those imprisoned
each year. Nearly two-thirds of this group go on to
reoffend when released from custody, and the pilots
already show a significant drop in reoffending. The
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1032
very positive relationship that I saw was a key element,
and the focused and intensive nature of the disposal
was clearly worth every penny that was being spent on
it, from every point of view. The Government are now
responding to the fact that we can no longer afford to
spend £50,000 or so more a year for a young person
literally to sleep through his or her sentence and come
out to offend again; nor, indeed, can they.
I am glad, too, that restorative justice is now being
brought to the fore—perhaps at last its time has come—
and, indeed, that the Minister Crispin Blunt has nailed
his colours to this particular mast. It can do much to
help victims of crime, who deserve as much support as
possible in order to come to terms with the trauma of
the experience, to demystify the offender who has
caused such hurt, and to move forward; while the
offender comes to realise, often for the first time, the
realities of what he has done, and can find ways to
make amends. I have had the privilege of sitting in on
restorative conferences, and I have seen their remarkable
possibilities at first hand. Their potential is great, and
I trust that the Government will back the necessary
training, costs and administration involved, because
the benefits are enormous. I hope to hear that the
Minister can reassure me on this.
While welcoming the promise of Clause 23, I also
have reservations about the tone, which places very
strong and repeated emphasis on toughness and
punishment, which are, indeed, the central themes of
the White Paper. The Lord Chancellor believes, quite
rightly, that too many people who leave custody reoffend,
but he also assumes that this is because the current
range of provision of alternatives are neither tough
nor punitive enough. The White Paper states:
“It is a fundamental principle of justice that those who are
found to have done wrong should be punished”.
It adds the assumption, with no evidence adduced,
that:
“Too many community orders do not include an element
which the public and offenders would recognise as ‘punishment’”.
First, I suggest that there is above all a need for any
punishment to be used proportionately, with decisions
left to local sentencers’ and practitioners’ discretion
and knowledge over its application. There will always
be a tipping point, which will vary between every
situation and individual, where punishment as toughness
will backfire. The overuse of tags, electronic monitoring
and curfews, which we discussed in the LASPO Bill, or
even confiscation of assets may certainly punish, yet
without necessarily preventing reoffending.
I echo the view of the excellent Justice Select Committee
that making sentences more punitive will not necessarily
be effective in reducing reoffending or protecting the
public more. There is always the risk that it will lead to
breach and further criminalising. What will really
matter is that sentencers have a working knowledge of
the programmes available to them in their patch through
regular visits supported by proper statutory arrangements.
I will return to this in Committee.
Secondly, public knowledge of our justice system is
at best patchy and subjective, and is absolutely not a
reliable basis for developing new approaches to sentencing.
There is a high level of public anxiety today about the
state of the nation generally, precipitated above all by
1033
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[BARONESS LINKLATER OF BUTTERSTONE]
the economic and financial crisis we are all in, making
our lives feel worrying and uncertain. I really do not
believe that this anxiety is specifically to do with
reoffending rates of community penalties and levels of
punishment.
There is a wonderful initiative called Local Crime,
Community Sentence, provided by the magistracy in
conjunction with probation, which I had the pleasure
of funding in the first instance when I chaired Rethinking
Crime and Punishment. It operates all over the country
and delivers programmes to inform local communities
of the reality of offending and the way it is managed
by the courts and probation in their patch, using real
case studies. Attitudes are measured before and after
each session, and invariably show a marked rise in
confidence in the system and a reduction in punitive
attitudes.
However, the corollary of this shows that the public
need to know and understand much more the realities
of the criminal justice world, and much more must be
done to enlighten and inform them through sources
other than the Daily Mail. Public confidence and
understanding come from seeing what such activities
as unpaid work achieve. The fact is that community
payback and unpaid work are now an acknowledged
success all over the country and the source of much
positive reaction within communities, resulting in increased
demand for the work done by offenders. It is the one
area where the public can have some real idea of what
community penalties can consist of, and it is very
good. Seeing is believing.
The readiness, willingness and ability to desist from
reoffending depend on many factors in an individual’s
life, ranging from the practical realities of a job or
place to live and a meaningful relationship, to underlying
feelings of self-worth, the ability to deal with problems
such as addiction, or an awareness of the impact of
offending on others. The level of toughness or punishment
is not likely to be pre-eminent. Last week, I was at an
event run by the Prisoners’ Education Trust. I declare
an interest as a patron. We heard at first hand the
absolutely transformative effect on the lives of those
present of reading, learning and ultimately passing
exams, and in some cases getting degrees. These were
people with long offending histories and little previous
education. For some, the change had literally started
in the prison library. You would not normally equate
choosing to be in a library with punishment. Importantly,
they had reached a moment when they were ready for
that change. That had not been brought on by punishment
either.
The five purposes of sentencing are quoted in the
White Paper: punishment, deterrence, reparation,
rehabilitation, and public protection. We should remember
that they all have equal weight when it comes to the
decision of a sentence in any particular case. When the
White Paper says that there is not enough punishment
in the sanctions provided through community penalties,
it implies that they are not unpleasant enough and
that the offender must be made to suffer more. It
assumes that this is what the public look for. While it
argues that retribution should be at the heart of
punishment, we cannot seek to make the level of
unpleasant sanctions commensurate with the level of the
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1034
crime or to devise a hierarchy of unpleasantness or
suffering. In the end, that will not promote a safer or
more law-abiding society, let alone represent a civilised
response to those who offend. Here, I declare an
interest as the mother of a wonderful daughter who is
vulnerable and has been the victim of a serious assault.
From that point of view also, I know what I am
talking about.
Jeremy Bentham, the father of moral philosophy,
believed that punishment involves a response of unpleasant
sanctions that in themselves mirror or reflect in some
commensurate way the actions of the offender. While
he famously wrote that,
“the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation
of morals and legislation”,
he also wrote that,
“all punishment is mischief. All punishment in itself is evil”.
Retribution must not be part of our armoury. Rather,
community sanctions should include facing up to wrongdoing, reform or recognising the need to change,
repentance and even remorse, and reconciliation with
the victim where appropriate. All these goals are in
fact implied in the White Paper. They involve at least
as much toughness of a different order, and as much
difficulty or discomfort as the punitive unpleasantness
it claims to seek. The law exists to contain and restrain
our deepest retributive instincts and articulate them in
a civilised and acceptable way. This was presaged in
the Oresteia, when Athena appointed the jury of judges
to contain the power of the furies and pass judgment
on Orestes, thus settling the blood feud. I really hope
that the Lord Chancellor will demonstrate the wisdom
of Athena and contain his furies. We have no need of
them.
7.27 pm
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is a pleasure to
follow the noble Baroness and indeed the noble Lord,
Lord Judd, on the theme of rehabilitation. I echo what
the noble Lord said: effective rehabilitation is a costly
business. You need to invest in the right people and
professionals, and support them properly, if you are to
get the outcome that you want. That investment is well
worth making. The National Grid Transco young
offender programme was able to reduce reoffending
by young people leaving prison from 70% to, I think,
below 4%. Those young men went into employment
and earned money for their families. Many were having
children and setting a good example to the next generation.
That was extremely carefully done and required hard
work from all around, including the chairman of
National Grid Transco in his lobbying for other companies
to be involved in this process of mentoring and then
employing young men from custody.
I join the warm welcome for Part 2 of the Bill, the
reform of family courts. I was pleased to hear my
noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss speak
about her brother’s vision for this future that has now
come to us. I certainly see hope there in many possible
improvements to the service for children and families.
I will concentrate on one aspect of the Bill: the
possibility of an amendment to this legislation that
might offer to reduce the numbers of women in custody
and children taken into local authority care, and save
1035
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
the courts and local authorities both money and time.
I refer to an amendment to Part 2 of the Bill that
changes Section 33 of the Children and Young Persons
Act 1933. This section deals with parental neglect and
its punishment. I hope we might consider amending
this section to extend the choice of disposal to include
support. I hope we might also discuss ensuring that
guidance is clear about offering support prior to court
proceedings. In discussing this, I apologise to my
noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss for failing
to consult her before Second Reading. No doubt the
House will look to her for advice on this matter in
Committee and I should certainly not wish to add to
the legislative forest if legislation already meets my
concern. However, I am struck by the anomaly of
legislation that seeks only to punish neglect and not to
provide for the alternative—support—where appropriate.
This House was concerned some time ago about the
effect of introducing parenting orders. The noble Baroness,
Lady Linklater, will remember the debate. The noble
Lord, Lord Warner, the former chair of the Youth
Justice Board, commented to me that in his experience
parenting orders were the most effective tool at its
disposal—the least costly and the one most welcomed
by the recipients. Parents often commented, “Why
weren’t we offered this help before?”. To give a few
statistics, between 2001 and 2010, the number of cases
under Section 33 of the Children and Young Persons
Act 1933 trebled from 782 to 2,172; 67% of these
resulted in cautions.
I would be grateful if the Minister might write to
me about the remaining 33%. How many cases went as
far as custody? How many mothers were imprisoned
as a consequence? What became of the children whose
mothers were imprisoned? How many children were
taken into the care of the state as a consequence of
the imprisonment of their mother? I recognise that
these are emotive questions. It may be that my
concerns are groundless—that very few, if any, individuals
are incarcerated and that those few may merit this
treatment. I would certainly wish to be assured that
this is indeed the case. Even if it is, however, there still
may be merit in amending the legislation and guidance
to ensure that more families receive the early support
they need.
I hope the Minister and your Lordships might be
prepared to listen to the concerns of the charity Action
for Children about the 1933 legislation. The charity
has a long-standing interest in this area. The University
of Salford’s four-year Evaluation of the Action for
Children UK Neglect project was launched last week.
Research found that Action for Children’s intensive
family support services intervened successfully in most
cases of neglect, even when neglect was a most serious
concern, to the level of child-protection intervention.
Parenting programmes and outreach were highlighted
as particularly effective interventions.
Action for Children works with around 50,000 children
and young people across its 480 services. It has a great
deal of experience of working effectively with troubled
families. I hope that your Lordships will be available
to attend a briefing from the charity in the course of
the Bill, and the Minister may be prepared to listen
carefully to their concerns. No doubt Action for Children
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1036
will wish to consult my noble and learned friend Lady
Butler-Sloss if it has not had the opportunity to do so
already.
I shall make one or two other observations about
the capacity of courts to make good judgments in
family proceedings. The complexity of these cases can
be quite daunting and it encourages me that the proposal
may offer more opportunities for training in sentencing,
child development and in similar areas involving children
and families. The district judge Nicholas Crichton, of
the Inner London Family Proceedings Court, has
made a tremendous difference to families in this country
with his innovation of the Family Drug and Alcohol
Court. He also goes to eastern Europe and trains the
judiciary there to deal with children and families.
Where one has expertise in a judge, they can make a
huge difference to our society and to that of others.
I am concerned about what is happening with expert
witnesses. As your Lordships may be aware, there has
been concern about the rates of remuneration for
expert witnesses. In particular, independent social workers
are now the lowest paid, at £30 an hour. That is lower
than a process server in a court. Often in local authorities,
front-line social workers are very overstretched, particularly
at the current time. Sometimes they are young and
inexperienced, and a court needs a good expert to
make an assessment of what should happen in a
particular child’s case.
I know a few independent social workers. The father
of one was a social worker and so is his daughter, and
my experience has been that these are the sort of
experts one would want giving advice in court. The
danger is that if one sets the rates of pay so low, the
best of them may leave and it might become difficult
to find good ones to advise the court. I hope that the
Minister might keep that in mind in this particular
area. There is a need for good advice to the courts to
make the speedy decisions we all want to see for
children and to avoid delay.
Perhaps I may also briefly mention looked-after
children. I do this in part because the family courts
often deal with children who have grown up with a
mother or father who themselves grew up in care. If
you look at the statistics, it is staggering how many
young women in care will go on to have children who
are themselves taken into care. If we can avoid that
situation, it is very much to be condoned. I am afraid
that recent reports about children’s homes in the press,
in the Times in particular, highlight the fact that we
still have a long way to go in providing a fit-for-purpose
service to many of our looked-after children. The
many children being taken into care is a good thing.
They will have better outcomes as a result of the care
of the state, but too many within that group—a small
but significant minority—are not getting the care they
need.
Only about 4,000 of our children are now cared for
in children’s homes—about 7% of the children being
looked after—but they have a high level of needs.
Because it is such an unpopular option, they will be
there probably after a number of breakdowns in foster
placements; they will be very troubled children. Some
of the staff who care for them are wonderful and
dedicated, but they do not have the professional
1037
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL]
development to help them manage those children as
well as they should. In research comparing this country
with Denmark and Germany, in Denmark 90% of the
staff had a BA (honours) qualification. In this country
it was 30%. The regulations require staff qualifications
in children’s homes to be NVQ level 3, about equivalent
to an A-level, and managers to have an NVQ level 4.
That is about the beginning of a degree course or a
foundation-year degree. However, the children in our
homes are much more troubled than those in Denmark
or Germany, because half the children in care in those
countries are kept in residential settings. It is a much
more popular option, so there is a mix of children
with different levels of need.
It troubles me very much that those in our children’s
homes are not getting the expert professional support
and care which they need. Some have been sexually
exploited by predatory men. Others will go on to be
parents, perhaps while they are still in care, and quickly
have their children taken away from them and be
processed through the family court system. There will
be other opportunities to debate this, I know, but I
suggest that the Government need to look very carefully
at this area and think about investing in the training
and development of children’s home staff.
Briefly, the Magistrates’ Association is interested in
a duty to oblige co-operation between magistrates and
probation. It is concerned that the essential liaison
between the two has declined over time. If one looks at
the success of the Youth Justice Board, one sees a
good working relationship between magistrates and
young offender teams. I have been concerned in the
past about anti-social behaviour orders and what has
reassured me is that magistrates have increasingly
understood the right way to use these orders and have
consulted youth offender teams.
It might be necessary to legislate for closer liaison
between the probation service and magistrates. This
would make a big difference to successful alternatives
to custody and reduce the adult prison population, as
the Youth Justice Board has so successfully reduced
the population of children in custody in this country. I
look forward to the Minister’s response.
7.39 pm
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I wish
to address a number of proposals but I start by saying
that I heartily agree with noble Lords who have spoken
about the importance of our seeking to find alternatives
to prison. The increase in prison numbers is horrifying.
In this period of increasing youth unemployment, it is
alarming to think of the risk of young people offending
in greater numbers. More and more of them may find
themselves in prison, their lives ruined. That should be
a source of great concern to us all. Therefore, I hope
that this time we will pursue alternatives to prison
with seriousness and I hope that I shall be able to vote
in support of such changes.
I want to speak, first, about the creation of the new
National Crime Agency to deal with serious crime. I
know that there are concerns about this reform and I
have reservations myself, but in general I am convinced
that globalisation is presenting us with such serious
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1038
challenges to our national responses to crime that we
should be willing to re-examine our present arrangements
and be prepared to consider reform.
The very developments that make legitimate markets
work—the ease of travel, the electronic transfer of
money, the internet and the mobile phone—are all just
as effective in developing black markets. In my work in
the courts, I see at close quarters the trade in drugs
and firearms, the trade in human beings for labour or
sexual exploitation, the trade in human organs, which
has been all over the newspapers today, and—I was
involved in such a case last year—even the trade in
babies. Such high-level crime, whether it is terrorism
or just traditional organised crime, involves high rewards
for the criminals—the money involved is huge. In
years to come, we will undoubtedly see an increase in
cybercrime.
For the most part, this sort of crime is very difficult
to police but it affects all our lives, with greater quantities
of drugs on the streets, an increase in gun crime and a
pernicious growth in the sex industry. Policing these
activities requires high levels of expertise and collaboration.
I saw that first hand last year when I chaired an
inquiry in Scotland into human trafficking. What
became very clear to me was how necessary it is to
have real collaboration and systemic responses to this
kind of organised crime. Human trafficking, for example,
often falls foul of agencies not knowing who takes the
lead. It is a crime and so should be led by the police. It
should not be fudged as something that might receive
an initial investigation by the border agency.
Therefore, I welcome the possibility of a more
focused and strategic response, particularly to human
trafficking, but to other areas of crime too. However,
there are problems. If you increase the centralisation
of policing of serious crime in this way, there has to be
much stronger oversight than there currently seems to
be in the Bill. I am also very concerned that the
freedom of information exemption will be continued
here and I think that that should be revisited. It is
important that the public know about the workings of
such an agency when it is going to interfere in the
privacy of so many lives.
I turn to the subject of court reforms. I welcome the
idea of demystifying the courts and have written about
it for years—ever since the late 1970s. It is important
that the public know what goes on in courts. I remember
that in the 1980s the drama series “Crown Court” did
much to awaken public understanding of the processes
and the issues that arose. I have no argument with the
plan to televise the hearing of appeals in the Supreme
Court or the Court of Appeal so that the public can
watch and listen to the arguments being presented and
understand why the judges make certain decisions.
However, let us be very clear that that is not what the
television companies are interested in. They are interested
in new products and new ways of giving us pictures.
They are interested in new titillation from “Big Brother”
to “X Factor”.
We know what interests most television companies
and I am afraid that some of it feeds the less attractive
aspects of the human condition. The television companies
want criminals. They do not want to watch judges
giving judgments in the commercial courts. They want
1039
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
criminals; they want murder and mayhem; they want
rape and carnage; and they want pretty victims and
nasty, thuggish offenders. They also want celebrities
being dragged before the courts. This is not about
transparency; it is about voyeurism. Although it may
be starting in a small way, I have great concerns about
where this is going to lead. Basically, television
companies—I have heard it being discussed—want
criminal cases and they want to be in the courtroom.
Reporting criminal cases is currently very disappointing
for television newsmen. Where are the pictures? That
is one of the questions that television people always
ask. They do not like talking heads. Talking heads are
a bore and that is why it is very difficult to cover trials.
You get only snatched shots of witnesses leaving the
Old Bailey or those cartoon-like drawings of defendants
in the dock that look nothing like the people concerned.
I can tell your Lordships that—I have represented
them. Sometimes I appear in those drawings.
The television companies are desperate to get into
the courtroom. It will start with just having the judge
giving judgment, but they are not interested in the
men in wigs waxing long and impenetrably about law.
That is not what they want to see. They want the
sensational, the salacious and the grotesque. So I am
afraid that this is one of those rare occasions when I
am going to disagree with our former Lord Chancellor,
the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, because I
do not think that this is a healthy development. I hope
that there is no rush to cover judges reading out their
sentencing remarks. Letting television cameras into
courts carries serious risks and, although this is starting
at a low level with the higher courts, the potential for
drift is huge and the consequences for justice are very
serious.
Perhaps I may explain that the camera does not
replicate the public gallery. People say, “But this is just
making the public gallery bigger”. It is not. The camera
chooses what to look at. It edits as it chooses. Indeed,
at the moment the camera is looking at me. It is not
looking at the responses of other noble Lords to what
I am saying. If you sit in the public gallery of a court,
you take in not just what the witness says but what the
judge says and you watch the defendant’s responses
and other things that happen in the courtroom. That
tells you much more than you will ever know from
watching snatches of the proceedings on television,
and snatches are what they will be. Some states in the
United States had to introduce something called gavelto-gavel coverage because lawyers and people concerned
with justice complained that, if you did not show the
whole process, people would think that they had seen
the trial but they would not understand whole areas of
evidence that were never placed before the public.
Unfortunately, “News at Ten” will not be interested in
putting it all in front of you; it will put in front of you
what is most dramatic. The public will think that they
have seen the trial because they will have seen bits of it
and then they will think that the jury got it all wrong.
That will undermine confidence in the system.
Of course, we now have other forms of technology.
Once shown on television, cases will be uploaded on
YouTube and downloaded on to people’s phones. We
will have people playing and replaying cases. Do you
think that jurors are going to resist that when we do
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1040
not have juries staying in hotels as they do in America?
Of course juries are reminded not to look at these
things, but do you really think that they will not? Do
you think that they will not do it in the company of
their families at home, so that there is then another
jury deciding what it thinks of the evidence? The risks
are horrifying. I think that new technology will make
it impossible to have a fair trial and, in the end, that
will mean that the whole question of jury trial is put in
jeopardy.
There is also an issue for judges. In this country,
judges enjoy a level of anonymity and unrecognisability.
However, that will be lost. You can be sure that
comment will be made about the sentences not being
strong enough or tough enough. Then judges will be
vilified and criticised and they will start to become
defensive because they will know that the cameras will
keep coming back to their particular court. When
Cherie Booth—the wife of a former Prime Minister—sits,
will people want the cameras to be in court to see
whether her judgments come up to snuff ? These may
look like advances and transparency to all of you, but
I am afraid that it looks like a very serious challenge to
justice to me.
I welcome the efforts on diversity. All my professional
life I have been arguing about the need for more
women in the courts and on the Bench, but I am
concerned about a number of things. I am concerned
that the issue of merit is not examined in the Bill. I
would like to see a new statutory merit test because
merit is not a value-free zone; it is an area where many
of the judgments that are made are made from a very
narrow perspective. As the Chief Justice of Canada
has reminded us,
“human beings have a tendency to see merit only in those who
exhibit the same qualities that they possess”.
I am afraid that in the recent appointments of two
men to the Supreme Court—there is still only one
woman in that court—25 consultees were asked for
their views and 24 of them were men. The outcome is
affected if the gatekeepers are all from one perspective.
Currently the emphasis is on one relentlessly individualised
understanding of merit and it is too narrow. Instead,
the collective competence of the court should be a
central feature of appointment, allowing for the correction
of deficits in terms of diversity but also in terms of
specialist experience, such as people who have experience
of trying cases involving children or people who have
experience beyond the commercial. Candidates should,
in the first instance, fulfil the criteria of intellectual
ability and professional experience in practice, but
then we might look to some of the other factors that
would enrich our courts.
The Bill has much to commend it but much that
needs to be looked at again. I hope that in Committee
we shall make it very much better.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Did the noble Baroness
see the television recording of the sentencing remarks
in a recent murder trial in Scotland?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I did, but I think
that one case can often make bad law. Of course, an
individual judge giving a judgment in a case can make
1041
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[BARONESS KENNEDY OF THE SHAWS]
people think that that was interesting and reasonable.
However, you can be sure that, as we cover all cases
more regularly, certain judges will be considered too
lenient and they will be pursued. We shall find that the
hunger for punishment will be fed by certain television
stations. I am concerned about where this will go, so I
hope that a good deal of caution will be shown before
we go down this road.
7.52 pm
Lord Woolf: My Lords, it has been a great privilege
for someone such as myself to be able to hear the
previous speeches on the Bill. Some of the material
that has to be considered is quite complex and not
necessarily the stuff to excite one on a hot summer’s
afternoon if one is sitting in the garden faced with the
attraction of a slumber. Previous speakers have shown
a masterly understanding of the Bill and so I am not
sure how much I can help the House. However, I
would like to give the House some general reactions in
consequence of my reading of the Bill, informed by
the speeches that have gone beforehand, which have
been of such a high quality.
I share in the general welcome for the Bill which I
have detected. You address the parts of the Bill that
cause you concern; you do not address those parts
with which you are happy. The areas that have been
focused on for that reason have been few but, none the
less, are very important. Although I would not dream
of following my noble and learned friend Lady ButlerSloss in respect of family courts, I would indicate that
I wholly agree with what she said about them. Perhaps
what she said about family courts is, in generality, true
also in relation to county courts. Courts work best if
those in the courts have the fewest restrictions on their
ability to handle cases in a way which is constructive
and sensible. When you break courts down into too
many parts you have to create divisions which do not
help the administration of justice. A single court, like
the family court, enables resources, which are so scarce
today, to be devoted in the best way possible for the
resolution of those very difficult issues that come
before the family court.
I do not think that there is any need for concern
about the status of High Court judges because, if the
court is working properly, the judges will be chosen
with care so that the cases that they deal with reflect
their expertise, experience and ability. Cases are
administered in a way that will enable the diet of a
High Court judge to be distinct from that of judges in
lower courts. What I have just said I think is particularly
true in an ordinary civil case. Of course, we shall have
to examine the detail but people really want their civil
disputes resolved as economically, effectively and efficiently
as possible. As I see it, at their heart, the proposals are
trying to move forward in the right direction in that
respect.
The areas to which I would want to make particular
reference are those that deal with the changes to the
appointment process, particularly in relation to the
position of the Lord Chancellor. At the end of my
judicial career in this country I had what I thought
was probably the most important responsibility I had
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1042
at any stage of my judicial career: trying to agree with
the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, a concordat
which, when examined by the Select Committee, resulted
in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. As I understood
it, the result of that process was to achieve a new
relationship between the judiciary, the Executive and
Parliament which would be in the interests of all
concerned in the new situation that had arisen. Deeply
involved in that process was the belief that we had now
come to the stage when this country should follow
most other countries that adopt proper democratic
standards in recognising the need for the separation of
powers. The change in the Lord Chancellor’s status—I
would like to express my high regard for what successive
Lord Chancellors achieved by way of appointment—
meant that the role played by the Lord Chancellor
would no longer be appropriate in the new situation
that we were dealing with. In that situation it was
decided that the Lord Chancellor’s powers should be
carefully curtailed and structured so that he could act
as an important element in the appointment process
but no longer have any role in making appointments.
He was to have the ability to accept proposals of the
new independent Judicial Appointments Commission,
but he was to have no power himself to make proposals
or to start off an individual’s appointment unless it
had gone through the process prescribed by Parliament,
and which brought the matter before the commission.
Here I would like to echo as forcefully as I can the
very wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar,
who has unique experience in running an appointments
commission and successfully managed to confront
very significant administrative difficulties in getting
that process off the ground. I must disclose an interest
here. I was one of the members of the appointments
commission that appointed her. She herself was
appointed by an independent process, as was each
member of the commission. It was felt that the
independence of the judiciary was critical and required
that the best people available should be appointed.
The process of appointment, although not known or
properly understood by the public at large, should be
one that in itself indicates independence. That is what
we have achieved, and we have done it in a way much
admired all around the globe by other jurisdictions
which would like to have a process of a similar nature.
I say those initial words because the idea of giving
the Lord Chancellor the ability to invite himself, so to
speak, to be a member of the Judicial Appointments
Commission—I am not quite clear from my reading
whether it is the Lord Chancellor, the President of the
Supreme Court or the Lord Chief Justice who can do
this, but I may have overlooked something because
others have said that it also applies to the Lord Chief
Justice—is an inroad on the principle of the independent
appointments process which the 2005 Act created. I
submit that the Lord Chancellor would be right to get
himself into a position where he is not performing the
role which it is generally clear he is intended to perform,
particularly in the case of the most senior judges. It
seems strange that he should seek power with regard
to those people. Under the current legislation, there is
a power which requires him to be consulted. I just do
not think it is realistic to assume that if he is consulted,
he cannot exercise as much influence as he could if he
1043
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
were a minority member of the Judicial Appointments
Commission. If the commission is not going to follow
what he has indicated when consulted, why would it
follow him if he is on the commission? I do not see
that that is an advantage.
When one looks at the other powers that are going
to be given to the Lord Chancellor by regulation—each
one deserves careful examination—they seem to be
inconsistent with his being a member of the Judicial
Appointments Commission. He would be giving guidance
to himself. That does not seem a very sensible
arrangement. It is proposed that his powers be extended
in various ways, and I suggest that his being given an
increased role just does not match. I therefore suggest
that the report on appointments that we received from
the Constitution Committee of this House was absolutely
right when it turned its face against the change in the
position of the Lord Chancellor in this regard.
I hope that in summing up the Minister will be able
to give us some assistance by telling us what he sees as
the advantages of this. I emphasise “what he sees”,
because I suspect that some of this comes from very
senior members of the judiciary. If that is the case I
am bound to say that I disagree with those views. I
think we should keep to and not derogate from the
general position indicated in the 2005 Act. Lord
Chancellors come and go, and although it is a great
and high office, one cannot assume that in the future
there will not be a Lord Chancellor who, for reasons
he or she thinks proper, will do things that really do
not benefit the system. Giving a regulatory power in
the terms proposed here seems to me to be extremely
dangerous. I have indicated that I agree with the
Constitution Committee’s report and I have indicated
that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.
Perhaps I should leave that subject now.
That leaves the other Part of the Bill. I am particularly
interested in Clause 23, which deals with disposal in
the community. Again, it is not more than a regulating
power. I understand from what the Minister said in
opening that in due course we are going to have the
benefit of understanding what is in mind here. I am
certainly not going to overlook the opportunity to
persuade the Government to take the sort of actions
which the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, was
encouraging them to do by expressing too much concern
about the way the matter has been dealt with as part of
the legislative process. Surely there must be caution in
having a Bill where there are so many powers which by
themselves cannot be understood or assessed because
the Government themselves have not yet decided what
to use them for. All they have done in the Bill is to
enable the Government to put the flesh on the bones at
a later stage. However, if we are going to discuss the
matter appropriately, as we have done today, it is not
very helpful not to know anything about the flesh.
I do not want to detract from my appreciation of
the Bill by picking faults here, there and everywhere.
That is much better left to Committee. I extend a
general welcome to the Bill but I suggest that we must
approach parts of it with caution. I share some of the
concerns expressed about the introduction of cameras
in courts. It could be beneficial but we should approach
it with caution. It will be absolutely essential that the
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1044
judge in court should be able to decide whether filming
should be allowed after satisfying himself that it would
be in the interests of justice that this should happen. I
recognise that that will put a great burden on the trial
judge.
My final point concerns diversity. The judiciary—and,
to my knowledge, previous Lord Chancellors who had
the power of appointment—strove to make our judiciary
better reflect the society in which we operate. It is an
extremely difficult exercise and should not be
underestimated. However, giving a message—which is
what the Bill does—that the legislature and those who
are responsible for appointments consider it a good
idea to have a test that is more favourable to accelerating
diversity is certainly sensible. However, I am bound to
say that I would have started not at the top but lower
down. If there is another Supreme Court that allows
its judges to work part-time, I know not of it. Again,
perhaps the Minister will enlighten me when he replies.
The work of a final court of appeal cannot easily be
done three days a week, or with the sharing of labour.
Many cases last all week—and if they do not, the
judges start working on their judgments when the case
finishes. If one judge cannot come and take part in
that way, from a practical point of view I do not see
how they will be able to make the sort of contribution
that we want our diverse judges to make to the
administering of justice. That is another matter that
we should consider.
8.12 pm
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I will speak
briefly on Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. I start by
acknowledging that it is not particularly party politically
sensitive but is largely about the administration of
justice, and I will address the matters in that spirit and
in clause order.
Clause 17 proposes a single family court with a
single point of entry. As far as I am aware, the proposal
has been generally welcomed. I have the privilege of
having just been appointed to sit on the Family
Proceedings Court. As a new appointee to this jurisdiction,
I will be very interested to see how it progresses.
Colleagues generally welcome the change, although,
as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss,
said, lay magistrates are looking for reassurance that
their role in the Family Proceedings Court, which is
vital, will be protected. They have expressed this concern.
Clause 18 concerns the diversity of the judicial
appointments process. As far as I am aware, the magistracy
as a group is more diverse than more senior members
of the judiciary. Nevertheless, it may be worth exploring
whether some ideas about senior members might
appropriately be applied to the appointment of magistrates
as well.
Clause 20 concerns the payment of court fines. As
the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in his introduction,
some two-thirds of all sentences are fines. I will make
many of the same points as the noble Lord, Lord
Touhig. Clause 20 concerns the role and powers of
fines officers. The Bill allows for the recovery of charges
incurred in the recovery of fines where offenders have
defaulted on their payments. Fines officers are to be
treated as not making judicial decisions, which will
1045
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE]
enable their functions to be carried out by contracted-out
staff. While I am not against the proposal, it fails to
address a shortcoming in the current system; sentencers,
namely magistrates and judges, often do not know the
level of unpaid fines when they impose new fines on
an offender. Therefore, they can make the situation of
unpaid fines worse rather than exploring other sentencing
options where possible.
One possible remedy for this is to make it a requirement
for sentencers to know the level of unpaid fines before
imposing new ones. I canvassed this possibility with
magistrate colleagues over the past week or so and
there was relatively little enthusiasm, as it would impose
a large administrative burden on the existing system.
Nevertheless, I put it to the Minister that this
administrative change would do more to combat the
level of unpaid fines than the proposals that the
Government advance in the Bill.
We have heard a lot this evening about Clause 23,
which concerns the community and non-custodial
sentencing of adults. It acts as a placeholder for the
Government to bring forward proposals on community
sentences at a later stage. In her intervention, the
noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, mentioned the White
Paper that was published last week. There are two
consultations in progress. The first is a Ministry of
Justice consultation entitled Punishment and Reform:
Effective Community Sentences. The second is the
Home Office White Paper on antisocial behaviour
orders. My understanding, unlike the noble Baroness’s,
is that the amendments that are going to be proposed
by the Government are to do with the Ministry of
Justice consultation and not the Home Office White
Paper. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is
nodding his head.
I have two general points to make about Clause 23.
The first is similar to the point made by the noble Earl,
Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater,
that whatever the proposals are, it is of huge importance
that magistrates and the judiciary have confidence in
community sentences. This issue has been brought up
on previous criminal justice boards. It should be a
statutory requirement for probation trusts and magistrates’
Benches to liaise and to be properly informed about
the availability of community sentences. I know the
Government’s standard response to this point is that
nothing prevents that and it is a desirable outcome,
but my point is that it is an uneven outcome in
different parts of the country if it is not a judicial
requirement. This point was made by the noble Baroness,
Lady Linklater, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel,
and I strongly support their view that it should be
made a statutory requirement for this liaison to happen.
My second point about Clause 23 anticipates the
amendments the Government will bring forward on
Report. These are likely to include increased options
for more sentencing in the community. It is inevitable
that some of the options which the probation trusts
offer will be more available in big cities than in rural
areas or small towns. I readily acknowledge that this is
a practical problem, but you could end up with sentencers
knowing an offender’s address before they know the
details of the sentence being passed. You could have
an extreme situation in which a sentencing Bench on
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1046
the same day will allow one vulnerable offender to
escape prison while another offender will be sent to
custody purely on the basis of their address. This is a
slightly extreme example, but it is entirely possible as
there is a lack of consistency across probation trust
areas. This is perhaps an inevitable consequence of
localism, but it is clearly inequitable and not proper
justice. The answer to this conundrum is for proper
national guidance to ensure that, broadly speaking,
the same options are available to sentencing Benches
all over the country.
Finally, I turn to Clause 27 on drug-driving. I know
my noble friend Lord Simon is going to say something
about this, and I read with interest the contribution of
the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in the debate on
the gracious Speech. I am aware of the complexity of
this issue by reading some of Sir Peter North’s report.
I have sat on a number of drink-driving appeals over
the past few years and I have listened to expert witnesses
giving their testimony about the unreliability of the
equipment involved in drink-drive tests. It so happens
that in an earlier career of mine as a junior technician
I dealt with similar equipment, so I know how complex
it is. Without wanting to be too prejudicial, I will say
that it is very easy for expert witnesses to come up with
extremely complex reasons why the equipment is not
to be relied on. That will only be much exaggerated
when you are dealing with a multitude of drugs rather
than just alcohol. It is very important to get this
element of the Bill correct, otherwise there will be a lot
of opportunities for expert witnesses and lawyers to
create mischief in this situation.
I look forward to taking part in debates on this Bill.
It is an important Bill and there are many details to
address.
8.22 pm
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the best thing about the
Crime and Courts Bill is that it is being introduced in
your Lordships’ House. Between now and Third Reading,
we will have the unique opportunity to scrutinise its
contents. I have no doubt that it will be a better Bill
than those which we normally receive from the other
end. There are measures in this Bill which I welcome
and there are issues on which we expect the Minister
to provide further explanation during its passage.
I wish to concentrate on Part 2, which contains
various provisions in respect of modernising courts
and the tribunal system. Reading carefully between
the lines, it seems that apart from the establishment of
the National Crime Agency in Part 1, we are dealing
with a number of matters that surfaced during the
LASPO Bill in the last Session of Parliament. I received
further proof of this when my noble friend Lady
Linklater started where she left off last time, particularly
on matters of sentencing and restorative justice.
Many of the issues were highlighted at the time, but
we now have greater clarity about the Government’s
intentions, and I thank them for that. The Constitutional
Reform Act 2005 made substantial changes to the
process of selecting and appointing various judicial
officeholders. We had the Judicial Appointments
Commission and a separate process for appointing the
Justices of the Supreme Court. The Ministry of Justice’s
1047
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
consultation document entitled Appointments and
Diversity, and its own response to it, now forms the basis of
Part 2; it intends to achieve a proper balance between
executive, judicial and independent responsibilities. I
fully subscribe to the Minister’s view that this will
bring clarity, transparency and openness to the judicial
process.
Our system of justice is at the heart of the democratic
process and I trust that these objectives will further
cement the confidence of the community in our judicial
system. I also welcome the emphasis on diversity.
Britain’s minority ethnic population stands at between
8% and 10%, and while quotas are wrong in principle
and in law there is nothing wrong with setting targets
that, over a period of time, could achieve a fair balance
in our judiciary. My friend the noble Baroness, Lady
Prashar, as the first chair of the Judicial Appointments
Commission, has laid a sound foundation on which
we need to build.
However, there is a distinct omission. Is there any
reason why the appointment of magistrates should be
excluded from this process? The Ministry of Justice
has made great strides in ensuring that the magistracy
is reflective of the society it serves, but it would be
helpful if the Minister would revisit the clause to
ensure that the measures to promote diversity in the
appointments process apply to magistrates as well.
I recently chaired a public engagement programme
run by the Magistrates’ Association in order to gain a
greater understanding of people’s views on the future
of summary justice and the role of magistrates. The
evidence included contributions from the local police,
local victims of crime, local magistrates, professionals
from intervention agencies, ex-offenders, local legal
practitioners and the audience, which included the
general public.
During our evidence-gathering session, we expected
criticism but instead found a good deal of understanding
of the way magistrates perform their duties. Two common
facts emerged from every consultation held in the
country. The first was that local justice should remain
local within a magistracy that is representative of our
diverse society, and a lot needs to be done in this
respect. The second was that the magistracy is not
reflective of class in society, and one of the biggest
barriers to overcoming this lies in the recruitment of
people who hold down ordinary jobs. However, we
need to exercise care, since appointment is only a small
part of the process. It is not simply selection and
recruitment that are important; retention is a vital
element, and that comes about only when effective
training is part of the retention programme.
I said earlier that there are some good measures in
the Bill. An example is the single family court for
England and Wales. Care needs to be exercised in how
this is to be implemented, and I ask the Minister to
ensure that family court magistrates continue to play a
significant role in this respect.
An area of considerable interest in the Bill relates to
community and other non-custodial sentences for adults.
My noble friend Lord McNally can take great credit
for rescuing the Youth Justice Board in the last Session
of Parliament. The board has reduced youth crime
and continues to do so, but now we need to push my
noble friend even further. The Ministry of Justice
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1048
consultation paper, entitled Punishment and Reform:
Effective Community Sentences, is most welcome. We
look forward to the Government’s response when the
consultation concludes on 26 June 2012. I do not
subscribe to the pessimistic view of the noble Baroness,
Lady Smith of Basildon. The consultation is a serious
exercise and the Government’s response may not be
available until around the Summer Recess, but that is
no reason not to set out some of the parameters of the
policies that we would like to see introduced. All I ask
of the Minister is that he will ensure that we have
ample opportunity to question him, as we would
normally do in Committee, if that stage is missed out.
I have repeatedly stressed the more effective use of
community sentences instead of short-term prison
sentences for low-level offences. The incidence and
nature of crime varies from place to place and from
generation to generation, and it is obvious that crime
is something that all societies have to come to terms
with in their own way. We can debate the underlying
causes of crime, but most research and consultations
have tended to refute rather than confirm the causes of
crime and the effectiveness of punishment and treatment.
Magistrates tread delicately but effectively, particularly
when the public and political mood continues to be
conditioned more by tabloid reporting than the considered
way in which magistrates reach their decisions.
Prison is expensive, and reoffending rates are
frightening. Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice
Work, says that community sentences have lowered
levels of reoffending and are better value for taxpayers,
yet we are not advocating tending gardens, painting
walls or putting up fences, as seems to be the perception
in the minds of both sentencers and the general public.
Community sentences need to be robust and demanding
in order both to challenge offenders and to gain the
confidence of the public. There are many good examples
that we can look at, particularly when we consider the
international dimension. The probation service should
also be equipped with adequate resources to ensure
that this happens. We also need to look at the role of
the voluntary and private sectors in providing innovative
approaches and building programmes tailored to the
individual needs of each offender.
Punishment on its own has a very limited impact on
offenders. In our nationwide consultation, it became
clear that the public, including many victims, expect to
see punishment as part of a sentence but that the
priority is for the offender to stop offending. The
public do not want what happened to them to happen
to others, or to themselves again. I commend my noble
friend Lady Linklater’s contribution on this subject. I
trust that the end product of the Government’s
consultation will clearly demonstrate that it is possible
for restoration and rehabilitation to be a fundamental
part of the process in our courts.
I will certainly have more to say when the Government’s
response is available. I conclude by saying that it is for
us to lead public opinion and not simply follow it. For
too long, public policies have had the imprint of
media pressure. It is time to change this political
emphasis. With all the expertise available in your
Lordships’ House, this will be a better Bill when it
reaches the Commons.
1049
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
8.31 pm
Lord Dear: My Lords, I am very conscious that we
are now four and a half hours into Second Reading
and, batting as late as I am, pretty well everything that
one wanted to say has been said. I will try to keep my
remarks very brief and perhaps put a change of emphasis
on some of the points that have been made. I want to
address the National Crime Agency—no surprise,
perhaps—and say just a little about community sentencing
and drug-driving. I had quite a lot written down about
courts but I will leave that to the succeeding stages in
your Lordships’ House.
I declare an interest in that I served in the police
service in England for many years. With particular
regard to what I want to say tonight, I had a lot to do
years back with the regional crime squads, then the
National Crime Squad and the National Criminal
Intelligence Service—all of which were rolled forward
way or another into SOCA, the Serious Organised
Crime Agency—and for a while I worked very closely
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and I want
to mention that agency very briefly as well.
As we know, the NCA has four major commands:
organised crime, border policing, economic crime and
CEOP, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection
Centre. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady ButlerSloss, quite rightly made great play of the seriousness
of people trafficking, particularly child trafficking
within that insidious, growing, serious and very lucrative
trade. There is nothing amiss about that not being
mentioned in the Bill; I hope that, in winding, the
Minister will reassure me that it will be encompassed
by the new National Crime Agency. Of course, there is
no specific mention either of cybercrime, the trafficking
of drugs, arms or antiques and valuable works of art
or the moving of high-value mechanical plant and
motor vehicles, all of which cause immense distress,
are highly lucrative to criminal organisations—
Baroness Butler-Sloss: Forgive me for interrupting
the noble Lord but I was not criticising the Bill, I was
criticising CEOP’s letter, which did not refer to trafficking
as part of the job it had to do.
Lord Dear: Thank you for making that point clear.
All those crimes are not in the Bill. I would expect
to find them addressed within the rubric of the National
Criminal Agency and will look for reassurance for
that. The one thing that I raised an eyebrow over was
the apparent lack of border management or governance
procedures in the Bill, and I think we might explore
that in Committee. It seems odd that an agency as
potentially powerful as this one should be able to
operate directly to the Home Secretary without some
sort of non-executive agency—can I put it in those
terms?—to oversee it.
The press are already labelling the NCA as the FBI.
Those of us who know anything at all about the FBI
realise that it is a very different body, both constitutionally
and organisationally, to what is proposed for the NCA.
Yet there is an article, already referred to by the noble
Lord, Lord Prescott, who is not in his place at the
moment, in today’s Daily Telegraph, headed: “A British
FBI won’t make us any safer”. It is an interesting
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1050
article, written by John Yates who until recently was
head of counterterrorism for the country and indeed a
senior officer in the Metropolitan Police. It is a strange
article that I commend to your Lordships although
they might find, as I did, that it is something of a
curate’s egg. What made me really concerned about
was that it seems to be some sort of plea for the
Metropolitan Police to retain the counterterrorism
lead in the country.
I should say immediately, having served in the
Metropolitan Police and dealt with counterterrorism
from a provincial force looking to the Met, that I have
the highest regard for everything the Metropolitan
Police has done in the past and continues to do in
counterterrorism. It has a worldwide reputation for
protecting us from terrorists and, if the protection
fails, for then dealing with terrorism offences very
well and successfully. I hope that this article is not
the beginning of a turf war between police forces—
some sort of demarcation dispute and parochialism—
because we have seen from time to time, not
necessarily with the Met but throughout the police
landscape over the years, occasional examples of that:
“It’s my ground and I am going to defend it”. If in the
future, and it may be a long time away, the evidence
was there to move the counterterrorism command
away from the Met and into another agency, the
ability to move it into the NCA seems to be a very
sensible view.
There is a huge threat, and we have talked about it
before: cross-border crime in the United Kingdom,
cross-border internationally—you could almost call it
pan-global and that would be accurate. The threat, as
the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, has already said, is
far too big for individual forces to deal with, no matter
how big some of those forces are. We have seen before,
and I think this used to go on to the record, examples
of police forces that have denied the will for successful
operations to crime squads, preferring to look at their
own problems on their own ground and not to co-operate
across borders for the greater good, although not all
forces. That is rare but it does happen and could in
future. The threat will continue to grow, make no
mistake about it, and the NCA will grow over the
years. There is plenty of scope in the Bill for co-operation
between forces and between forces and the NCA.
There is a raft of operational powers available but the
director-general, as we have seen, has to be able to
direct in extremis. The point was made in the Minister’s
opening remarks that the powers to direct will be used
sparingly but they have to be there, and I would
defend that posture very fiercely indeed.
We have heard a lot in your Lordships’ House
about the tensions that undoubtedly will exist between
the police and crime commissioners and the chief
constables on the one hand and the National Crime
Agency on the other—localism. I said just a year ago
when we were discussing the Bill that launched the
concept of PCCs that a constructive tension between
the PCC and the chief constable was a good idea;
there has to be balance. There also has to be a constructive
tension also between the localism of police forces—PCC
and chief constable together—and the NCA. I do not
see any way around it. It surprises me that nobody else
in your Lordships’ House has mentioned that every
1051
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
single western democracy—at least to my knowledge—has
a two-tier policing system. I cannot think of one
that does not have a national organisation of some
sort and a local web of organisations as well. How
they relate varies, but they still have the two. If one
tries to knock down the concept of the NCA, the two
alternatives that are left seem equally undesirable.
One is to have a purely local police service, taking
no account whatever of national and international
pressures; the other is a national police force, which I
do not necessarily espouse. Scotland will have a national
police force shortly, but Scotland is smaller and, if I
may so with the greatest respect to Scotland, the range
of problems there is probably smaller than it is in
England and Wales. If you recognise that there has to
be a national entity of some sort, you are three-quarters
of the way towards accepting the necessity for the
NCA.
We did not mention Clause 23 in the early part of
this Second Reading, but several of your Lordships
have since done so. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater,
gave us a compelling argument for everything around
Clause 23. The Bill is of course very light on detail—we
are waiting for that to come; there is nothing in the
explanatory document to help us on that. I sincerely
hope that when we get down to the detail of Clause 23
we will see an enhanced role for the probation service
working in conjunction with voluntary organisations.
I am sometimes asked by people who believe that I
know far more about policing than I really do, “What
would you do to really help the police?”. I tend to say,
“If you really want to help the police, stiffen up and
make really efficient the probation service, because in
doing so you will stop the revolving door or slow it
down. You will drastically cut recidivism; you will stop
repeat offending; and that at a stroke would help
policing and society no end”. Out of Clause 23, I hope
to see emerge a discussion that takes us somewhere
along that line.
I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is
going to say quite a lot about drug-driving. I shall
not try to steal any of his thunder other than to say
that this matter is long overdue for addressing. It is
exactly two years since the publication of Sir Peter
North’s report, identifying that the problem was
perhaps even more serious than we first thought;
pointing out, as we already knew, that it was very
difficult to prosecute drug-driving under the existing
law; and recommending the creation of the offence of
driving with a controlled drug above a specified limit.
We should look at the specified limit in Committee,
because, in December 2010, the Transport Select
Committee put that to one side and recommended
zero tolerance. The difference between specified limits
and zero tolerance is considerable. It seems to me
rather odd that drink-driving, using a legal substance
illegally in a car, should be very different from drug-driving,
where you are using ab initio an illegal substance
before you get into it. We will need to keep our options
open on zero tolerance.
I have spoken for too long. I commend the thrust of
the Bill, I support the concept of the NCA and I look
forward to being involved both in Committee and on
Report.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1052
8.45 pm
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I intend to speak fairly
briefly on a few very specific items contained in this
Bill.
Clause 26 and Schedule 14 propose that some of
the specialist work carried out by the police and
customs be extended to immigration officers, some of
whom will be allowed to approve specified applications
to carry out searches, detention and powers of seizure.
There are concerns that giving even greater police-like
powers to immigration personnel is not matched by
any training or accountability requirements. It is proposed
that by conferring the powers of a constable on National
Crime Agency officers there needs to be an assurance
by the Government that these people are fully attested
officers. With an administration seemingly intent on
using private contractors, such a requirement is very
important.
During the debate on the gracious Speech, I raised
some practical issues relating to Clause 27 where a
new section is to be inserted into the Road Traffic
Act 1988 relating to driving while under the effect of
specified drugs. Section 4(5) of that Act already covers
drug driving but the Government claim that enforcement
is problematical. The field impairment test exists as do
forensic medical examiners but the combination does
not always seem to work satisfactorily.
It is the view of the Police Federation of England
and Wales—I am an honorary member of the roads
policing central committee—that legislation needs to
target the habitual illegal drug user who is a danger to
himself or herself and to the public while driving
under the influence of drugs and that the legislation is
easily enforceable through the correct use of technologies.
I also drew attention to the swipe testing kit for
drugs which is being used very effectively in some
other countries, and in particular to the 34 prosecutions
for driving under the influence of drugs in this country
in 2010 while there were 34,000 prosecutions in Germany
in the same period using this equipment.
The Government are proposing that, in some cases,
a zero-tolerance approach to driving under the effect
of drugs will be imposed. Bearing in mind that there is
then no need to prove intention or negligence, it is, to
my mind, unwise to use this approach to catch drivers.
The levels at which drugs are considered to cause
impairment in driving will have to be established very,
very carefully.
The proposed new offence negates the need to
prove impairment—something which I consider to be
very relevant—but will be based on prescribed limits
where a drug has been taken resulting from a doctor’s
examination. With this in mind, is it possible that a
GP could be taken to court as the originator of
prescribing drugs which might affect driving? Or will
driving be banned when certain drugs are prescribed
but which, in practical terms, only affect driving above
certain levels? And, of course, the effect of drugs can
vary from one person to the next. This area will need
to be looked at extremely carefully as noble Lords
have already said.
I read in a newspaper that Scotland intends to
reduce the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg. It
really is such a pity that the Government have not
1053
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[VISCOUNT SIMON]
taken a similar no-tolerance approach. We all know of
the increased impairment when a higher reading is
used and the resultant increase in road deaths and
injuries. I just wonder if the Scottish drivers will flee
across the border if they see a police car when they
know that they would not pass the lower limit. Expanding
on this concern, I wonder how the DVLA will handle
endorsements or disqualifications emanating from
Scotland both in regard to permission to drive and to
valid insurance in England and Wales. The opportunity
of using this Bill to bring us into line with the greater
majority of the European countries would be welcomed.
And perhaps it is time for us to follow those wise
Scots.
Legislation needs to result in easily enforceable
levels being found using correct technologies rather
than legally medicated members of the public, driving
safely, being convicted. This, of course, is easier said
than done but having a fairly narrow list of controlled
drugs which cause most concern would be a good
starting point.
8.50 pm
Lord Thomas of Gresford: First, perhaps I may say
a word or two on Part 1. The issue which has emerged
in the debate is what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, called
constructive tension; my noble friend Lady Hamwee
referred to it as tasking arrangements. I agree that
there is an utter lack of clarity in the Bill about the
relationship between the proposed NCA, police and
crime commissioners and chief constables. It would be
very helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Henley, could
bring before the House, at Report or in Committee, a
draft protocol. Surely that is what will have to operate
after the implementation of these proposals. There
has to be machinery to sort out the different arrangements
which will arise. I agree with everything that my noble
friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Doocey and the
noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Condon, Lord
Prescott and Lord Harris, said with some passion on
this topic.
I turn to Part 2 and start with the issue of diversity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was correct when she
said that it is the traditional career path which results
in the judiciary which we have today. The judiciary
does not reflect the diversity of today’s society; it
reflects the lack of diversity in the legal profession 30
to 40 years ago, when I was a junior member of the
Bar, or even before that, when I was a solicitor. I recall
that I had a lady pupil, which was regarded as a
considerable improvement on the situation in the small
Bar I was in at Chester; she was the only lady in the
place at the time.
The traditional career path is that the judiciary is
appointed from a core body of legal practitioners,
mainly from the Bar, who have demonstrated judgment
and integrity over the years of their practice. You
might say that they have shown their merit. They are
appointed in their mid 40s or early 50s to the county
court Bench or to the High Court Bench. If they are
fortunate, they become members of the Court of
Appeal in their late 50s. If they are even more fortunate,
a select few will reach the Supreme Court in their
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1054
middle 60s. Some noble and learned Lords present
may have achieved that rank before that age, but that
is the generality.
It is only been possible in the past year or two to
choose someone who has not followed the traditional
career path to be a member of the Supreme Court, but
there has been only one appointment so far. That is
one of the problems that arose when we were discussing
the retirement age of Supreme Court justices at 70,
which does not give anybody a sufficiently lengthy
tenure in that role. I agree with the noble Baroness,
Lady Jay, that the Constitution Committee was correct
in saying that the age of retirement should be pushed
to 75 for the Supreme Court and to 70 in other cases. I
am not even sure whether that is right or whether that
is not a bit of ageism. We talk about discrimination on
the grounds of gender, race or whatever: what about
age? Should it not be on merit that people are forced
to retire, rather than otherwise?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Thomas of Gresford: That goes down well in
the House of Lords, it may not go down well anywhere
else.
What is the alternative? A professional judiciary.
There are models all over the world. You start off as a
judge’s clerk when you get your degree. You take your
first steps in your late 20s and get appointed to the
local Bench. You climb the ladder. There is no need for
lay magistrates. Eventually, you get a judicial position
and there you are as a judge. Perhaps you can introduce
diversity into such a judiciary rather more easily than
you can in our system of the traditional career path,
but is it desirable?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, opposed
the career judiciary, and I agree with him. What I do
not think is right is to introduce the concept of part-time
judges to increase diversity, if that is the purpose
behind it. You cannot job-share on the Bench. I recall
being in a foreign jurisdiction, we were there for a
fortnight, and on the third day the judge disappeared
for coffee and never came back. When we went to see
what he was doing, he was with his golf equipment in
a golf bag, and he was flying out for the rest of the
time we were there in order to play golf. We could not
continue with the case. So both sides had to troop
back to this country. You cannot job-share. If the
purpose of having part-time judges is to increase
diversity, it is not the right approach.
I now turn to county courts, of which I have great
experience. I share the doubts expressed by the noble
and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. A single
court may have some administrative advantages. However,
there are two tests. First, does it increase or decrease
access to justice? Secondly, does it improve the quality
of the decision-making in relation to a particular case?
As to the first question about access to justice, that
depends on the maintenance of buildings and offices
in every part. The noble and learned Lord, Lord
Mackay, referred to the name “county”. The reason
why we had county courts was that they were immediately
available, not just the courts themselves but the offices
where you could get writs and warrants—the noble
1055
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and I remember the one
in Wrexham very well. That meant that, without witnesses
having to travel too far, a case could be determined
within the community. Secondly, on the quality of the
decision, there is the continuity of the judge in a
particular case. You did not apply on one day for an
interim order and on another day for another interim
order, only to find yourself in front of different judges
when you got to the end of the process. You had
continuity of the judge. Sometimes that was not a very
advantageous thing, but that is what you had—the
noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, knows exactly what
I am thinking. So I am not sure about county courts. I
hope that it is not just a cost-saving measure and that
some real principle is behind it.
As to family courts, I welcome them. The expense
and delay in public law cases has been recognised in
the Norgrove report. Proceedings have indeed got out
of hand, with expert after expert being called and
cases dragging on in a way that does not assist—I
think there is a delay of 55 weeks at the moment to get
a case before the court. Can the Minister say what has
happened to the Family Justice Board that was promised
this month in the Government’s response to the Norgrove
report? Hopefully that will be able to refocus private
cases between partners and children on mediation and
dispute resolution, which I hope is the way that we are
going to go.
I went on the London Legal walk a week ago today
to raise money, ironically, for CABs and law centres,
which we debated at much length. I had the opportunity
of discussing the present situation with some family
law practitioners. I was told that district judges are
quicker; magistrates are much slower but are more
easily persuaded; and litigants who appear in person
will inevitably make a case last twice as long—but I do
not want to go back over areas that we covered extensively
before.
As regards television, will it cause advocates to act
differently in court? I doubt it. I do not know what
your Lordships’ experience is but in this place I am not
conscious of television cameras when I am speaking. I
am conscious of them only when I am sitting next to
the person who is speaking. That probably accords
with your Lordships’ experience, particularly if the
person I am sitting next to goes on for some time. Oh,
I am being kicked. As for the drama of television
performances, in the political field Prime Minister’s
Questions must take most of the viewing time. The
rest of the parliamentary proceedings are a cure for
insomnia in the middle of the night. It is the drama of
Prime Minister’s Questions that attracts an audience.
Where is that in the courts? In the criminal court, it
is in the cross-examination of major witnesses, particularly
victims. We can see that in the Leveson inquiry at the
moment, as we can again with the cross-examination
of the men in the dock. Yet the most dramatic moment
is undoubtedly the delivery of the verdict. I can tell
your Lordships that that can be hugely dramatic.
People faint; there are screams and shouts. Nothing
on the stage, in my experience, or in any film I have
ever seen can match the drama of a jury returning a
verdict. That is the moment, but of course it cannot be
allowed on television. What we must not have is for
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1056
the public to usurp the jury in any way to come to a
conclusion, perhaps to vote over the telephone. Perhaps
the Ministry might think it a good idea to have a
number that everybody phones to give their verdict,
and then it could collect the proceeds from the phone
calls. That is not the way to proceed. We must keep the
tightest possible control on television in the court-room.
I agree that it would be right to have sentencing
remarks. If anybody wants to watch arguments or
judgments in the Court of Appeal that would, like
parliamentary proceedings, be a cure for insomnia.
9.02 pm
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, this has been a
most excellent Second Reading debate. I, like so many
other Members of the House, I am sure, have found it
a most enriching and educating experience. It is yet
again a case of a Government bringing in at least one
miscellaneous provisions criminal law Bill a year. I
think this must be true over the past 25 years, possibly
even longer. On previous occasions I have been irreverent
enough to suggest that some day we should have a Bill
of Rights and a written constitution, and that the
obverse of that Bill of Rights should be that a Government
should be allowed only one miscellaneous provisions
criminal Bill every two years. That was an academic
point when made in earlier years. It may now be much
more relevant, in light of the fact that Clause 2 of the
House of Lords reform Bill has been demolished by
the Richard committee and that there may well be a
unanimous view that only a written constitution can
prevent two elected Houses committing mutual
strangulation.
Be that as it may, at this late hour I will confine my
remarks to Clause 17. As the House will know that
clause deals, first, with the creation of a single, unified
county court for England and Wales and, secondly,
the creation by subsection (3) of a family court. I was
most interested to hear what the noble and learned
Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about her late brother
Michael and his most progressive and pioneering views,
which he articulated in the early 1980s, in relation to a
family court.
On the question of a county court, doubts have
been raised as to exactly what is achieved by this. The
county court has a fascinating history. It is of Anglo-Saxon
origin, probably predating the Norman conquest by a
couple of centuries, but it is a very different body from
a criminal court as such, dealing with criminal and
civil matters. Indeed, it was almost rendered unnecessary
and irrelevant by the assize system of Henry II in the
12th century. The County Courts Act 1846 created a
small claims court, something entirely different from
the earlier county court. It was a very modest development,
and in the 176 years since then it has grown out of all
proportion and beyond all imaginations.
That is the point that I make in relation to whether
there should be unification. The strongest claim for
bringing together the 170 individual courts—this rich
patchwork quilt of little fiefdoms—into one court, is
brought about more than anything by the fact of the
tremendous development that there has been in that
court in the past 20 or 30 years. Thousands of heavy,
complex cases, which normally would be heard in the
1057
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD ELYSTAN-MORGAN]
High Court—the High Court would never be able to
handle anything like that with its present membership—
have been successfully handled by the county court, in
many cases by circuit judges sitting as deputy High
Court judges, but in many cases by ordinary circuit
judges. Therefore, one has to take that very much into
account.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asks
the question of exactly what it will achieve—what is
the added value? It seems to me that one can put the
case in the following fairly balanced way. There are
obvious advantages to using the human and material
resources of those 170 courts to the best possible effect
but there are two very substantial difficulties and
dangers. We had a cull of the county courts in England
and Wales some two years ago. I forget exactly how
many were lost but dozens disappeared.
Under Schedule 9, which deals with this particular
reform, the Lord Chancellor will have massive powers
to decide which county courts exist or not. He will
decide where this conjoined, unified court for England
and Wales will sit, and there may well be a further cull.
I appeal for the particular consideration of rural areas,
which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and
I know very well, where the travelling distances involved
for people who do not have private transport are so
immense—very often half the day is taken up with two
or three bus or train journeys—that one has to take
into account that justice will be denied to people who
live in those areas unless one maintains broadly the
structure that we have at the moment.
One other matter is illustrative of what can happen
with centralisation. It happened two or three years
ago, when the Lord Chancellor decided that all bulk
issues should take place through the Salford County
Court. This meant that hundreds of thousands of
processes were commenced there on behalf of bodies
that were of national stature. The effect of that on the
viability of other county courts could be immense,
making any profit and loss trading account considerations
largely irrelevant. There was no consultation at all
with the Welsh judiciary, local government or the
managers of county courts. It should never have been
done in that way. If it is humanly possible in some way
to revisit that situation, I will be very glad to see it
dealt with in a fair and balanced way.
I come now to the question of the family court. Yes,
this development has been waiting at our door for a
very long time. I have no doubt that it is to be
welcomed. I do not think it revolutionary. As a circuit
judge for many years, dealing with cases that had
commenced in the county court, I found it easy to
send them either up to the High Court or down to a
magistrates’ court. There is nothing revolutionary in
this at all, but again there is the power of the Lord
Chancellor to decide exactly what shall be heard at
which courts and at what level. Those powers are very
considerable.
I end with the obvious point that the setting up of a
family court creates a new forum but does not deal
with the dozens of issues now coming to the boil in
relation to family matters. I refer in particular to the
Munro report, the Narey report and the remainder of
the Northcroft report. Dozens of pioneering and
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1058
progressive decisions have to be made. When the Minister
comes to sum up the debate, I would welcome some
indication as to what the timetable might be. I pay
tribute to the Government tonight for having examined
so many of these major reforms in a sensitive and
careful way. It would be entirely wrong to tack any of
them on to latter stages of the Bill. However, I would
like some idea of the order of priority and the possible
timetable.
9.11 pm
Lord Beecham: My Lords, as many speakers in this
very thoughtful debate have implied—notably my noble
friend Lady Smith—for all the Bill’s positive features,
it is yet another example of the Government’s recidivist
tendency to legislate on the hoof. In this case, it is a
demonstrably unshod hoof. From the crass failure that
my noble friend identified to provide a framework
document for Part 1 of the Bill in relation to the
National Crime Agency, to the uncertainty about when
we will be informed of the outcome of consultation on
the community sentencing provisions and the response
to that consultation, let alone details of what the
Government plan to include the Bill, to the extraordinarily
wide powers to amend any enactment contained in
Clause 2(4), which deals with counterterrorism, through
to the uncertainties about the financial implications of
the establishment of the National Crime Agency, the
latter’s relationship—touched on by the noble Lord,
Lord Ramsbotham—with the police and crime
commissioners, the powers of the NCA director, the
recurrent issues of accountability not only of the
NCA itself but of immigration officers under Part 3,
the implications of the abolition of the police improvement
authority, the lack of clarity over details of the opposed
new offence of drug-driving, which all of us would
welcome in principle, and the reliance yet again on
regulations as yet unseen instead of primary legislation,
the Bill falls lamentably below the standards that your
Lordships’ House and the British people are entitled
to expect, especially given its importance in relation to
our system of justice.
It is as well, then, that the Bill starts and will finish
in your Lordships’ House where, thanks to the presence
of so many former senior members of the judiciary,
experienced legal practitioners at the highest level—among
whom I am not included—and many other Members
with a passionate concern for liberty, accountability
and due process, it can expect to receive more, and
more effective, scrutiny than the whipped procedures
of the House of Commons all too frequently allow. I
have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
Continuing our Dickensian dialogue—perhaps I should
say “monologue”—I rather see him today in the role
of Sergeant Buzzfuzz, briefed not by the plaintiff on a
breach of promise action against Mr Pickwick but by
the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, today’s
combined equivalent of the Circumlocution Office.
We may, however, return to the question of breach of
promise—breach of electoral promise—when we come
in due course to the Justice and Security Bill.
I now address those issues in the Bill which fall
primarily within the responsibilities of the Ministry of
Justice. In relation to creating a single county court,
my considerable concern is the venue. For most purposes,
1059
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
as we have just heard, this is at present based on one or
both parties having a connection with the geographical
area of the county court in which proceedings commence.
I hope that the Minister can assure us that this will
remain the case and, if it is, how that can be secured.
To pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord
Elystan-Morgan, will he also assure us that we will not
see a further rash of closures of county court facilities
for the reasons that he gave? No doubt corporate
clients would find it very convenient to choose the
venue at the expense of the interests of individual
claimants.
In passing, it is worth noting that the ministerial
statement heralding this change also announced increases
in the small-claim limits in the county court below
which it is impossible for a successful litigant to obtain
his costs: first to £10,000, then to £15,000. This is not
in the Bill but it is connected to the question of access
to justice and it would be a grave blow to claimants
and a boon, no doubt, to the insurance industry,
which of course is such a generous donor to the
Conservative Party.
On family courts, the Bill carries forward the generally
well received recommendations of the Norgrove report.
I have one particular concern because the Bill is not
clear on this: will a single lay magistrate, who counts
as a judge in the Family Court under Schedule 10’s
insertion of new Section 31Y in the Matrimonial
Proceedings Act, be empowered to determine contested
cases? That would perhaps be less than desirable. I
raised the matter in discussion with the Bill team and I
do not know whether the Minister has yet ascertained
whether that would be the case.
Mentioning the magistracy brings me to a slightly
different point, one hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord
Elystan-Morgan. Last night I was in discussion with
the lord-lieutenant in my area, who expressed considerable
concern on his part and, as he put it, on behalf of his
brother lords-lieutenant, about the position within the
magistrates’ court system, where the feeling is that lay
magistrates are increasingly being displaced by full-time
paid district judges. I confess that I have not appeared
in a magistrates’ court for nearly 20 years, and the role
of the justices’ clerks—as they used to be called; I am
not sure that the appellation is still relevant—seems to
have changed. Apparently the clerks are no longer
responsible to magistrates’ courts’ committees but,
increasingly, seem to be responsible upwards, to the
Ministry of Justice. As the magistracy becomes more
professionalised, I suppose that that is likely to be
increased. There is a concern, which was raised in the
debate on the Queen’s Speech by a Member opposite,
that local justice might be somewhat imperilled.
In relation to judicial appointments, generally we
welcome the steps to promote equality and diversity. It
is worth proceeding with the concept of part-time
appointments in the higher courts, recognising that
there may be a risk, as some of your Lordships have
indicated, and practical difficulties. It is not necessary
to assume that if things turn out to be less effective
than envisaged we are stuck with the system indefinitely.
I suggest that it would be a matter to be kept under
review, and that could be provided for in the legislation
in the first place. However, we are so far behind in
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1060
promoting equality and diversity that it seems worth
while at least to attempt to see whether that particular
provision could improve the position.
It was interesting to hear a number of Members of
your Lordships’ House—my noble friend Lady Jay,
the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Prashar,
and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—all
expressing concerns about the desirability of the Lord
Chancellor having a vote in the selection of the president
and deputy president of the Supreme Court. I share
those concerns. Proceeding in that way may seem
questionable, as we may be thought to be bringing the
Executive too close to postholders who ultimately may
have to sit in judgment on the Executive. I do not
mean just the Lord Chancellor as an individual; I
mean the Government of whom the Lord Chancellor
is obviously a member. It is also not clear to me
whether the powers of the Lord Chancellor to prescribe
regulations about appointments in consultation with
the Lord Chief Justice and others is or should be
absolute or whether there is to be any parliamentary
scrutiny—not of the appointments but of the regulations
that will govern those appointments.
On Clause 22 and the question of filming or recording
proceedings, we welcome the proposals for Court of
Appeal hearings and remarks on sentencing in Crown
Courts to be broadcast, subject always to the decision
of the trial judge. I think that there would be a
concern, which I would certainly share, if it were
envisaged that those two categories should be expanded
and other areas of the court’s activity made subject to
broadcasting. I endorse Liberty’s suggestion that these
two proposals should be embodied in the Bill—possibly
with a sunset clause to allow the position to be evaluated
after a period—and that in any event any extension of
categories should be subject to primary legislation and
not implemented through regulation.
On Clause 23, which deals with community sentences,
simply giving the Secretary of State the power to make
regulations for or in connection with non-custodial
sentences is unacceptable, particularly in the light of
the paucity of information currently available and the
length of time before it will become available, to which
I and others have referred. Moreover, there is a question
about how the whole clause stands with last week’s
White Paper on anti-social behaviour, which we have
not yet had an opportunity to debate. That whole set
of proposals needs to be thoroughly debated and we
need to know exactly what the Government have in
mind before we can make a judgment about it.
On the provisions relating to immigration under
Part 3, my noble friend Lady Smith indicated a number
of concerns that, again, I share. The first relates to the
abolition of the right of appeal against refusal of
entry clearance to the UK under Clause 24, which
undoes the Labour Government’s changes in relation
to family visit visas. As Liberty points out, this would
create great difficulties in relation to, for example,
important family events, weddings or funerals or for
visiting the sick. My noble friend Lord Judd quite
rightly raised the apparent bypassing of family values
on the question of family visit visas.
There is also a potential problem in relation to
Clause 25 concerning appeals against a decision to
vary a person’s leave to enter or remain in the UK
1061
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD BEECHAM]
when he or she is outside the jurisdiction when the
decision is made. That could make it extremely difficult
for the right to be exercised.
Under Clause 26 and Schedule 14, we have the
conferment on immigration officers of very wide powers
without an evident framework for accountability such
as, as in the case of the police, the Independent Police
Complaints Commission. Moreover, paragraph 380 of
the Explanatory Notes indicates that the clause confers
on the border agency’s chief operating officer the
power,
“to authorise applications from immigration officers for the purpose
of investigating organised immigration crime”,
without defining the latter term. What is “organised
immigration crime”? We need to be clear about that.
In any event, the powers conferred by Clause 26 do
not seem to be limited to those purposes. Again, we
have wide-ranging powers without any real boundaries
or constraints.
Clause 27 deals with drugs and driving, on which
the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, spoke with such
effect during the debate on the Queen’s Speech. Like
others, I look forward to hearing from her again in
Committee. The Government must address the concerns
that she expressed and that have been expressed by
Liberty, the British Medical Association and, as we
have heard tonight, other noble Lords about the practical
implications of a widely drawn offence. It must surely
be confined to substances that are likely to affect
driving ability and which the user knows, or ought to
know, are likely to have such an effect and, as we have
heard, can be measured.
Other matters may be raised in the course of the
Bill’s progress, and one that may make an appearance
is metal theft. That was debated at some length in the
very late hours during the passage of the legal aid Act,
as some noble Lords will recall, and the Government
indicated that measures would be brought forward. I
would have thought that the Bill would have provided
an opportunity to deal with this matter of considerable
concern that affects public safety as well as having
considerable financial implications. We may take the
opportunity of tabling an amendment to that end.
The Opposition look forward to working with the
Government and Members from all parts of the House
to improve a Bill that, in some areas, introduces welcome
reforms but in others threatens to undermine, to some
extent, parliamentary and public accountability and
infringe civil liberties. It will be for your Lordships’
House to improve the Bill and send it to the House of
Commons in a form that we can only hope will represent
an improvement and which will allow us to achieve a
consensus on those matters on which, broadly speaking,
we share a civilised view but that the Bill does not
quite match in the reach of its provisions.
9.26 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord
McNally): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord
Beecham, for that offer at the end. That is exactly how
we wish to approach the Bill. I am grateful for the
broad welcome that has come from all parts of the
House about the thrust of the Bill and I recognise
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1062
that, in a limited time, people are bound to raise the
points that they do not like rather than emphasise the
points that they do like.
The noble Lord was a little modest in his introduction.
He is a very distinguished lawyer and, as he knows, I
am not. In the two years I have been in this job, I have
got used to saying very quickly to people, “I am not a
lawyer”. I have now abandoned that mantra because
my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford took me
for lunch the other day with a very distinguished
professor of law from the University of Yale. I used
my usual defensive opening, “Well, I am not a lawyer”,
and he lent forward and said, “Then I’ll speak very
slowly”.
However, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord
Beecham, that we have benefited from a debate in
which we have been able to hear a wide range of
people with tremendous depth of experience about the
issues under discussion. We have heard from some of
our most distinguished judicial representatives: the
noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is a former Lord
Chief Justice; my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay,
is a former Lord Chancellor; the noble and learned
Lord, Lord Lloyd, is a former Law Lord; and the
noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was
President of the Family Division. It is always a great
pleasure to hear their contributions. I always have
some mixed feelings about the interventions from my
noble and learned friend Lord Mackay because he
says things in such a gentle voice that I am convinced
that he is on my side but at about two o’clock in the
morning I wake up and realise that he has delivered
the most devastating critique of what I was hoping to
do. So I shall wait for that 2 am moment some time
tomorrow morning.
This has been a very good debate. I fully take on
board that we have a task in Committee to look at
these proposals. Some of the issues that have been
raised will have to be explained, debated and discussed,
and how we propose to do things will have to be
weighed against alternatives. That is certainly how my
noble friend Lord Henley and I will take this forward.
I would also like to put on record our thanks, particularly
for Part 2 of the Bill, to the Constitution Committee
for its contribution: a very timely report. With her
usual courtesy, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, explained
to the House, and to me separately, why she could not
be with us for the wind-ups tonight. I know that she
will play a full part when we reach Committee.
I will try and cover a range of the issues raised
during the debate. Although we will be returning to
them all in Committee, it is right that I also try and
deal with them tonight. A large number of people—the
noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Harris and
Lord Prescott, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith
and Lady Doocey—raised the question of whether
there was an incipient conflict between the accountability
of the PCCs and the National Crime Agency. I am not
sure. I think the best answer probably came from the
noble Lord, Lord Dear, in his recognition that there
will probably be a certain tension in these roles but not
a destructive tension.
Somebody mentioned that there has been a debate
since 1929 about how national and how local a police
force should be. It is true that in this country we have
1063
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
had policing that has done both, but as fresh challenges
have come up, successive Administrations have sought
to create agencies that can meet the wider challenges
that go beyond localism without losing the benefits of
localism. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, that
this is not a slippery slope towards an FBI. It will be a
powerful agency, and again I hear what the noble Lord
says about the importance of the power of direction if
it is going to be effective. However, that is something
that we can look at in Committee.
I move on to the powers of the director-general to
direct a police force in England and Wales to perform
a particular task, and whether that conflicts with the
chief officer’s accountability to the local police and
crime commissioner. The power of the director-general
directly to task a police force will be a very limited
backstop measure, used only when co-operative
arrangements cannot be agreed on and where it is
essential for the national effort against serious and
organised crime that action is taken by that police
force. This power does not cut across the responsibility
of police and crime commissioners to hold their chief
constables properly to account for the totality of policing
in that force’s area, including tackling cross-boundary
policing challenges such as organised crime, terrorism,
public disorder, civil emergencies and cyberthreats.
This includes the responsibility of police and crime
commissioners to ensure that their chief constable
co-operates effectively with the National Crime Agency.
Noble Lords asked whether this would be done
within a reduced budget. We are clear that the National
Crime Agency, like SOCA, will need to live within its
spending review settlement, which will be based on the
respective budgets of the precursor organisations. The
agency will deliver more through its enhanced intelligence
capability, capturing a single national picture of the
threat presented by organised crime. It will also have
more effective tasking and co-ordinating arrangements,
enabling more effective prioritisation and smarter use
of its own and others’ assets.
Lord Berkeley: The noble Lord twice mentioned
organised crime. Will he explain what disorganised
crime is?
Lord McNally: Not at 9.35 pm after six hours of
debate. We will leave that for another day.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady
Smith, asked whether CEOP would retain its identity.
CEOP will keep its ability to create and maintain the
innovative partnerships that are so valuable. It will
keep its independent brand and multidisciplinary
workforce, and it will have a ring-fenced budget,
operational independence within the NCA and
independent governance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble and
learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble
Lords, Lord McColl and Lord Dear, raised the question
of human trafficking. The National Crime Agency
will have a key role in building on the existing
arrangements for tackling human trafficking by using
its enhanced intelligence capabilities and co-ordinating
functions to target organised criminal gangs involved
in human trafficking, wherever they are. The UK
Human Trafficking Centre will move into the National
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1064
Crime Agency as part of the precursor transfer of the
Serious Organised Crime Agency. This will ensure that
human trafficking continues to receive the priority
and attention that it deserves.
My noble friend Lord Alderdice raised the important
and particular issue of how the National Crime Agency
will operate in Northern Ireland. The NCA will be a
UK-wide agency. In framing the provisions of the Bill
and developing the operating model on the ground, we
were acutely conscious of the fact that policing is
devolved in Northern Ireland, and of the need to work
with the grain of existing police arrangements. My
right honourable friend the Home Secretary worked
closely with the Minister of Justice, David Ford, to
ensure that the legislative framework properly respects
the devolution settlement. The provisions were designed
not to interfere with the important accountability
arrangements for policing in Northern Ireland. In
accordance with the Sewel convention, it will be necessary
for the Northern Ireland Assembly to agree a legislative
consent Motion in respect of the provisions in Part 1
of the Bill. I am sure that the Assembly will debate the
matter robustly, and we will welcome any proposals
for strengthening the partnership working between the
National Crime Agency and the Police Service of
Northern Ireland.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey, Lady Hamwee,
Lady Harris and Lady Smith, and the noble Lords,
Lord Dear and Lord Condon, raised the question of
counterterrorism functions. We have made it very clear
that decisions on the future of counterterrorism policing
should not be taken until after the 2012 London
Olympic and Paralympic Games, and after the NCA
has been fully established. Only then will counterterrorism
policing be considered, and decisions taken on what
role the NCA might play. Without prejudice to any
further decision on the issue, Clause 2 will enable the
functions of the NCA to be extended by order to
cover counterterrorism policing. Any such order would
be subject to super-affirmative procedures to ensure
full parliamentary scrutiny. I agree with the noble
Lord, Lord Dear, that we do want any turf wars. Just
as we will set an example in this House of constructive
examination of the cases, I hope the various police
authorities will do the same.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith and my noble
friend Lady Harris raised the question of whether the
new agency will be exempt from the Freedom of
Information Act. I am the Minister responsible for
freedom of information and I have given this considerable
thought. At the moment SOCA is covered by the
Freedom of Information Act. The question I had to
face was whether it was cleaner simply to make the
larger body exempt. It is a matter that can be well
examined in Committee. We are committed to making
the National Crime Agency open, public-facing and
transparent. Careful consideration was given to whether
the National Crime Agency should be brought under
the Freedom of Information Act, which was not the
case with the Serious Organised Crime Agency. We
want the public to have access to a wide range of
information about what the agency is doing, how it is
performing, its internal procedures and the latest
assessment of the threat from organised crime. The
measures in the Bill, such as a duty to publish information,
1065
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[LORDS]
[LORD MCNALLY]
will ensure that this happens. The National Crime
Agency will handle large volumes of sensitive information,
including intelligence material which could have a
critical impact on national security. If the National
Crime Agency were subject to the Freedom of Information
Act, there is a risk that international and private-sector
partners would be more reluctant to share information
with the agency. Intelligence shows that organised
criminals will seek to exploit any avenue, including
freedom of information requests, to further their criminal
activity. As I said, it was a matter of a judgment. I am
very happy to revisit it in Committee. Perhaps when
we do so, the Opposition could tell us why SOCA was
exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and we
could explore their thinking at that time. I suspect it
was not very far from the thinking that we have gone
through when looking at the setting-up of this agency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble
Lord, Lord Condon, asked about the National Policing
Improvement Agency functions. The wind-down of
the agency is well under way with some functions
already transferred to the Home Office and others to
the Serious Organised Crime Agency as an interim
step to their new home in the National Crime Agency
in 2013. A programme of further transfers to other
successor organisations, such as the new police professional
body and the new police information and communications
technology company is being managed in conjunction
with the National Policing Improvement Agency. My
right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already
set out the details of these transfers in two Written
Ministerial Statements. The future destination of all
remaining National Policing Improvement Agency
functions will be announced in due course.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick,
the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the
noble Lords, Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Ponsonby
of Shulbrede, and my noble friends Lord Thomas of
Gresford and Lord Dholakia asked about changes to
the county and family courts. There is no secret agenda
for further court closures. That is a separate issue that
will be debated, discussed and decided on its merits at
the time. In both cases this will give greater flexibility
and efficiency, and in the main the practitioners involved
in those courts have welcomed the move. I was particularly
pleased to hear the endorsement that the noble and
learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, felt able to give,
although I suspect that, once again, we will examine
this carefully in Committee.
An issue that is of concern to my noble friend Lord
Dholakia and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as well
as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss,
is whether the role of magistrates will be diminished in
the new single family court. I can assure noble Lords
that the Government have no intention of diminishing
the importance of magistrates in the family justice
system. Magistrates will continue to play a vital role in
the new family court, but on the specific question of
whether a lay magistrate would sit alone in these cases,
the answer is no.
There was a full and informed discussion on the
merits of diversity. One of my tasks in the Ministry of
Justice is to promote diversity. To a certain extent I
accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Thomas
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1066
that, particularly at the top end, the shape of our
judiciary reflects the Bar of 30 years ago. However, I
have said before from this Box that when people ask
me what the biggest difference is on returning to
Whitehall after a 30-year gap, it is that the Civil
Service has managed to diversify in a most remarkable
way over that period. Although I might have started
life as a Fabian, I am not convinced that the inevitability
of gradualness is going to produce the diverse judiciary
that a 21st century functioning democracy deserves. I
am in nothing but awe of both the intellectual calibre
and the integrity of our judiciary. Wherever I go, I
realise what a great national asset we have in it.
However, I do not think that its merit cannot be
produced from a more diverse source that better reflects
our society.
I look forward to discussing these issues in Committee
and I hope that we will see broad cross-party support
in this House for what we are trying to do. We are not
proceeding recklessly, rather we are building on some
worthwhile reforms. We have listened to much of the
advice given by the Constitution Committee and I
think that we are on the right track. However, I also
agree with a point that was made a number of times,
which is that if we are going to get diversity, it is not a
matter for government alone. The professions and the
judiciary have to buy into it. The noble Baroness,
Lady Neuberger, asked particularly about the Judicial
Diversity Taskforce. The work of the taskforce on
diversity is crucial and I can provide a reassurance that
it will continue to drive progress in this area. I certainly
made it clear when I became Minister that one of my
priorities was attending meetings of the taskforce and
making sure that we kept up the pressure and commitment
from the various parts of the system that are recommended
on that force.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady
Prashar, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf,
queried the involvement of the Lord Chancellor in the
appointment process. Obviously, we will return to this.
I have sat in on some of the discussions and it certainly
is not any kind of power grab by the present Lord
Chancellor. In fact, like me, he is rather an enthusiast
for the separation of powers. In the discussions, the
opinion came from a number of sources that the
relationship between the President of the Supreme
Court, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor
was absolutely crucial to the effective working of
justice and therefore making sure that they were a
cohesive group was very important.
As has been pointed out, at the moment the Lord
Chancellor has a veto, which is a pretty large intrusion
into any selection process. In these proposals, that veto
is dropped and he becomes one of a committee. It will
be very interesting to tease this out in Committee. As
the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will confirm,
these are not only judicial offices but considerable
administrative offices—perhaps they regret it—particularly
for the Lord Chief Justice, and their relationships with
the Executive and Parliament have to be managed
properly to reflect the realities of those relationships.
Looking over at the Cross Benches, I can see that
noble Lords are keeping their powder dry for Committee.
The noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Ponsonby,
raised the issue of the enforcement of fines. The issue
1067
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
[28 MAY 2012]
of fines enforcement and the vulnerable is important.
Fines are a criminal sentence and taxpayers should
not be subsidising those who deliberately avoid payment.
Under our proposals, if the offender provides accurate
means information at the outset of their engagement
with the justice system and keeps to the payment plan
set out by the court, enforcement action will not take
place.
We heard a number of very interesting comments
on court broadcasting from the noble Baroness, Lady
Kennedy, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay,
who is much influenced by Scottish experience. Again,
let us have a good Committee session on that.
On community sentencing, I would make a virtue
of the fact that it is only a holding clause at the
moment. It is also an opportunity. We heard my noble
friend Lady Linklater and the noble Lords, Lord
Ramsbotham, Lord Judd and Lord Dholakia, eloquently
putting the case for constructive community sentencing.
We are in consultation; this is the opportunity to use
that consultation to make that case.
On drug-driving, I draw the House’s attention to
the fact that my noble friend Lord Attlee has been
here throughout this debate precisely because he is
going to cover those clauses in the Bill. He even
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
1068
whispered to me that if any noble Lords wished to
nobble him and talk to him before that, he is ready to
receive them.
It would only be fair if I said that we could leave
other matters to Committee. I understand the concerns
expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the
noble Lord, Lord Judd, about family visa cases and,
again, we will make our case in Committee.
On the timetable that the noble Lord, Lord ElystanMorgan, asked about, I am afraid that I cannot help.
The Bill will be the first steps in the reform of the
family court. There are significant changes in store
that will take some time to implement, so I cannot at
this time give a timetable, but we will do so when we
are able.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, and I look forward
to exploring these and other issues in Committee. I
believe that this Bill will greatly enhance the national
response to serious and organised crime while delivering
a swift, more transparent and effective courts and
tribunals system. I warmly commend it to the House.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee
of the Whole House.
House adjourned at 9.56 pm.
GC 43
Arrangement of Business
[28 MAY 2012]
Grand Committee
Monday, 28 May 2012.
Arrangement of Business
Announcement
3.30 pm
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness
Andrews): My Lords, I am advised that if it gets
intolerably hot, jackets may be removed. I remind
noble Lords that in the case of each statutory instrument,
the Motion before the Committee is that it do consider
or take note of the statutory instrument in question.
I should make it clear that the Motions in the name of
the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, are both
on negative instruments for which praying time has
expired, so no further proceedings on them are expected.
Infrastructure Planning (Waste Water
Transfer and Storage) Order 2012
Considered in Grand Committee
3.30 pm
Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the
House that it has considered the Infrastructure
Planning (Waste Water Transfer and Storage) Order.
Relevant documents: 44th Report from the Joint
Committee on Statutory Instruments, Session 2010-12
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor
of Holbeach): My Lords, in November last year, Ministers
made a Statement in the other place on the Thames
tunnel. This included our plans to introduce an order
amending Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008, which
would classify proposed major sewer projects as nationally
significant infrastructure projects, or NSIPs for short.
This Section 14 order is before your Lordships today.
We conducted a 12-week public consultation on the
draft order last summer and published its summary
of responses in January this year. More than 900
organisations and individuals were consulted about
our proposals. The consultation documents were publicly
available on Defra’s website, and two question-and-answer
drop-in sessions for the public were held at Defra’s
offices. We received a total of 44 responses to the
consultation. The majority were from local planning
authorities and individuals near to potential construction
sites for the Thames tunnel project proposed by Thames
Water. The outcome of the consultation showed that
the draft order itself was not opposed. What opposition
there was came mostly from local people living near
proposed Thames tunnel construction sites. They were
concerned that local planning authorities were being
excluded from the streamlined NSIP planning application
process.
Infrastructure Planning Order 2012
GC 44
The order would perform two functions. First, it
would extend the categories of NSIPs to include major
sewer developments with a capacity of 350,000 cubic
metres or more. Secondly, it would allow public
consultations that are carried out on such proposals
before being designated as NSIPs to be treated as part
of the planning application process as if they had
indeed been classed as NSIPs.
The main advantage of classifying proposed major
sewers as nationally significant infrastructure projects
is that they would benefit from the existing streamlined
NSIP planning application process under the Planning
Act 2008. This involves a single application to the
Planning Inspectorate for a development consent order.
The NSIP planning application process ensures
that local authorities and local communities are included
as an essential part of the whole process, enabling
them to submit representations to the Planning
Inspectorate as part of its consideration of an application.
Democratic accountability is built into the system,
with Ministers making the final decision on such
applications at the end of the 12-month process, taking
account of the recommendations of the Planning
Inspectorate.
The planning application process for proposed major
sewerswasconsideredinFebruary2011bytheEnvironment,
Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee as part of its
scrutiny of the waste water national policy statement.
The committee found it inconsistent that major sewer
developments were not included as NSIPs alongside
major new sewage treatment works within the Planning
Act 2008. The committee recommended that the situation
be rectified accordingly.
The order before your Lordships today meets that
recommendation. It does not specifically refer to the
Thames tunnel project. However, this is currently the
only proposed major sewer development that would
meet the threshold of the order. In the future there
may be other such projects and so it is right that an
appropriate legislative framework is in place to ensure
that they too can progress with as little unnecessary
delay as possible.
As far as the Thames tunnel is concerned, the waste
water national policy statement was approved by
Parliament and designated on 26 March. This sets out
the need for the Thames tunnel as the most cost-effective,
timely and comprehensive solution currently available
to the problem of significant ongoing sewage pollution
into the River Thames in London, when compared with
the alternatives. It will enhance the ecology of the river
and is estimated to directly employ around 4,200 people
in its construction and in related sector works, with an
estimated several thousand secondary jobs in the supply
chain and wider London economy. Thames Water has
set itself a target of employing local workers to make
up to 20% of its tunnel construction workforce.
I know that many of your Lordships have firmly
held views on the merits or otherwise of the Thames
tunnel and I look forward to this debate during which,
no doubt, many of these views will be put forward.
However, I ask your Lordships to bear it in mind that
the order may apply not only to the Thames tunnel
GC 45
Infrastructure Planning Order 2012
[LORDS]
[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH]
but also to any similar major sewer projects that may
be brought forward in the future. I commend the draft
order to the House.
Baroness Parminter: My Lords, there is clearly
widespread support for this order, as the Minister
said. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee in another place recommended that the
Government go down this route and the responses to
the consultation contained widespread support, including
from the local authorities that would be affected by
the Thames tunnel proposals. Therefore, on this side
of the coalition, we support the order. It is important
to remind ourselves why it is being brought forward. It
is not about trying to speed up any decisions; it is
about making a process that is timely and minimises
unnecessary cost but remains democratically accountable.
This is a new type of engagement for the public in
terms of how they respond to major sewer proposals;
in the past DCLG has been very good at public
education campaigns about how the public can engage
which allays fears that these are processes that are
somehow to speed things up and stop them being
involved. Will the Minister be speaking to his colleagues
in DCLG to ensure that a proper public consultation
campaign is undertaken so that people realise how
they can engage in this new major infrastructure order?
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I spoke about this project—
well I did not actually speak, my noble friend made
my speech for me because I was on the sleeper to
Scotland. He did an extremely good job especially
when it apparently diverged from our party policy, but
there we are. I do not have a particular problem with
the concept of an order such as this amending the
planning process because I have always supported the
Infrastructure Planning Commission and its successor.
I did, however, have a chuckle when I read the impact
assessment for this project: in answer to the question
of what was the CO2 equivalent change in greenhouse
gas emissions in millions of tonnes of CO2 equivalent,
the answer was “not applicable”.
When I worked out that for the Thames tunnel—
I do not know whether Thames Water is still going to
move all the spoil away by road—that was going to be
500 trucks a day, the idea that that would not produce
any CO2 was laughable. Of course, many other bits of
CO2 will come out of the construction, let alone the
operation. The matter might be a little detailed but it
needs looking at again.
Since the debate on 27 March, things have moved
on and Thames Water has produced a second consultation
report. It has made some changes but I do not think it
has recognised that it may have an unnecessarily expensive
scheme. The eminent water engineer, Chris Binnie,
produced a report, about which I shall speak in a
minute and which could reduce infraction fines by
obtaining improvement much sooner than 2023, which
I believe is the latest date for the scheme to be completed.
We must not forget that the cost is now something like
£4.2 billion, plus I think that the estimate of infraction
has gone up to £1.5 billion. There is, of course, always
a risk of cost overrun in tunnelling. Further, there is
the estimated £80 per annum for 30 years that every
Infrastructure Planning Order 2012
GC 46
Thames Water customer will have to pay, with or
without the extra subsidy from the Government that
was agreed a couple of months ago. Therefore, I
suggest that the Government ought at this stage to
take a step back and reflect before spending nearly
£6 billion of taxpayers’ money, which may not even
satisfy the European Commission’s requirements. Indeed,
we do not yet know what those requirements will be
until the Court has concluded its deliberations.
Mr Binnie’s report refers to a possible fine of
£1.5 billion. He believes that the fish issue can be
addressed much more cheaply and that the same applies
to the problems of sewage, litter and health impacts in
the London docks. He says that these rather smaller
issues could be addressed within two or three years,
although one of them will not be resolved until 2023,
which is more than 10 years away. However, all this is
dependent on the European Court’s judgment, which
will go back to the European Commission. Therefore,
I argue that it is well worth trying to introduce some
interim measures. That would probably reduce the fine
significantly as the matter is assessed on a five-point
basis and if you make improvements, the fine goes
down.
This project has gained a momentum of its own, as
do many big projects, some of which one likes and
some of which one does not like. This theory of mine
as regards projects gaining a momentum of their own
goes back many years. Ministers like to put their
names to big projects but these projects do not always
survive political pressures. That is true of Governments
of all parties, and 2023 is a very long time away,
although I am sure that the Minister opposite does not
fall into that category. However, I am concerned about
where the independent advice is to be found in all this.
I understand that the person in Ofwat who is responsible
for this project used to work for Thames Water and
that the person responsible for the technical advice on
this scheme used to be responsible for the Mogden
sewage works. I also understand that during the hearings
that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, held a few months
ago, Thames Water referred to Ofwat and the Environment
Agency as its team. This should not be a team. The
regulator has an independent role. It is all wrong that
they should all be one happy family when they are
spending £6 billion of taxpayers’ money. Nobody is
looking at alternatives. The Minister said in his
introduction to the debate that this was the best scheme,
having considered alternatives, but who is considering
the alternatives?
I suppose it is not surprising that people are not
looking at alternatives but this needs to be done. If
one looks at some of the mitigating measures produced
by Mr Binnie and others, there are probably many of
them. We also need to make sure that if the Thames
tunnel scheme goes ahead, it achieves the results we
want. However, we do not know what the Commission
will decide in this regard. I hope that the Minister will
advise his colleagues that it is time to take a step back
and look at alternatives. I would very much welcome a
quick meeting with him to go through this in more
detail. In the mean time, I shall not oppose the order
and wish it well. However, I am not sure that I wish the
project well at this stage.
GC 47
Infrastructure Planning Order 2012
[28 MAY 2012]
3.45 pm
Lord Grantchester: My Lords,
“Infrastructure investment is vital to the UK economy and
jobs”.
That is the first sentence in the background paper to
the order today. It is wonderful to hear the Minister
speak to it and, as we have been reminding him and his
Government constantly, place it at the top of the
action for growth agenda. This order is coming forward
just before the Recess. The Water Industry (Financial
Assistance) Bill was scheduled for the day before the
Easter Recess. From this side, we welcome them at
whatever time. We will very much take these orders as
a quasi-Committee stage—as a Committee stage was
denied to the water industry Bill as a money Bill—to
follow up the progress of activity.
This order fulfils the recommendation in the EFRA
committee report on the draft waste water national
policy statement that the Government should bring
forward proposals to amend the Planning Act 2008 to
bring large-scale sewerage infrastructure, such as the
Thames tunnel, within the planning regime for nationally
significant infrastructure projects. As the Minister said
in his introduction, this order is concerned with the
construction and alteration of infrastructure for waste
water. Currently, around 39 million cubic metres of
waste water enters the Thames every year from London’s
combined sewage overflows. When storm water capacity
is exceeded, they discharge. On average, that happens
once a week. The urgency of the work as a health
hazard and to improve the environment is increased
by the infraction proceedings being pursued against
the UK by the European Commission for breaches of
the directive.
Is there any update the Minister could give since the
passing of the Bill in March? Is he now more confident
that the scheme will be fit for purpose for the long
haul? Is there an outcome he can share from the
consultation undertaken by Thames Water Limited in
the early months of this year, a measure spoken to by
my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who also asked questions
about the costs and outcomes of the scheme? It is very
encouraging that the amendment to Section 35 of the
Planning Act 2008 came into force in April instead of
in December this year. The memorandum points out
in its policy options analysis that this will save costs:
each month’s reduction in time will save in the region
of £5 million.
I thank the Minister for his letter following the
passage of the Bill in March. I shall follow it up with a
few questions for information on the detail of the
order today. The memorandum lists the groups contacted
in the consultation process undertaken last year on the
capacity threshold of 35,000 cubic metres and indicates
62% agreement with the threshold and 73% agreement
with the proposed supplemental provisions. The noble
Baroness, Lady Parminter, mentioned the local groups
established in response to the Thames tunnel proposals.
Will the Minister give an indication of the percentage
agreement of community groups within the overall
figures? Can we be assured that the worried section of
the population, apart from all the relevant authorities
Infrastructure Planning Order 2012
GC 48
and planning associations, is on the whole happy with
the proposal? I know the Minister mentioned this in
his opening remarks.
On the capacity threshold, will the Minister indicate
what increase in capacity over today is indicated by
35,000 cubic metres? What level of occurrence will
overwhelm this capacity? Has there been any assessment
of what increases in households the system will adequately
cover or for how long, assuming all other activity
remains the same?
From our debate on the Bill in March, the Minister
will know that we look to encourage many more water
efficiency proposals to come forward: to separate out
as far as possible water runoff from the sewerage
system; to reduce the replacement of gardens and
green space with paved areas; to replace hard nonpermeable surfaces with porous materials; and, last
but not least, to encourage measures to reduce household
consumption of water. Can the Minister update the
Committee today on any of those aspects since the
Bill’s passage?
The memorandum also outlines the fact that
350,000 cubic metres capacity was informed by experience
of large projects. Could the Minister explain what is
meant in the memorandum when it says that in the
next 10 years the proposed Thames tunnel has an
estimated capacity of 1,580,000 metres? The memorandum
also mentions the reviews of the scheme into the
future. May I ask that the Minister builds into that
regime a review to be implemented as any overspill
occurs? That will underline that the hygiene problems
of London are to be consigned to the past.
Finally, in a debate on the Water Industry (Financial
Assistance) Bill, we called for apprenticeships to be set
up and included in the project. We welcome the remarks
made by the Minister on future projects in his opening
statement. With all that said, we agree to take note of
the orders today.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, it has been an
interesting if fairly brief debate and exchange of views
that I hope will inform your Lordships for future
occasions. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord
Berkeley, that perhaps it might be useful to have a
meeting of Peers and those at Defra some time in the
autumn where we can bring together all those matters.
A debate such as this has helped considerably to bring
to the fore some of the issues that are being considered
by government. After all, there is a contingent liability
to government in the Water Industry (Financial
Assistance) Bill in these matters, and those are not
undertaken lightly or without the Government having
a proper care of what is involved.
As I said in my opening speech, it is appropriate
that the issue of this order amending Section 14 of the
Planning Act 2008 should be separate from the specific
matter of the Thames tunnel. However, I do understand
that the Thames tunnel is the only one that fits the Bill
at the moment. So we have two elements to the debate
today—one about the statutory instrument before us,
which I have commended to the Committee, and the
other about the broader issues. I hope that I can
indulge the Grand Committee by talking about Thames
tunnel matters, because it is clearly a public platform.
GC 49
Infrastructure Planning Order 2012
Hazardous Substances Order 2012
[LORDS]
GC 50
[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH]
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Parminter
for her general support for this project. As I say, it is
not something that the Government have entered into
lightly. Indeed, it is of course Thames Water that is
entering into the project; the Government are providing
a framework against which they can make their
application. I assure her that Thames Water expects to
commence its publicity notice in mid-July, which will
publicise the impending planning application in early
2013. There has been a lot of public liaison by Thames
Water itself, but of course that will mean that the
consultation on the planning process opens up formally
at that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose professional
and parliamentary expertise on matters of tunnels I
respect, mentions the Binnie report. Our view is that
the environmental criteria set in 2007 remain robust;
they are not gold-plated in any way, and we cannot
afford to downgrade them. Alternatives such as a
western tunnel or a piecemeal approach—and I do not
mean that in a derogative sense—which the noble
Lord recommended, showed that there can be considerable
problems. None of the alternatives identified during
the extensive studies carried out over the past decade
has been able to deal swiftly and adequately with the
true environmental and health objectives of the Thames
Tideway, while at the same time complying with statutory
obligations. For example, separate rainwater from foul
water sewerage systems would be far more costly,
possibly £12 billion. It would be extremely disruptive
and would take far too long to complete.
The shorter west London tunnel coupled with green
infrastructure measures would still not fully reduce
the volume and frequency of discharges either sufficiently
or quickly, so we would not, in fact, be able to meet the
environmental and health objectives.
issue properly, it needs to return to the Court for
further judgment. The Court has wide discretion about
the levels of fines depending on several factors including
the seriousness and the duration of the breach. In this
case, we would expect the level of fines against the UK
to be significant and set at a level to act as an incentive
to remedy that breach as quickly as possible. But fines
would be levied until the breach is rectified. Currently,
the proposed Thames tunnel offers the solution most
likely to rectify the problem within the shortest time.
We cannot prejudge this issue, but clearly we are
seeking to address it. It has arisen over a century or
more of the growth of London and the growth in its
sewage. Much of our sewerage infrastructure was built
by Bazalgette 150 years ago and is clearly no longer
capable of coping.
I think that I have covered those questions raised
by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I now wonder if
I have some points to help the noble Lord, Lord
Grantchester. I am grateful for his contribution, which
was supportive of the process that the statutory instrument
is trying to bring about. Indeed, he is grateful for the
Government tabling this debate because it is something
that the Opposition have supported in the past.
There is no question of us seeking to curtail debate.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. The money
Bill was a money Bill and we were not able to debate
that further. I hope that he is happy with the suggestion
I made to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. There were a
number of detailed questions that he asked me and I
hope that he will forgive me if I write to him on those
matters. I can make sure that other noble Lords who
spoke in the debate get a copy of that letter.
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for that
response. I have heard that statement from him and
others before. But this kind of thing needs debating.
Nobody is quite sure what standard is trying to be
achieved that would meet either UK or European
legislation because we do not know what the European
Court will say. I hope that that is something we can
talk about in the meeting in the autumn and I am
grateful to the Minister for agreeing to that meeting.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the noble Lord
very much for that suggestion. I conclude my remarks
by saying that the order will help to prevent some of
the indecision and delay that has gone on around
many of these projects and the additional costs incurred
by them. I hope that it will prove to be of utility for
this Government and future governments.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: It would be useful. I am
satisfied that Defra has thought this matter through.
Clearly, at the current stage of the economic cycle, we
are not looking to spend money that it is beyond the
capacity of this Government to endorse. I will come
on to the European Court in relation to that. The
interim measures, as I said, will not meet the waste
water directive. That is one of the difficulties. We have
to consider the urban waste water directive. The proposal
to construct a tunnel should be sufficient to avoid
fines completely if it is delivered to the planned timetable.
Within that process, it is important for the noble
Lord to understand that although we expect a judgment
concerning London in the next few months, if we lose
and the European Commission wishes to pursue fines
because it does not think that we are addressing the
Lord Grantchester: I am grateful to the Minister for
offering a meeting in the autumn so that we can get to
grips with some of these more pertinent matters.
Motion agreed.
Advisory Committee on Hazardous
Substances (Abolition) Order 2012
Considered in Grand Committee
4 pm
Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the
House that it has considered the Advisory Committee
on Hazardous Substances (Abolition) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 56th Report from the Merits
Committee, Session 2010-12; 42nd Report from
the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments,
Session 2010-12
GC 51
Hazardous Substances Order 2012
[28 MAY 2012]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor
of Holbeach): My Lords, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to introduce the Advisory Committee on
Hazardous Substances (Abolition) Order 2012, to add
to the points that were made in the explanatory document
accompanying the order.
This is an order to be made under the Public Bodies
Act 2011—a number of noble Lords will have fond
memories of that piece of legislation. It reflects one of
the outcomes of the Government’s programme of
reform for public bodies. The order will abolish the
Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances and
pave the way for the reconstitution of its successor as
an expert scientific committee.
Hazardous Substances Order 2012
GC 52
from the Public Bodies Act will carry the preface in
their title, “public bodies”. This is a specific request of
the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee
so that the statutory instruments can be clearly
identified.
At the same time, we have taken a considered view
of how better to manage scientific advice and evidence
in my department. In particular, as an expert scientific
committee, the successor body to the Advisory Committee
on Hazardous Substances will work in a more
co-ordinated and peer-reviewed environment under
the purview of our Chief Scientific Adviser and our
Science Advisory Council.
In its consideration of the order, the Merits of
Statutory Instruments Committee, now of course renamed
as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee,
concluded that my department’s case for the order
probably just crossed the statutory threshold for the
exercise of public functions. I believe that our case is
stronger than this and that this order, and the new
arrangements which will follow it, will deliver the
benefits that we anticipate. We have listened to the
committee and responded to it, and as part of these
new arrangements, and in anticipation of the order
coming into force, I have agreed new terms of reference
and, as I mentioned earlier, a new name for the successor
body. I know from the report that there is particular
interest in these terms of reference, with their central
importance for ensuring that the new committee can
operate in a truly independent manner. The report
invited Ministers to say whether these terms of reference
have been agreed in a form that would address the
committee’s concerns. I believe that they have. I have
arranged to share with the committee my recent
correspondence with Professor Stephen Holgate, the
chairman of the Advisory Committee on Hazardous
Substances, on this matter. As chairman-designate of
the successor body, Professor Holgate has welcomed
these new terms of reference, which are those recorded
in the report of what we must now refer to as the
Scrutiny Committee, as part of the information which
my officials provided to assist consideration of the
order. The only change made, for greater clarity, was
to separate out in two supporting protocols the
committee’s relationships with our Chief Scientific
Adviser and Science Advisory Council, and with Ministers.
We are getting ready for this change, and to this end I
commend the draft order to the House.
The rationale for this reform was, of course, articulated
in the context of the passage of the Public Bodies Act
in which we sought powers to abolish the Advisory
Committee on Hazardous Substances. We also consulted
widely, as required by the Act, on the future of the
Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances and,
as we reported, there was clear public support for our
proposals. We also have the full support of the devolved
Administrations and have secured the required clearance
from the devolved legislatures for the order.
Lord Knight of Weymouth: My Lords, it is a pleasure
to follow the Minister and to have heard him talk
about public bodies again, as the father of the Public
Bodies Bill through this House. What a joy it is to hear
him talk about it. Even though I disliked the Bill
intensely, I enjoyed the way in which he steered it
through this House and the way in which he listened.
I am sure that he will continue to listen as we talk
about some of the detail in these SIs.
I reiterate that this is not an attempt on the
Government’s part to stem the flow of impartial and
independent scientific advice on hazardous substances.
We want this advice to continue, but we want to
improve the process. We firmly believe this reform to
be necessary and that there will be benefits from the
successor committee operating in a different way, while
of course retaining its independence.
We need new arrangements to reflect wider changes
in the regulatory landscape for hazardous substances
since the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances
was set up, more than 20 years ago. We need to
establish a broader, more strategic and proactive role
for the successor committee in that landscape while
meeting the continuing need for independent expert
scientific advice in this area.
I believe that we have this support because we have
given thought to the successor arrangements, as I will
explain shortly, in relation to the terms of reference
for the expert scientific committee that will replace the
Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances. It has
been decided, subject to the coming into force of the
order, that the successor body will be known as the
Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee. This will
avoid confusion with the existing committee, which
will have been abolished, and mark the start of the
new enhanced arrangements.
I am also grateful to the Merits Committee, as was,
for its 56th report on this order. As I understand it, it
was the third order made under the Public Bodies Act
that has been considered by the Merits Committee. As
we know, the committee did not recommend it for the
enhanced scrutiny procedure—we have one of those
coming shortly—but made it clear that this was a close
decision, as the Minister has said. In paragraph 18, the
committee said that it,
I turn to the report of the Merits of Statutory
Instruments Committee and give the assurance to the
Committee that in future all Defra orders deriving
It describes the case for the order as “far from compelling”
and says that,
“struggles to see much discernible benefit in the proposals”.
“it probably just crosses the statutory threshold”.
GC 53
Hazardous Substances Order 2012
[LORDS]
[LORD KNIGHT OF WEYMOUTH]
I accept that the Minister thinks that it does a little bit
better than just crossing the threshold, but it is important
that that is noted.
The committee poses questions for the Minister to
answer in the debate. In particular, it points to evidence
from the Royal Society of Chemistry recalling that
Parliament and especially this House insisted in 1989-90
that the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances
was established as a statutory committee. This was to
ensure that Ministers and officials took proper scientific
advice before taking decisions on controls on hazardous
substances.
Let me put the questions implied by the Committee.
I am grateful, through signalling, that I have gone
first. I thought it would be helpful to the Ministers
in-flight refuelling if I were to answer the questions
first to give maximum time for the fuel to surge
through to the Minister. First, the current cost of the
advisory committee is £30,000 per annum. Will the
new body cost the same or less than that £30,000 and
how much will the preparation form passing the order
cost the department in staff time and Parliament in
printing and staff costs? That will give us a rough idea
of whether this move is good value for money.
Secondly, how will the Minister ensure that the
newly constituted committee will, in the words of the
code of practice for scientific advisory committees, be
able to,
“operate free of influence from the sponsor department officials
or Ministers, and remain clear that their function is wider than
simply providing evidence just to support departmental policy”?
Thirdly, the framework proposed by the Government
is as follows—I am sure the Minister will correct me if
I am wrong. The new body is to operate within a closer
network of expert scientific committees overseen by
Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser—the Minister has
said as much in his comments—and is to be supported
by its Scientific Advisory Council, the SAC. The chair
is to meet Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser at least
annually to discuss its work. The chair is to attend
the annual meeting of Defra’s Scientific Advisory
Committee.
Fourthly, there is to be routine reporting by the new
advisory committee after its quarterly meetings—it is
worth knowing to whom—in addition to its reports on
specific projects and its annual report. There is also to
be other reporting to Ministers by the Chief Scientific
Adviser and the Scientific Advisory Committee on the
new body’s work. Ministers are to set and change the
new body’s terms of reference—we have heard some
discussion of that—and will possibly attend its meetings
from time to time. I would be grateful if it could be
confirmed that that is all correct. If that is all correct,
what independence is left to the committee? Is not the
price of better co-ordination and peer review that the
Minister mentioned in his opening comments, a loss
of independence? The form of the set of questions is:
what is the problem to which the Government’s proposal
is the solution? For example, on which scientific initiatives
have Ministers been less well advised than they would
wish? Which scientific developments has the present
committee overlooked?
Hazardous Substances Order 2012
GC 54
Fifthly, the Government’s case for improved
accountability and independence of advice hinges in
part, as the Merits Committee and the Minister have said,
on the proposed new terms of reference. Have they
now been agreed in a form that would support this
objective, as the Merits Committee requested? Will the
Minister share with us the correspondence he referred
to with the incoming chair?
Sixthly, if the current terms of reference in the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 are out of date,
could they not have been changed or a power inserted
in the Act to amend them by statutory instrument
subject to parliamentary approval? Seventhly, is the
key to these proposals not that whereas the terms of
reference for the Advisory Committee on Hazardous
Substances are set out in statute and thus decided by
Parliament, in future they will be set and amended by
the Secretary of State? How will that be subject to
transparency and scrutiny? Why was Parliament right
in 1989-1990 to insist that the committee was statutory,
but wrong now?
Finally, if the purpose of the proposal is not
increased ministerial control, is the real explanation
that the Government want to be seen to be culling
quangos—in the end the motivation for the Public
Bodies Act—but because the Advisory Committee
performs a sufficiently important role, it is keeping
the members and staff intact and simply making an
appearance of change? Should the Cabinet Minister
responsible for public bodies not be watching this
very carefully? This feels like business as usual. A
name has been rejigged with a few words in a different
order, but everything continues as normal with no
real financial saving. In the end, a headline two years
ago about culling quangos now has to be delivered
and is taking up parliamentary time.
4.15 pm
Baroness Parminter: My Lords, these Benches support
the proposal to abolish the advisory committee, principally
on the grounds that we are satisfied that the replacement
will be independent of Ministers, that it will continue
to work openly and that the public and specialist
interests will be able to attend meetings. I agree with
the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that in the absence of
the terms of reference, it is difficult to find the discernible
differences between the old committee and the new
committee. However, I put that to one side.
It is quite clear in the explanatory documents that
the consultation took views on the terms of reference
and the name of the successor body. The Minister has
been kind enough to share the new name and to give
some indication of the terms of reference. At this
point, there does not seem to be any clarity on the
number of members and the scope of representation
on the proposed new committee. We want to feel
reassured that the scientific experts will come from a
breadth of fields across the industry and more broadly
to represent some of the consumer champions that
have scientific experts on their staff to ensure that
the general public can have full confidence in the
scientific decisions that we desperately need from this
committee.
GC 55
Hazardous Substances Order 2012
[28 MAY 2012]
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, this has been a
good debate. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord
Knight, about some of the detailed questions he asked
me, but I will be writing to him anyway because I
would like to share the correspondence we have had
with Professor Stephen Holgate and there is no reason
why the terms of reference for the new body should
not be included with the correspondence as that is
what it was principally about.
The most important element of all this is accountability.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Knight, will agree, and
my noble friend Lady Parminter knows from her
experience, that science is highly valued in Defra. It is
a science-based department. Indeed, our science and
technology committee produced a report on the way
in which departments handle their science, and Defra
came out of it very well.
I see science as being at the heart of this. Ministers’
engagement in the science is also very important. That
is why I have attended a number of these bodies
during the relatively short time I have been in the
department. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Knight,
that I intend to attend not only the Scientific Advisory
Committee but the committees that will be sitting
under the framework of the Scientific Advisory
Committee. I have regular meetings with the chief
scientist. It is important that in an evidence-based
department, which Defra inevitably is, Ministers are,
as much as possible, scientifically literate and capable
of being advised directly. I value independence, and
there is no suggestion that the closeness of this body
within the Defra family is designed to reduce that
independence. The terms of reference make it quite
clear that the department requires independent advice
and wants to be able to be advised from a position of
scientific authority about what it is best for the department
to do. Political decisions have to be made on the basis
of that advice, but it is the most important thing. The
chairman and the committee are therefore responsible
to the Scientific Advisory Committee and the Chief
Scientific Adviser, as well as being responsible to the
Minister. That is important to bear in mind.
This order is part of a wider package and is the first
of a number of bodies within Defra where we are
hoping to take advantage of what we believe is a better
structure to bring into effect this particular body of
our family. We do not think that there will be any
saving in terms of money on this matter. There will be
some consultation on the terms of reference. If noble
Lords feel that they have comments to make, they
would be perfectly correct to do so. The new committee
will not wait to give advice; it gives advice, and Ministers
are responsible for their reaction to that advice. The
committee does not have to wait until it is asked before
that happens. I am happy to share the terms of reference
with noble Lords who are present—I have already
given that commitment, as noble Lords would expect
me to.
I have commended the statutory instrument to
the Grand Committee and I hope that it will be
supported.
Motion agreed.
NHS Trust Development Authority
GC 56
National Health Service Trust
Development Authority (Establishment and
Constitution) Order 2012
Motion to Take Note
4.22 pm
Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee takes note of the
National Health Service Trust Development Authority
(Establishment and Constitution) Order 2012 (SI 2012/
901).
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I declare an
interest as chairman of an NHS foundation trust and
as a consultant trainer on NHS and health issues.
At first sight, these statutory instruments, Nos. 901
and 922, which set up the NHS Trust Development
Authority, may appear to be anodyne and uncontroversial.
They may seem, for example, as certainly the authors
of the impact assessment document believe, to be a
necessary tidying-up operation to remedy some of the
gaps in the NHS architecture as a result of the Health
and Social Care Act. The language of the statutory
instruments and, in particular, the impact assessments
reminds us of the changed and fragmented landscape
that is being created, with new bureaucracy and largely
unaccountable quangos in practice.
The Government state in the impact assessment
that some of these organisations will be abolished and
that their functions will therefore need to be located in
another organisation to ensure that the process of
reaching an all-provider landscape is achieved that is
in line with the Government’s vision for an autonomous
NHS free from day-to-day political control. I have to
say that I am not sure that we have quite seen that lack
of political control yet.
The NHS Trust Development Authority has an
important role to play in the NHS as it is constituted
under the 2012 Act. It is also part of a series of
statutory instruments that we can expect to see in the
next few months. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe,
for his helpful letter of last week that gave an overview
of the kind of statutory instruments we can expect.
I do not know whether we might, at some stage, get a
fuller programme of statutory instruments but it would
be helpful if he indicated whether that will appear in
due course, whereby we can properly prepare for what
will be a marathon parliamentary Session as regards
debating those statutory instruments.
The interest in the NHS Trust Development Authority
is due to the process under which NHS trusts are to
become NHS foundation trusts—a matter of some
importance. I was at the Department of Health when
the concept of the foundation trusts was created, and I
now chair one. I am very enthusiastic for them and
their governance structure. The fact that chairmen
and non-executive directors are appointed by the
governors, who in turn are elected by the members, is a
very important asset that ensures that these bodies are
rooted in the community that they are there to serve.
I am very clear that it is right to encourage NHS trusts
to become foundation trusts.
GC 57
NHS Trust Development Authority
[LORDS]
[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH]
The concern that I have, and the key point that I
want to put to the Minister, is whether the criteria
against which FT authorisation is judged will be
maintained in future. I ask that in light of the statistics
that appear in the assessment, which refers to the
report of the National Audit Office of 1 October 2011,
that there were then 139 foundation trusts and that the
task of progressing the remaining 108 NHS trusts to
foundation trust status was considered by the NAO in
October last year as,
“challenging given the ‘tripartite formal agreements’ for 20 NHS
trusts show they are not financially or clinically viable in their
current form”.
My understanding is that about 50% of NHS trusts’
foundation trust status applications are rejected by
Monitor due to insufficiently robust governance. Yet
the Government have given very clear signals that they
wish to speed up the translation of NHS trusts to
become foundation trusts, either by themselves becoming
foundation trusts or merging with an existing foundation
trust or moving forward in another organisational
form.
My understanding is that the Government had a
deadline for this of 2014. We discussed this during the
passage of the Bill, and I would be grateful if the
Minister clarified what the Government’s intent is for
a timetable. My concern is that, whether or not 2014 is
no longer an absolute deadline, the Government seem
very keen for existing NHS trusts to move on into a
different status. My concern in the light of past experience
is whether this is too much pressure or too quick a
timetable, and whether there is a risk of lowering the
barrier for authorisation, forcing unwanted mergers
or inappropriately involving the private sector. I would
be interested in the Minister’s views on this.
I would also be interested in the views of Monitor,
the regulator, which has been scrupulous in ensuring a
rigorous approach towards authorisation. Any person
who has gone through the authorisation process will
testify to its rigour. Is Monitor itself happy with the
Government’s intentions on the timetable for NHS
trusts to become foundation trusts? I remind the Minister,
and maybe he could confirm, that at the end of April
16 NHS trusts were in escalation process after missing
the milestones in their applications to become foundation
trusts. Although I believe that our debate on the Bill
may have overtaken what is contained in the impact
assessment, I refer to paragraph 19 of that assessment,
which says:
“There is a strong expectation that the majority of NHS trusts
will achieve FT status by April 2014”.
4.30 pm
It is at least arguable that those NHS trusts that are
not foundation trusts are the weaker brethren of the
provider community within the NHS. Given the failure
rate of 50% and the rigorous process followed by
Monitor, it is very difficult to see how all those trusts
could become foundation trusts by 2014 unless there is
a lowering of the bar or forced mergers. Indeed, the
Government’s real aim may be to provide a context in
which a great number of NHS providers go to the
private sector.
NHS Trust Development Authority
GC 58
On the relationship of Monitor to the other bodies
in the new architecture, if Monitor is unhappy about
the pressure being placed on it regarding the process
and timetable, what can it do? Can it be overruled by
Ministers, the NHS Trust Development Authority or
the NHS Commissioning Board? It would be useful to
know what the hierarchy of decision-making is in
relation to these different bodies.
On how the new structure will aid this process at
local level, as ever there are mixed views about the
strategic health authorities of old. They played an
important role locally, acting as reinholders when the
future of non-foundation trusts was discussed and
decided. The SHAs were in a position to influence
commissioners and to encourage a change of nonexecutives. They were able to intervene and, when they
thought it necessary, to encourage the removal of
weak chief executives and other executive directors. In
the new set-up where the strategic health authorities
will cover much larger areas, and where the local
offices of the NHS Commissioning Board will be
much more concerned with commissioning, and
presumably with holding GPs’ contracts, who will act
as the honest broker locally, or is it all to be done by
the NHS development authority? If it is to be done by
that authority, will it know all the nuances of local
circumstances?
I also want to ask the Minister about the impact on
foundation trusts if the department’s policy is to force
through mergers of non-foundation trusts with them.
There are examples of successful mergers but those
examples, which are very close to home for me, suggest
that it can take a long time, a lot of energy and a huge
amount of resources and can have an impact on
targets for the foundation trust that takes over the
non-foundation trust. What arrangements will be in
place to ease the passage of mergers? What will happen
to the debt of these non-FTs, because most of them
are in financial trouble? How will Monitor deal with
the targets? Will there be a breathing space for the
foundation trust to get the element of the non-FT that
is coming into that trust up to speed?
Is there a risk that the Competition Panel or the
OFT might impede what might be seen as a sensible
merger in NHS terms? We have seen the recent
intervention of the OFT in relation to mergers on the
south coast. It would be a matter of great regret if
the competition authorities inhibited the sensible
rationalisation of NHS organisations and services.
I have questions about one or two other practical
matters. Will the Nolan principles of public life apply
to the NHS development authority? Will the authority
be under a duty of consultation?
The authority’s decisions could have a big impact
on the local provision of NHS services, and I would
have thought it would be a great pity if the authority
were not under an obligation, before it took action in
relation to a non-foundation trust, if it did not have to
consult local NHS organisations, clinical commissioning
groups, local authorities and health and well-being
boards. It would be quite wrong for a national quango
simply to intervene in local matters without that being
transparent and subject to rigorous public consultation.
This is an important body and I do not object at all to
GC 59
NHS Trust Development Authority
[28 MAY 2012]
its establishment, but we need to know much more
about the context in which it is going to work in
future. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I speak on this Motion
and the regulations as a former Health Minister with
responsibility for the foundation trust pipeline when
FTs were started. I took the foundation trust legislation
through this House back in the heady days of 2003,
when we sat until about five o’clock in the morning
dealing with this legislation, so I have some background
in this. After I ceased to be a Minister, I was chairman
of a provider development agency in London for a
couple of years. We grappled with the issue of trying
to get people through the pipeline to FT status without
lowering the regulatory bar for the standards that they
had to achieve to do that. I make it clear that I am not
auditioning for a position on the Trust Development
Authority.
I saw the decision to set up the new authority with
considerable puzzlement verging on disbelief. We know,
as my noble friend has said—I am grateful to him for
putting down this Motion and giving us the chance to
debate it—that 50% of FT applications fail to satisfy
Monitor that they should be accorded FT status. It is
worth bearing in mind that to have got to Monitor,
they must have been through the department as well
and the SHAs. They would not have got to Monitor
without going through some vetting process beforehand.
So even after that process, 50% of them are failing
when they get to Monitor. That is a pretty high failure
rate, given that we already have a vetting system.
We need to think a bit about what causes them to
fail. The Explanatory Memorandum was rather kind
about some of these reasons. The main reasons why
they fail, wrapped up in terms like “governance”, is
that they do not have a credible business plan in the
circumstances that the new foundation trusts will face
to be an organisation that is viable and sustainable
clinically and financially. Their business plans are
often simply not credible. That has been a longstanding
problem for many of those that have failed at the stage
of going to Monitor. At the root of that problem is the
fact that they have tried to put in place a set of service
configurations that are not economically or financially
sustainable and, in some cases, are not clinically sustainable
either.
In those circumstances, what is the magic dust that
the new authority will bring to this set of circumstances
that will resolve these problems—and not just over the
long term? I will come to the timetable in a minute,
which my noble friend eloquently outlined. What is
the new ingredient that this authority will bring to the
party which is lacking in the present arrangements,
which have a 50% failure rate when the trusts reach
Monitor? Why and how is a new body going to do
things differently? I would like to hear from the Minister
what the new ingredients are that we will get from this
body that will produce a real improvement in the
number of FTs going through the foundation trust
application process.
In particular, will it have the authority to push local
people on reshaping and reconfiguring services? Many
trusts in the 108 that have not made it through the
Monitor hoops will fail because they are not going
NHS Trust Development Authority
GC 60
concerns in commercial terms, either clinically or
financially. Will the body actually provide the leadership
to shift and change the configuration of services at
local level to produce more viable applications? Or will
it just be a body that pushes for mergers and hopes for
the best? The track record on mergers in the NHS is
not a good one on reshaping services. They tend to be
expensive, difficult to do and time consuming. We
need more explanation from the Minister than is in the
Explanatory Memorandum about what the new
approaches will be from this body that justify setting it
up and that will produce change.
I want to say a few words about London in particular.
Among the 100 or so trusts that have not made it to
FT status are some powerful players with international
reputations, such as Imperial College, Barts and the
Royal London. These are international bodies that
have still not made it through the foundation trust
application process. Will the new development trust
have the authority to look around in London and
answer some questions about why these powerful trusts
have not been able to get through the process and
satisfy Monitor that they can become foundation trusts?
Turning to a slightly different part of these regulations,
I notice that the Government are now required to set
up a replacement, in effect, for the NHS Appointments
Commission. It is extraordinary that we should have
spent time in this House getting rid of the Appointments
Commission and then find that we have to set up
another health authority to do its job. Why have the
Government changed their mind on this? I understood
the argument to be that the Health Secretary wanted
to ensure that the right and appropriate people were
appointed. What has caused the change of heart since
the Public Bodies Bill and the department’s own arm’slength body review to cause them to require these old
functions on appointments to be put into this new
body, which is a considerably different set of functions
from strengthening the FT pipeline?
A couple of areas in the Explanatory Memorandum
are very difficult to understand. This issue impinges
on the timescales that my noble friend outlined. Paragraph
31 quotes the recent NAO report, which identified 139
foundation trusts established since the 2003 enabling
legislation was passed and 108 trusts that have not
made it yet. But if we compare that with paragraph 19
of the impact assessment, we find that,
“only by exceptional agreement made after close scrutiny of
financial and clinical feasibility will they be allowed to continue in
existence past this date”.
That date is April 2014. If we discount the 20 or so
trusts that have been accepted by the Government as
non-viable as foundation trusts, we are left with 88 trusts
that are somehow going either to become foundation
trusts by April 2014 or, in the wording of paragraph
19, they will not be allowed to continue in their
current existence.
4.45 pm
Are the Government saying that they have found
some magic gold dust for a new ingredient in the new
body that is going to deliver more than 80 successful
foundation trust applications within about two years?
If not, what are they going to do with the very large
GC 61
NHS Trust Development Authority
[LORDS]
[LORD WARNER]
number of trusts, it seems to me, which will not have
got to FT status? What is going to happen to them
after April 2014? I think we really need to know, and
in particular the NHS needs to know, what is going to
happen to them after 2014 if they have not actually
made it through the Monitor system.
I am also puzzled by the performance monitoring
functions given to the new body. We know that the
Government disapprove of centrally driven targets.
However, they seem to have found that there may be
something to be said for targets, although they call
them requirements, and issues of that kind. However,
as I understand the Explanatory Memorandum,
paragraph 21 says that waiting times and healthcareacquired infection rates together with other issues—
unspecified—will be areas that continue to help determine
whether a trust becomes a foundation trust.
Are the Government going to set out clearly for all
concerned the list of requirements in that kind of
area—what I would call, in old speak, targets—that
trusts are going to have to meet if they are to satisfy
the new trust development authority so that they can
safely be put forward to Monitor? We need to know—I
would be very happy for the Minister to write to us on
this—what are the performance monitoring requirements
that are going to be a key part of determining whether
this authority can satisfy itself that a trust can go
forward to Monitor with a good chance of its application
being successful.
Finally, I notice in the documentation that there is
to be a review of the new body in 2014. That implies
that the Government are not terribly optimistic about
meeting the 2014 deadline. In 2016, there is to be a
review of the new authority. Theoretically, it should be
out of business by April 2014, as I understand it, but
there seems to be an acceptance that that will not
happen. Will the Minister say whether the trust will
publish an annual report on its progress and what will
happen if, as is likely, it has not completed its job by
2016?
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, much of what I
would like to say has been said by my two noble
friends, but I would like to add my tuppenceworth
because this is the beginning of some of the very
important statutory instruments we are going to consider
that will bring the Act into being. I have a few questions
for the Minister. The first one has been alluded to by
my noble friend Lord Warner: I refer to the creation of
a new arm’s-length body which I thought the Government
did not really want to do. I wonder why it was felt
necessary to create another arm’s-length body when
many of the useful arm’s-length bodies, which some
of us thought should not have been abolished, have
been abolished, particularly the NHS Appointments
Commission which I will come back to in a moment.
Under point 7.1 in the Explanatory Notes, liabilities
and assets are referred to. There is the recurring notion
that this new body will take responsibility for those.
My noble friend Lord Warner questioned the liabilities,
but I am interested in the assets. For example, if an
NHS trust is not viable as a foundation trust but a
private sector organisation offers to purchase it, merge
with it or whatever, what happens to the ownership of
NHS Trust Development Authority
GC 62
its assets—the land, the buildings and the kit? Where
do they go? Who do they reside with? Is it the new
provider body, whatever that is? I would like some
explanation.
Appointments are important. Once the NHS
Appointments Commission has been abolished, I cannot
see from the Explanatory Notes that there is a guarantee
of independence and transparency in appointments to
the new bodies or when people in NHS trusts retire
and have to be replaced. I am not clear what happens
in those circumstances and who makes those
appointments. If it is the new authority, which is my
understanding, what guarantees do we have of
independence, accountability and transparency in those
appointments? The reason why I think that is important
was alluded to and described much more adequately
than I can by my noble friend Lord Warner and is in
point 8 of the evidence base which states:
“To date, 50 per cent of NHS trusts whose applications for FT
status are rejected by Monitor fail because they do not have
sufficiently robust governance. It is proposed that SHAs will be
abolished in 2013, so new support arrangements will be required
to support the FT pipeline”.
Do the Government think that, because NHS trusts
fail because of their lack of robust governance, by
taking control of this issue they will be able to appoint
more robust trustees or do whatever it is to ensure that
they meet the foundation trust requirement? I have
exactly the same question as my noble friend: what is
the magic that will increase the success rate from 50%
to 100% with the new authority? We need to be
concerned on several counts: the accountability, viability
and credibility of the new body proposed in these
statutory instruments. I am not convinced that what is
being proposed meets those requirements.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): My Lords, I am grateful to the
noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the two other noble
Lords who have spoken because their questions give
me an opportunity to clarify what these statutory
instruments are designed to do and to say why we
believe that they are appropriate.
The NHS Trust Development Authority will play a
vital part in laying the foundations for the new health
and social care system. From April 2013 it will provide
essential governance and oversight of NHS trusts that
are not yet foundation trusts to support them in
delivering the vision of an NHS consisting entirely of
fully autonomous healthcare providers.
Foundation trusts are sustainable, autonomous
providers with far greater freedom to innovate, design
and deliver services to local communities, and there I
believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I are in
full agreement. Helping every NHS trust to attain
foundation trust status is key to creating an environment
in which adaptable, sustainable organisations deliver
high-quality care and collaborate with NHS and other
partners to provide integrated care designed around
the needs of individual patients.
The Government’s vision of care delivered in an
all-FT landscape means that NHS trusts must either
become authorised as foundation trusts in their own
right, merge with an existing FT, or move forward in
another organisational form. There is a strong expectation
GC 63
NHS Trust Development Authority
[28 MAY 2012]
that the majority of NHS trusts will achieve FT status
by 2014 and that only by exceptional agreement, made
after close scrutiny of financial and clinical feasibility,
will they be allowed to continue in their present form
beyond this date. Supporting the progress of NHS
Trusts through the process of applying for FT status is
often referred to as “managing the FT pipeline”.
Of course, FT status is not an end in itself but a
crucial step in the process by which we can drive up
the quality of care and make sure that the services we
offer patients are robust, sustainable and of the highest
quality. The benefits that achieving FT status can
bring patients and communities cannot be underestimated.
In doing so, NHS trusts examine their leadership,
financial sustainability, quality of service and plans
for continuous improvement. It is a mechanism designed
to bring all provider services in all parts of the country
up to a level of excellence.
An important part of this transition is the establishment
of a new special health authority, the NTDA. The
orders before noble Lords now provide the legal
underpinning. The NTDA will be a short-lived, enabling
organisation in the reform programme. The authority
is important because once the current system of strategic
health authorities comes to an end in 2013, the
infrastructure to support NHS trusts on their way to
becoming foundation trusts, or indeed to support
them if they become unsustainable and can no longer
function as a foundation trust, will no longer be in
place.
The legislative framework set out in the Health and
Social Care Act 2012 introduces a new and comprehensive
regulatory system, including measures for dealing with
providers at risk of becoming unsustainable. The new
system will concentrate on protecting essential local
services for NHS patients, not on maintaining failed
organisations at great and unnecessary cost to the
taxpayer. The NTDA will work closely with the whole
of the new NHS to ensure innovation and that the
very best of clinical practice is brought to bear on the
most complex problems. It will work with local
communities and their representatives to make the
case for change when service reconfiguration is needed
to deliver sustainable services.
The NTDA, on behalf of the Secretary of State,
will also appoint chairs and non-executive directors to
NHS trusts while they continue to exist, and appoint
certain trustees such as special trustees and trustees to
hold trust property for some NHS bodies. The
organisations that the NTDA will take responsibility
for cover a wide spectrum of services, including acute
hospitals, ambulance services, mental health services
and community services. Some are on the cusp of
achieving foundation trust status while others face
some of the most significant challenges in the NHS,
with long-standing financial and operational difficulties
to contend with.
It will not be an easy task. That is why the Secretary
of State has appointed David Flory, currently deputy
chief executive of the NHS and director of finance,
performance and operations, as its chief executivedesignate, and Sir Peter Carr, former chair of NHS
North East SHA and vice-chair of the NHS north
cluster of SHAs, as its chair. We are establishing the
NHS Trust Development Authority
GC 64
authority now to give it time to design its operating
model, recruit staff and engage in the planning round
for NHS trusts for the financial year 2013-14 before it
takes up its full operational functions in April 2013.
5 pm
The establishment and constitution order sets out
the central functions of the authority. It sets out the
constitution of the authority and the core purpose,
which is to provide performance management of NHS
trusts, improving clinical quality, governance and the
management of risk in those organisations and supporting
their development into clinically and financially sustainable
providers of health services.
The NTDA will be subject to the Public Bodies
(Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 and will be required
to hold its meetings in public. The order provides that
some staff from the appointments commission will
transfer to the NTDA and I assure noble Lords that a
communications programme is in place to keep staff
well informed. The regulations cover the appointments
processes for the NTDA chair, the chief executive and
non-executive directors; make provision about the meetings
and proceedings of the NTDA; and impose a requirement
on the NTDA to make reports to the Secretary of
State. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying
these statutory instruments sets out our commitment
to review the continued need for the authority after
three years of full operation or on completion of the
foundation trust pipeline, whichever is the earlier.
I shall attempt to address the questions that noble
Lords put to me. It may be helpful if I give an outline
of the current position on the pipeline. As at 1 April 2012,
there were 144 FTs of 248 eligible organisations. There
were 104 remaining NHS trusts. The wider objective is
for the vast majority of the remaining NHS trusts to
be FTs by April 2014, as I have said, either as standalone
organisations or as part of a new organisational form,
including as part of an existing FT. NHS trusts will
have planned authorisation dates post-April 2014 only
with a nationally agreed plan, which may include new
management arrangements.
Tripartite formal agreements for all remaining NHS
trusts are in place. These include clear timelines and
actions for each individual organisation. The agreements
identify the scale of challenge and provide unprecedented
clarity on what needs to be done to complete the
rollout of the FT pipeline. Where plans are not delivered,
NHS trusts are being subjected to escalation actions
to intervene as necessary to mitigate the risks of
non-delivery. This has already occurred for organisations
that have missed key milestones and deliverables set
out in their tripartite formal agreements.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out that 50%
of NHS trusts in the past have failed at the Monitor
authorisation stage, largely due to governance issues.
I accept that governance has been an issue in the past.
That is exactly why we have been working with the
NHS Leadership Academy to develop the board
governance assurance framework that all aspirant FTs
now have to undertake. The department is also funding
governor training to be delivered by the NHS Leadership
Academy to publicise the role, attract the right people
to act as governors and equip them for the role.
GC 65
NHS Trust Development Authority
[LORDS]
[EARL HOWE]
The noble Lord asked whether the criteria against
which authorisation is currently judged will be maintained.
I assure him and other noble Lords that there will be
no lowering of the bar to achieve foundation trust
status. The NTDA will have strong expertise in clinical
quality and will assess the clinical and financial
sustainability of NHS trusts before putting them forward
to Monitor’s assessment. We expect the majority of
NHS trusts to get through the process.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked me what the
added ingredient was in the NTDA that will make a
difference. I have already alluded to one, which is that
the NTDA will have a strong clinical quality presence
at the board level, a nursing and a medical director
and financial and governance assessment expertise
throughout its organisation. As he knows, part of the
process of authorisation includes CQC registration.
The NTDA will work closely with the CQC and with
Monitor on trusts’ readiness for authorisation. We
believe that this will be a better and more collaborative
and aligned system than that in place at the time that
Mid Staffordshire FT was authorised, for example.
Essentially, the NTDA will mean a co-location of
skills and expertise. With a single national dedicated
organisation, we stand the best possible change of
delivering the pipeline.
Despite the doubts expressed by the noble Lord,
Lord Warner, we strongly expect the vast majority of
trusts to become foundation trusts by 2014. Some may
not achieve it in their own right but will do so by
merger or acquisition by another foundation trust.
For some, a more radical solution may be needed,
such as a reconfiguration of services in a different
organisational form—whether that is to meet demand,
accessibility, requirements of quality or value for money.
However, as I have said, because the NTDA will
concentrate solely on overseeing the NHS trust
programme, it has the best chance of seeing this
through to a conclusion. Reconfiguration, where that
is thought to be appropriate, will be led by commissioners,
but the NTDA, through owning the management of
the pipeline, will have a key role in identifying where a
trust may become unsustainable and in alerting local
commissioners to the consequences. In any event, the
Government are determined to find solutions that
support the continuity of essential services, not necessarily
particular organisations, and ensure the exit of inefficient
cost in the system. Once all this has been achieved, the
NTDA will no longer be needed.
The rationale for setting up the NTDA was questioned.
I hope that I have addressed why we believe this to be
the right solution. The impact assessment carried out
by the department identified the benefits of incorporating
the functions that the NTDA will have within one
organisation, making the all-FT provider environment
easier to achieve. The impact assessment concluded
that the benefits outweighed any cost implications in
setting up the authority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about
the review of the NTDA in 2016, and rightly suggested
that that might mean that not all trusts would become
FTs by 2014. She asked whether we would publish an
annual report on progress. Yes, the NTDA will publish
NHS Trust Development Authority
GC 66
regular reports to the Secretary of State. We strongly
expect that by 2014 the bulk of trusts will have achieved
foundation status, but we recognise that it may take
longer to resolve the challenges for a few trusts with
the biggest challenges. It is therefore sensible to allow
some leeway for the NTDA to continue while it is
needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about Monitor’s
capacity and the hierarchy of decision-making, as he
put it. The NTDA’s technical application assessment
process will result in recommendations to the Secretary
of State on which trusts are ready for assessment by
Monitor, including registration by the CQC. However,
Monitor has the final decision on authorising a trust
as a foundation trust.
The noble Lord also expressed concern about possible
intervention by the OFT or other competition authorities
that he feared might inhibit the sensible development
of local services. I simply remind him that Monitor
will have as one of its important roles that of preventing
anticompetitive behaviour and encouraging competition
on quality, where that is in the patient’s best interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked why the
Government had, as he reads the situation, changed
their mind regarding the appointments function previously
carried out by the appointments commission. While
NHS trusts exist, the Secretary of State has an obligation
to make appointments of chairs and non-executive
directors to these trusts. It seemed to us to be sensible
to place that function with the NHS Trust Development
Authority. However, one of the reasons why the
appointments commission appeared to us to have a
finite life and finite utility was the prospective abolition
of PCTs and SHAs, which have accounted for the vast
bulk of the commission’s work to date. The workload
in appointing people to the dwindling number of NHS
trusts will clearly diminish over time and we do not
think that that makes the case for retaining the
appointments commission. It is much more cost-effective
to co-locate that function within the NTDA.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me whether the
Nolan principles of standards in public life would
apply. Yes, they will. The NTDA will be a public body
that must consult and operate transparently, but in
any major reconfiguration there will be joint work
with the local and national commissioners for consultation.
The circumstances in which they must consult Monitor
and the Competition Commission are clearly laid
down.
I hope that I have covered the bulk of the questions
put to me. To the extent that I have not, I will of
course write to noble Lords. In the mean time, I
commend these statutory instruments to the Committee.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I am not completely
clear that the Minister answered my question about
independence. The point is that the appointments
commission enjoys widespread public confidence in
the way that it goes about its business of appointing
people. If that function is to be taken into the new
authority within the department, how will the Government
ensure public confidence in its independence and integrity,
even if there is a dwindling number of appointments?
I do not think that he answered that question.
GC 67
NHS Trust Development Authority
[28 MAY 2012]
Earl Howe: I apologise. The rules surrounding public
appointments will of course still apply, particularly
those relating to open competition. The continued
existence of those rules and their implementation should
give the public confidence that this system will be open
and unbiased.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, like other
noble Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for
his response. I prayed against this statutory instrument
in a genuine spirit of seeking information. I agree with
the Minister about the importance of foundation trust
status. I have no problem at all with the Government
wishing to see NHS trusts becoming foundation trusts
as soon as possible; that is absolutely right. Equally, I
have no problem about the establishment of the new
authority, and I commend the Government on the
appointment of David Flory as the chief executive
and Sir Peter Carr as chairman. Sir Peter has been a
long-standing chairman in various guises in the health
service going back more than 20 years. I suspect that
he may well be chairman of this authority for a little
longer than the department thinks at this moment.
There is genuine puzzlement about how these trusts—
more than 100 of them—are to become foundation
trusts by 2014. The fact is that many of them are
facing great problems, mainly financial. They may
have a PFI scheme that is expensive and which the
local system is unable to afford without consequences
on the rest of the system or, as my noble friend Lord
Warner said, it may be tied up with very difficult
reconfiguration issues.
5.15 pm
I noted that the intention is that the role of the
appointments commission regarding formal appointments,
and the role of the SHA in encouraging people to
move on if they feel that there are issues regarding
governance, will now fall to the new authority. I know
that the wording used by Monitor is always about
governance. With respect, though, that is just a phrase
that it uses; the real issue is usually money or
reconfiguration. However much you remove the current
boards and put new people in, they will still have to
wrestle with these very hard financial issues. The fact
is that we are talking about the trusts that have found
life pretty difficult in the past few years. It is getting
tougher. The demands in relation to the efficiency and
cost-improvement programme are now likely to go on
beyond three years to perhaps five, on at least an
average of 5% CIP per trust if not more—some trusts
this year are aiming for up to 9%; there was at least
one trust with a 9% CIP programme. Life is very
tough indeed. There is no let-up on quality; trusts are
under the microscope with regard to their staff ratios.
So there is genuine puzzlement about how in two short
years these trusts, which are facing momentous problems,
are going to be brought to the table in relation to
foundation trust status.
There is real concern that the bar will be lowered
and that because of the imperative on the Government’s
part to assure that there are no non-FTs left on the
books after 2014 except in exceptional circumstances,
one way or another there will be messy mergers and
NHS Trust Development Authority
GC 68
that Monitor in the end will be forced to agree to FT
status, or the private sector will be brought in
inappropriately. That remains a matter of great concern.
On the question of mergers, I echo my noble friend
Lord Warner. The history of mergers in the health
service has not been a happy one—rather like much of
the private sector. In the case of my own trust, it is
reckoned to have taken four years for a merger to
recover from taking over a failing trust. The cost has
often been to the existing successful organisation in
terms of management time, energy and the amount of
money that has to be shored up into the failing
organisation. One should not underestimate the huge
costs that there can be in a merger. It is all very
exciting to start with—we are seeing announcements
made about billion-plus mergers that seem to be becoming
the fashion—but we should not underestimate the
tremendous challenges faced there.
The Minister mentioned the OFT. Yes, Monitor has
a role in relation to anticompetitive behaviour and in
encouraging integration. If, as a result of the NHS
Trust Development Authority, it decides that there can
be some neighbouring trust where a merger is sensible
and where it runs with the reconfiguration of services,
I hope that the OFT is not going to wade in, because
I think that we would probably find that that acted
against the best interests of the NHS.
The Minister mentioned, too, that the Appointments
Commission process will come into this new agency.
I am sure that we would all wish to pay tribute to
the tremendous work of the NHS Appointments
Commission. However, as someone who is now asked
to chair panels for non-foundation trusts, I have never
come across a more bureaucratic approach to the
appointment of non-execs as that used by the commission.
I hope that the new authority might take an opportunity
to introduce a little common sense into that process.
I echo the point raised by my noble friend Lady
Thornton. We are concerned that this might be used
inappropriately as a way of privatising parts of the
provider part of the NHS. Her point about assets is an
important one, and I hope that the Minister might
consider writing to my noble friend on that point.
This has been a good debate. The concerns that we
have raised are shared widely in the NHS, and I hope
that it will give the Government a little pause for
thought. We wish the new body well in its new
responsibilities. I beg to move.
Motion agreed.
National Health Service Trust
Development Authority Regulations 2012
Motion to Take Note
5.21 pm
Moved By Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee takes note of the
National Health Service Trust Development Authority
Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/922).
Motion agreed.
GC 69
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
[LORDS]
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
Final Report
Question
5.21 pm
Asked By Baroness Sherlock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their
response to After the Riots, the final report of the
Riots Communities and Victims Panel.
Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, I am glad to have the
chance to debate this issue, and I am most grateful to
all noble Lords who are here today. Looking around
the Room, I can see a range of expertise and wisdom
that far outstrips mine, so I am very grateful indeed
and look forward to hearing all the contributions this
afternoon.
The riots last August shocked the world. The Riots
Communities and Victims Panel, of which I was a
member, was set up to explore the causes of the riots
and to consider how communities can be made more
socially and economically resilient in order to prevent
future disorder. At the end of March 2012, we presented
our final report to the Prime Minister, the Deputy
Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition making
a series of recommendations that we believe, taken
together, could help to prevent a rerun of those five
days last August. I confess that I am disappointed that
we have not yet had a response from the Government
or even a date on which we might expect one. I hope
the Minister can tell us more today.
We spent seven months on this process. We were a
cross-party group and produced a consensual report
even when, on occasion, that was a challenge. Along
the way, we gathered a lot of facts, as anyone who has
glanced at the report will see. Up to 15,000 individuals
actively participated, and there were countless more
bystanders. Five thousand crimes were recorded, five
people died and the cost is probably up to half a
billion pounds. Thinking about it now, in preparation
for this debate, it is the people who still haunt me—an
older couple we met who had been forced to leave their
home in the middle of the night, evacuated into the
middle of a riot. When we met them some weeks later,
they were still traumatised and homeless. I met a
young mother who talked about the fact that months
after the riot her son still cried whenever he heard a
siren. We met people who had spent 25 years building
up their businesses and had just been holding on in the
teeth of the recession for whom this was the last
straw—not only the damage in the riot but the drop in
footfall that followed. I also very clearly remember the
young men we met in prison. I think about the one
who seemed nonchalant when we went to visit, the one
on suicide watch and, probably most of all, the one
who said that when he got to prison someone asked
him what he wanted to do with his life. It was memorable
because nobody had ever done that before and he
must have been 19 or 20.
So what do we know of those who took part in the
riots? Mostly they were young men, although that is
probably an historical truth as well as a current one.
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
GC 70
Only a quarter were under 18, but almost three-quarters
were under 25. Most of these young people had poor
academic records. Nine out of 10 were known to the
police, and a third had been in prison. Our own
analysis found that 70% of those arrested came from
the 30% most deprived areas. I must sound a note of
caution on the data, particularly in relation to those
who were convicted or arrested. Inevitably, people
known to the police are caught first, so there are still
many cases to be processed and it may well be that
those involved were from a much wider background.
Of the children brought before the courts at the
time of our interim report two-thirds had special
educational needs of some sort. On average, they were
missing a day of school a week. They were much more
likely than average to live in the 10% poorest areas, to
be receiving free school meals and to have been excluded
from school at some point. The millionaire’s daughter,
beloved of news reports, is atypical. I guess that is why
she is news. None of this is to excuse people who took
part in the riots. People must take responsibility for
their actions, but we need to understand them.
Of course, most people, even from the most deprived
areas, did not riot. One of things I found most interesting
in going round was when we asked people why they
thought the riots happened, of which more later.
When they gave us their reasons, I often then said,
“But you come from this area and you didn’t riot. Why
not?”. Probably the most common answer I got from
young people was something along the lines of, “My
mum wouldn’t let me”. In that is a huge amount of
truth and it tells us a lot about the communities that
people come from. When we talked to people who did
not riot, they often said something about having something
to lose: a job, a college place or the respect of family
and friends. Sometimes they just had an adult who
helped to steer their path.
We visited 22 communities, mostly those that had
been very seriously damaged by riots and, for comparison,
some that did not riot. We did research into a small
number of them. Many of the issues that came up
were very similar from one community to another.
They top ones that emerged were: a lack of opportunities
for young people; poor parenting; a lack of character
or resilience in some people; an inability to prevent
reoffending; concerns about brands and materialism;
and issues relating to confidence in the police.
The report addresses each of them in turn. I cannot
go through them all here, but I hope the Minister has
read the report and I will be interested in her views.
I would like to highlight just a few of our
recommendations. Every child should be able to read
and write to a minimum standard by the time they
leave primary and then secondary school. That should
be obvious, but it is depressingly not the case for too
many of our young people. We made recommendations
about how to achieve that, but I will be open to any
suggestions from the Minister about how schools can
be encouraged in every case to make sure they address
that problem. When they leave school, children should
be prepared not just for work but for life in terms of
character or resilience as well as skills. Offenders should
not be put back into the community on leaving prison,
even after short sentences, without some rehabilitation
GC 71
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
[28 MAY 2012]
for the sake the community as well as the individual.
Young adults should not be parked on the work
programme with no realistic prospect of getting a job.
We recommended a youth job guarantee scheme to
make sure that those who have been unemployed for
one year really have a chance of a job. I will be very
interested in the Minister’s view on that.
Steps should be taken to address the fact that trust
and confidence in the police are far too low, especially
among some minority-ethnic groups. Families facing
multiple difficulties should be supported by public
services working together, not in isolation. We support
the Government’s problem families initiative, but that
is targeted at the 120,000 most seriously challenged
families that are already in crisis. It is essentially crisis
intervention. We estimate that around 500,000 forgotten
families are being left to bump along the bottom and
are not getting the help that they need. It cannot make
sense in human or economic terms to wait for them to
reach crisis point before we intervene. The principles
of the problem families initiative should be applied to
them.
We also addressed some of the short-term issues.
Noble Lords will be aware that I and other noble
Lords have commented in the House more than once
about the very slow speed at which compensation has
been arranged for those who were making claims
under the Riot (Damages) Act. The Government have
committed to look at whether the Act needs updating,
and it does need updating, for example, to address
vehicle cover, but I hope that they will not try to take
the chance to abolish the Act. If the state were to cease
to offer indemnity in the case of riots, I fear that some
areas of our country would simply become uninsurable,
with all the consequences for citizens that that would
bring. I hope the Government will tell us today whether
they will go to a full public consultation before making
any changes to the Act.
Beyond all the detailed recommendations were the
messages that I heard around the country that stay
with me still. When we visited the areas that had
serious disturbances, we asked people why they thought
the riots happened. Sometimes answers were specific—the
problem was parents or the police—but very often
they spoke to a more inchoate sense that we have
somehow lost our way as a society, that somehow we
do not know what matters any more. We are obsessed
with stuff not people. We do not look out for each
other the way we used to, we do not know right from
wrong and yes, politicians’ expenses and bankers’
bonuses came up pretty much everywhere we went.
Asking young people usually produced very particular
answers. Theirs were voices of anger and sometimes
despair. They said to us: you have trebled university
fees; taken away our education maintenance allowances;
shut down our youth clubs; there are no jobs; no
apprenticeships; no opportunities. What is going to
happen to us? What is going to become of us?
The first of those issues is a challenge for all of us
in politics. But the second, more than anything, is an
immediate challenge for the Government. I fear that
we are at risk of losing a whole generation of young
people. Will the Minister tell the House what the
Government will do to help those young people get
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
GC 72
the jobs and the opportunities they so badly need?
Indeed, if there is an overriding point to government,
it is surely to order society so as to enable all its people
to flourish, to be all that they possibly could be and all
they are meant to be. In the end, that was our top
message—that everyone needs a stake in society, both
because they deserve it and because I really do not
want to be asked to serve on a future riots panel.
5.30 pm
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, we owe a
great debt to the noble Baroness and her colleagues
who have worked so hard to bring this report to our
attention. We must share with her the sadness that, as
yet, we do not have an official response to it. I do not
need to say more than that.
Yesterday, I was with the family of a young man
who, one year ago, was stabbed to death in Tottenham.
Just two weeks ago, I was with a young man who
escaped being killed on the streets of London on the
release of a young man who had spent seven years
wrongly accused and imprisoned with all the anxiety
that flowed from that. On Sunday, I was with the
family of one young man who was in Pentonville
prison awaiting sentence for pushing drugs. His best
friend, who is playing for Arsenal football team, came
to church on his seventeenth birthday driving a BMW.
It is not just those with no education and no family
support. I was with a very fine family with four kids.
One of them, who had four straight As for his A-levels,
son dropping out of university aid to me, “What is the
point of building a career? We all know on the street
that the ways to get ahead are through crime or drugs
or fame or football or music”. He has dedicated
himself to music. The breakthrough perhaps will come
or perhaps it will not. It is a tough old world out there.
It is a very tough world on the streets of London.
The church that I minister fronts on to Islington and
backs on to Hackney. It is true that the low expectations
and aspirations of people living in the urban jungle
have to be combated at every stage. We find scholarships
and support through university. We are all the time
robbing philanthropists of their money and trying
desperately to put packages together. At the same
time, I could name a whole pile of things in local
authority or voluntary community work with young
people in the arts, activities, football, and raising
awareness, that are no longer happening.
How can we possibly talk about building society
from the top downwards? Everything that is happening
at the bottom is being severely challenged by goodhearted
people who can no longer put in the 60 hours a week
for the minimum wage that they were doing. We have
to look at this and take corporate responsibility for it.
I do not want to address my questions to the Government;
I want to address my questions to all of us. Some of us
are working in the inner city and have been for decades.
I have never known it quite as devoid of hope as it is
now. Last August, it was appropriate to point the
finger at those who did bad things and it is right that
we should expect them to be punished. However, I do
not think that the analysis ends there or that the
responsibility ends there either.
GC 73
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
[LORDS]
5.33 pm
Lord Cotter: My Lords, this is a very important
debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock,
for bringing it forward. When the Government made
their Statement on 11 August last year, I and many
others were there. I congratulated the Government on
their response, or their projected response, for small
businesses and business community. I want to speak
about the business community. I also asked the
Government to ensure that the response measures
they outlined, which sounded very good, would be
implemented speedily with the minimum red tape. I
was assured that that would be the case. However,
since then, on many occasions in this House and
elsewhere we have had to raise the inadequate response
that has been given to the business community. In
particular, I have come across many examples of shops
that have struggled to survived, and some that have
not survived, through lack of support. A number of
trade associations have pitched in to provide tangible
help to said small shops, but many other shops have
been forced to look elsewhere to get help, and particularly
to get money from banks, which is not easy at present
and can be quite punitive. Those shops that have
managed to work their way through have learnt the
hard way that they have to fend for themselves. I am
sure that the Minister will give me other good examples,
but the trade associations have played their part. I quote
from just one group of shops, which said:
“The Riot (Damages) Act should have achieved the same
thing”—
that we had from the trade associations—
“but proved to be overly bureaucratic, immensely slow and in
some parts of the country failed to provide any compensation at
all”.
That is very disappointing in view of the fact that this
issue was highlighted by me and others at the time. As
the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said, the Act
needs looking at again. Also, I hope that when Ministers
make these statements and say that yes, they will get
behind businesses and that it is awful what has happened
to them, they will ensure that a Minister is appointed
to monitor the situation and not just let it drift along.
I hope that civil servants are put in charge of ensuring
that the words of the Minister are actually implemented
and are not just warm words said easily at the time.
5.37 pm
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I am
most grateful for this opportunity to raise something
that was, of course, short term and was asking for
quick answers. This is a matter of complex issues in
our society which require sustainable results and responses.
I am very grateful for the point of view expressed by
my noble friend Lord Griffiths that this is the responsibility
of all of us.
I would like to point out the issues to do with
justice and the opportunity to engage with restorative
justice in our local communities. Then I would like to
go on to develop a couple of more general themes,
which are important in connecting the complexities of
our society and a sustainable response. As we heard in
the Queen’s Speech, we are aiming for economic growth,
which is very laudable. We know that that means
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
GC 74
offering people jobs of some kind. At the same time,
we want sustainable and flourishing communities. I hope
that we can take an opportunity to be statespersonlike
and see the whole picture in trying to avoid riots in
future but also lifting up those who cannot participate
in our society.
Two things occur to us in Birmingham. First, as is
well established in a wonderful analysis—and there
have been many—called Mad Mobs and Englishmen?,
by two scholars, the main frustration is the sense that
people do not have a legitimate engagement in society.
They instinctively feel that it is unfair, and that is really
what was behind last summer. Secondly, the role of
faiths and people with beliefs is recorded as being
most significant in what happened during the days
and in putting things back together quickly. I hope
that the Government will notice that as well in their
response. For fairness, there should be access to work.
For recognition of the contribution of faiths, there
should be support for community projects. We have
already heard how difficult it is for people to sustain
local involvement when cuts are destroying long-term
work.
So in response to the report, please notice the
children and parents section. We want to see troubled
families developed, but notice the good work that is
going on in communities with families with complex
needs. We need to keep going with that programme in
addition to the point made by the noble Baroness
about the wider community. On personal resilience,
where is the role of not just values but virtues? Some
of these the underlying moral and behavioural attitudes
are mentioned in the report. Human beings flourish
when they exercise discipline, application and deferred
gratification. There I must end to give everyone their
time. I commend this report and trust that it will be
taken in a connecting-up way and that local enterprise
partnerships in particular will have it on their desks by
Monday morning.
5.40 pm
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: My Lords, I, too,
thank my noble friend Lady Sherlock for giving us the
opportunity to discuss this important report and
congratulate her and the other panel members on
producing a significant piece of work. I urge the
Government to give serious consideration to the
recommendations even in a climate of austerity and
recession.
Other noble Lords have already spoken of the need
to create jobs and hope for young people, and I will
speak on the importance of rehabilitation. I was shocked
to see that rioters brought before the courts had on
average 11 previous convictions, so the question of
rehabilitation needs to be urgently addressed. The
report recommends that youth offending teams adopt
triage approaches whereby public services come together
to undertake a thorough assessment of a first-time
offender’s behaviour and the reasons that lie behind it.
Though prison provides punishment, I am concerned
that the level of reconviction rates for young adults
discharged from custody are higher than for those
given community sentences and strongly support the
panel’s recommendation that some of the resources
GC 75
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
[28 MAY 2012]
currently spent on custody could be redirected into
community sentencing. Short prison sentences give
little opportunity for interventions that could encourage
rehabilitation, such as help with employment and drug
and alcohol addiction. The panel’s call for probation
trusts to develop intensive alternatives to custody schemes
for young adults should be taken up. Evidence given
to the panel showed that prison for young adults can
be disruptive to housing status, employment and personal
relationships making them more vulnerable to reoffending
by losing their tentative stake in society.
However, where young offenders are imprisoned
they should not be released back into the community
without what the panel describes as “wraparound”
support packages of help with finding housing,
employment and health advice. The recommendation
that probation, prisons and voluntary and community
sector partners work together with the aim of ensuring
that every young adult is offered a mentor to support
them on release must also be worth exploring.
After the Riots also examined the way young adults
move between the two systems of youth and adult
justice. For 18 year-olds, the sudden difference between
treatment by the Youth Justice Board and with adult
offender status can have a negative impact. Both young
offenders and probation teams questioned by the panel
thought that transitions,
“could and should be handled better”.
Will the Government consider putting 18 to 21 yearolds under the Youth Justice Board jurisdiction rather
than the instant transfer at 18? The report has found
that young adults are a distinct group with a different
set of needs from older adult offenders. The offender
assessment system operated by probation officers to
check the likelihood of reoffending found that the
most common needs of offenders aged 18 to 20 are
education, training and employment. The Government
should act on the recommendations in this report to
help make our communities safer.
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
GC 76
Lewisham. As a Londoner, I want to say how disappointed
I was with the lamentable performance of the London
mayor, Boris Johnson, who took days to return home
from holiday, and contrast that with the activity of
local communities who came out the following morning
and got to work cleaning up their high streets, shopping
arcades and communities. In the face of these terrible
activities, criminality and the worst of behaviours we
also saw communities and people coming together,
displaying the best of what people and communities
can do.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham
may not be able to respond straight away and I would
be happy to receive a letter from her, but I have a
question on the issue of the victims and businesses
affected and the lack of swift action to get compensation.
The Government need to look at the role of the
insurance companies in this respect. The report highlights
that small businesses and individuals have experienced
unacceptable delays and difficulties in getting matters
resolved. In particular, small businesses may be less
resilient to delays in this respect and may fold altogether.
The Riot (Damages) Act of 1886, while fit for
purpose in principle, would benefit from urgent updating.
That is something that the Government could do in
this particularly light Session of Parliament with support
from across this House and the other place. Will the
noble Baroness tell the Grand Committee how many
claims she believes have been settled to date? Does she
think that that is acceptable? When have the Government
sat down with the insurance industry since the riots to
address these concerns? When does she expect the
review of the Act to have been completed? What are
the chances of getting what should be a fairly
uncontroversial review onto the statue book? The
Government have a duty to respond to these failings.
If they do not do so they are letting the country down
badly.
5.43 pm
5.46 pm
Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, the first
thing that I want to do in the few minutes I have is to
place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady
Sherlock for securing this debate and to thank her and
her fellow members of the Riots, Communities and
Victims Panel under the chairmanship of Mr Darra
Singh for its excellent report into the disturbances
between 6 and 10 August 2011 across towns and cities
in England.
Like all noble Lords, I was shocked at what I saw
unfolding across England during those few days in
August. I remember sitting at home with my wife
Alicia, who said, “Look that is Lewisham on the
television”. I was amazed to see that there were problems
only a few streets away from where we lived. We all
have our memories of what happened that night. We
can remember watching in horror at the old Co-op
store in Tottenham going up in flames or the Reeves
furniture store being completely destroyed, having
served the local community in Croydon for generations.
I am a Londoner and I love this city very much. It is
one of the truly great cities on the planet. I was born in
Lambeth, grew up in Southwark and now live in
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, am most
grateful to the noble Baroness for calling this timely
debate and for her report. I will concentrate on success
at school. I hope that the Minister will take back these
concerns to the Department for Education.
The report highlights concerns at school failure and
the consequences for young people. Academics highlight
that schools make up only about 10% to 20% of the
difference in terms of educational outcomes for children.
Children spend about 9% of their time in schools, so
by far the most important factor is what happens at
home. Sadly, that is less susceptible to intervention
than school. Good quality early years care has also
been shown to be an important factor in educational
success.
Whether a parent succeeded at school is the strongest
indicator of whether his child will succeed there. One
important means therefore of improving literacy in
our children may be to ensure access to adult education
for their parents. In the past, many primary schools
could offer parent classes in literacy and maths. I encourage
Her Majesty’s Government to promote such practice
again. I know that there is good work in this area.
GC 77
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
[LORDS]
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL]
The parents most likely to benefit from such an
approach trust their local schools and will turn to
them before adult education colleges. With a child of
their own, they may have gained motivation that was
lacking before. Starting school is the single biggest
trigger for parents to do something about their own
literacy and lack of skills. I suggest to the Government
an agency dedicated to promoting adult education in
schools might be a significant help in improving
educational outcomes and reducing adult unemployment.
I pay tribute to the admiral contribution in this area of
the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
I would be grateful to hear from a charity prepared
to champion this particular cause. What is being done
to encourage adult education based in schools? I would
be grateful if the Minister could write to me with
information on the availability of adult education in
primary and secondary schools and early years settings.
I should be grateful for information on the number of
schools offering adult education and research undertaken
on the effect on child outcomes of linking adult education
to schools.
Finally, I want to say a brief word about transition
from custody for young people, which the noble Baroness,
Lady Healy, mentioned. There is a suggestion that
some strong central attention such as the Youth Justice
Board has been able to give to children now needs to
be given to 18 to 21 year-olds. What good practice
shown by the Youth Justice Board does the Minister
think might be adopted for this age group? If the
Youth Justice Board were prepared to consider it,
could its remit be extended to 21 year-olds? Here I
echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Healy.
I look forward to the Minister’s response.
5.49 pm
Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, I pay
tribute to the contribution of my noble friend Lady
Sherlock to the work of the panel. Its final report
challenges us to give everyone a stake in society if we
are to avoid future riots. Is it surprising that so many
of those involved in the riots feel that they do not have
a stake in society when,
“over half the respondents to the Panel’s Neighbourhood Survey
believe there is a growing gap between rich and poor in their local
area”,
and we know that those brought before the courts
came disproportionately from our most deprived
neighbourhoods? Among the rioters surveyed in the
separate Reading the Riots study, poverty emerged as
the single most important perceived cause. It was
mentioned by 86% as important or very important,
with inequality mentioned by 70%. The study revealed
a pervasive sense of injustice.
Of course, there is no deterministic link between
poverty and rioting, and the panel points to the importance
of good parenting and the development of character
and resilience as key preventive factors. However, research
illuminates the ways in which the stress associated
with poverty and the survival strategies adopted by
parents to cope can undermine their best efforts to be
good parents.
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
GC 78
Moreover, rampant advertising of brands often
aimed at children and young people, which was highlighted
by the report, makes poverty and inequality that much
harder to bear, and parenting in poverty that much
more difficult. When young people living in poverty
can be bullied because they do not have the right
trainers, it is perhaps understandable, even if not
justifiable, if they grab them when they can in what the
report describes as,
“opportunistic looting … very much targeted at brands”.
I therefore believe that in addition to the report’s
recommendations, we need a coherent anti-poverty
and inequality strategy, not to be confused with a
social mobility strategy. We need to go further than
the report does in its suggestion with regard to the
regulation of marketing directed at children and young
people.
More than four-fifths of those interviewed in the
Reading the Riots study believe that the riots will
happen again. Unfortunately, with spending cuts hitting
deprived individuals and communities disproportionately,
according to a Joseph Rowntree Foundation Study;
with youth services taking a significant hit in many
areas; and with family poverty forecast to rise, I fear
that they could be right. Punishing rioters with loss of
housing or benefits is not the answer. It would only
reduce further their stake in society. We urgently need
a more constructive response.
5.52 pm
Baroness Tyler of Enfield: My Lords, I was in
Northumberland when last summer’s riots started in
the London Borough of Haringey, where I live; and it
was with incredulity that I heard that the main street
of my home town of Enfield, where I grew up and
went to school, had turned into a near-war zone. As so
many commentators and politicians said at the time,
much of the rioting, looting and arson attacks were no
more than mindless criminality and delinquency. There
was a complete breakdown in social order, in a sense
of personal responsibility, and in the mutual bonds of
trust and reciprocity on which communities are built.
Of course, there are no excuses for this sort of behaviour
but that does not mean that we should not look long
and hard at some of the underlying factors that may
explain what happened.
I said at the time that it was important to embark
on a thoughtful and thorough public policy response
to the riots, and recognise that simplistic solutions to
deep-seated social problems do not exist. That is what
this excellent report has done, and I pay tribute to
everyone involved in it, particularly the outstanding
work of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I also
found the reports produced by NatCen and the LSE/
Guardian insightful. The reports made it clear that we
are looking at deep-seated problems in our society—a
complicated mix of failure within families, the community,
the economy and politics. Poverty and deprivation
clearly has a role to play but is by no means the whole
story. Just look at the background of people going
through the courts in such large numbers. While some
were clearly from deprived backgrounds, others had
good jobs and came from stable families. While some
were young, many were from older age groups. Reactions
GC 79
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
[28 MAY 2012]
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
GC 80
of those being charged and sentenced also varied
wildly. Some were quite unrepentant while others were
guilt stricken. Some parents were appalled at the behaviour
of their children, while others were unprepared to
accept any responsibility or were absent altogether.
There is so much that I should like to say about the
contents of the report but I do not have time. However,
I shall pick out a couple of key themes that are
important to me relating to the values that we espouse
as a society—so much of it consumption led and
dominated by self interest. The size of the gap between
rich and poor does matter and has a real impact on
social cohesion. This is about how everyone must feel
they have a stake in society. Turning to the good, let us
not forget those young people who came out on the
streets the next day to help shopkeepers and others
affected to clear up and rebuild their lives. I strongly
support the recommendation to honour the riot heroes,
and I would like more to be done on that. I am
fascinated by the focus on resilience and character—an
issue that came out strongly in a recent report by the
All-Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility, in
which I was involved. It found that resilience and
character are central to this issue, and I hope that we
can work jointly as we further develop our understanding
in this area.
that? Graham Allen’s report suggested that unless
government intervened early, the result will be cycles
of poor outcomes. He suggested that the cost of
150 babies having positive early intervention may be
the same as the cost of keeping three boys in a secure
unit for a year, two of whom will go on to reoffend.
Tim Loughton, a very engaged Minister for Children,
talked at one meeting about reforms to child protection
and early intervention. I know that he has visited
several interesting and effective services—for example,
the multiagency safeguarding hub in Haringey. There
are other examples of good practice in the youth
service, children’s centres and schools. I hope that we
work on that good practice and share it.
Intervention has to be seamless and co-ordinated
throughout a child’s life and family experiences. It is
not so much intervention but what a healthy society
provides consistently for its people. It involves health
services, education, welfare and, in particular, vulnerable
children. I saw little evidence in recent Bills in your
Lordships’ House of a particular sympathy for struggling
families. I am suggesting that frustration is contagious
and damaging. The more that inequality in society is
seen to exist, the more hardship people will feel and
the more difficult it will be to prevent stress, anger and
frustration.
5.55 pm
5.58 pm
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am most
grateful to my noble friend Lady Sherlock for introducing
this debate so coherently and for her work on this
report.
I want to talk about stress and frustration with
systems, which may lead to anger, disillusionment and
reaction. We see it in schools and on the streets of
some countries today. It is interesting that in the riots
most of those involved were of job-seeking age.
Punishment may well be an obvious reaction to
disturbances, but causes of bad behaviour may need
to be explored and punishment made appropriate—for
example, restorative justice or community sentencing,
as referred to earlier. I am amazed that those two
things are not applied more consistently.
I want to reflect on a series of meetings held during
the previous parliamentary Session by the All-Party
Parliamentary Group for Children, which I have the
honour of chairing. The meetings were on the impact
of recession on young people. The report on those
meetings will be launched in June, but I well remember
some of the chilling messages that came across from
those working with children, from research, and from
children themselves. It is clear from our meetings that
the recession was causing cuts to services and stress in
families. Children themselves spoke of stress in relation
to social class, parental employment and changing
household income. Any Government seeking to address
the needs of young people must address those key
issues and crisis points.
Early intervention is still the key to well-being,
academic and social success, and the social mobility
and intervention mentioned by the noble Baroness,
Lady Tyler. Frank Field’s report on child poverty and
life chances recommended indicators at age three and
five to monitor development indicators. Will we do
Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, I thank the
noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and her colleagues on
the After the Riots report for a thorough piece of
work. I agree with previous speakers that this issue is
complex and is the responsibility of us all.
There are two aspects missing from this debate
regarding growth—the economy and society. Even
today, the CBI came out with its proposals: there are
500 major infrastructure projects in the pipeline worth
£250 billion, and the Government are spending less
than 15% on that—less than £40 billion. At a time of
record low borrowing, something needs to be done
there. Secondly, on growth and social capital, what we
are seeing is the destruction of social capital, with cuts
in the finances of voluntary sector organisations. I say
to my colleagues that the glue that has held these
communities together is now losing its adhesiveness.
That should be the twin message.
We have seen an absence of hope from the
Government—no narrative or vision other than austerity.
One has to give hope to people if we are all going to
have a future. I warn the Government that £33 billion
of the £100 billion of savings and cuts are coming in
2014-15. They are still to come, so they have to be very
careful and, as they say in Scotland, ca’ canny, on this
particular issue. I would suggest to the Government a
narrative on child poverty. The Labour Government
of 1998 adopted a child poverty target of elimination
of child poverty by 2020. That means 1 million fewer
children are under the poverty line in Britain today,
but the Government have an absence of referring to
the issue of child poverty. When I was chairman of the
Treasury Select Committee in the other place, an
all-party committee, we were very heavy on the
Government regarding that target. This Government
should at least talk about child poverty.
GC 81
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
[LORDS]
[LORD MCFALL OF ALCLUITH]
From working in communities and schools, I know
that it is not a lack or a poverty of ambition on the
part of children lying below the poverty line. It is a
poverty of opportunity that they have had, which is
why we need to increase the social capital. The Joseph
Rowntree Foundation recently said that child poverty
alone was costing the UK economy £25 billion per
annum, so there are great social and economic costs.
There is merit in social capital. I refer to a speech that
President Obama made in April to the Associated
Press Luncheon, when he said:
“I have never been somebody who believes that government
can or should try to solve every problem. Some of you know my
first job in Chicago was working with a group of Catholic
churches that often did more good for the people in their communities
than any government program could”.
If anything is an articulation for building up social
capital, it is that particular comment. It has been
absent from the Government’s agenda to date, and I
want that along with others on the agenda very forcefully.
6.01 pm
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, I also
congratulate my noble friend on opening the debate
with clarity, commitment and passion. In five days in
August, 5,000 crimes were committed, 50,000 people
rioted and five people lost their lives. Many more lost
their businesses or homes. We live in challenging times,
with high youth unemployment; lack of opportunities
for youngsters; and perceptions of poor parenting.
Then there is our inability to prevent re-offending;
high brand awareness; and declining confidence in
policing.
A parallel report, commissioned by Enfield Council,
recommended that the police ensure that their approach
to young adults is proportionate, and that the police
should be more representative of the local community.
All the other recommendations for Enfield Council
itself related to young people. We all have a duty to
help create a climate of hope, and to ensure that those
who are not resilient enough to cope with today’s
challenges are supported, not further marginalised
and excluded. We must tackle the deep-seated problems
that contributed to the riots. Our questions today are
about the Government’s response, or non-response, to
the report of the riots panel.
The riots were not carried out by children, nor by
gang members, nor were they race riots. They were
largely the actions of young adults; the overwhelming
majority of those were male and with a previous
conviction. Almost one half of the under 18 year-olds
charged lived in poverty; as we have heard, 70% in the
most deprived postcode areas. The report suggests
there are half a million forgotten families, not quite
hitting the threshold required to get the help they
need, because no one member quite reaches that threshold,
but, as a whole, the family is dysfunctional. They
experience problems not as individuals, but as families.
That is where intervention is needed, to identify children
with actual or potential needs.
The panel recommended extending the family nurse
partnership programme to all teenage mothers. Have
the Government agreed to this? What discussions have
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
GC 82
been held with social services about contacting absent
fathers? What progress has been made in involving
businesses in local schools and in creating work experience
placements? What discussions are being held with the
ASA and manufacturers to reduce advertising aimed
at the young? Given that one in three think that the
police are corrupt, what discussions has the Home
Office had with police to engage with communities
about the impact of such perceptions on their effectiveness?
Given that police numbers were not sufficient then,
how do the Government assess a further reduction of
16,000? And when are the Government going to respond
to this report?
We need to look forward in how we respond to this.
I do not believe that society is broken, but we must all
rise to the challenge of providing greater inclusion,
improving community solidarity and above all creating
a fairer share of what this country has to offer.
6.05 pm
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
forCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessHanham):
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock,
for introducing this debate on a report on which she
had a great deal of influence, and for introducing it to
us in a way that makes me understand why she was
involved. It is clear that this was an extremely difficult
report to write and a great deal of care has been put
into it. I thank her for what she has done and for
making sure that we had an opportunity to debate it
today.
The interest in the debate was enormous. When I
saw 25 speakers and only an hour for the debate I
wondered how many times in the House of Lords we
have had a speech of 30 seconds, which is what it
would have amounted to. Obviously, others felt the
same and did not think that their words would have
quite the same effect as if they had been able to speak
for longer. As a result, I congratulate everybody because
we have been able to reduce this and not have a
re-statement of all the facts. We have covered a wide
variety of topics in the report. The report was beautifully
produced and well written, which is always a huge
help, because it means that people pay attention to it.
None of us will ever forget the scenes that came
before us last summer. For five days, we witnessed
wilful destruction and criminality on a large scale. We
can only imagine the fear and distress felt by those
who were affected and who were watching what was
going on. There was shock that something like this
could happen in our society. What was going on had a
mind-boggling and terrible effect. The noble Baroness,
Lady Sherlock, graphically described the effect on
local people.
There were 15,000 rioters, 4,000 arrests, 5,000 crimes
and £500,000 loss to the economy. Those figures cannot
sum up the devastation of seeing your community
turned upside down and your business lying wrecked
and in flames. We must not forget, as we have been
reminded today, that five people lost their lives.
As regards recovery, the first priority was to get
communities back on their feet as quickly as possible.
Some things will always take much longer than others.
The right reverend Prelate and other speakers referred
GC 83
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
[28 MAY 2012]
to one of the most amazing outcomes of this, which
was the broom brigade. People arrived spontaneously
to clear up the mess and try to put their community
back into some kind of order, and they did it without
prompting. The word for the riots may have gone
round quickly, but word also went round very quickly
that voluntary help to sort this out would also be
appreciated. That message went round and was responded
to very quickly. I shall never forget the pictures on
television of people standing with their brooms and
rubber gloves getting down to it.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham
also drew attention to the work carried out by the
faith organisations and I agree that faith organisations
and other voluntary organisations were involved too.
Suffice to say that our appreciation to them is very
marked for what they did.
People have been slightly dismissive about the response
that came from government. Local authorities played
an enormously important part in leading recovery in
their areas. They helped to bring people together,
provided them with vision and reassurance and galvanised
efforts across agencies and the community, doing so
with great speed. Indeed, some local authorities provided
immediate funding from their own resources or facilitated
access to other funding.
The Government, including my department, also
responded very quickly. There was no big delay in
responding to this situation. Councils have said that
without recovery funding from the Government, which
was made available almost immediately, many businesses
other than those affected by the riots would also have
shut. Financial support was made available to keep
them going. Under that recovery scheme, nearly £3 million
has been claimed by 29 local authorities. There was
also the £7.4 million high street support scheme, which
has helped 25 councils to reduce business rates, fund
emergency repairs and encourage customers to go
back to their local shops.
The Government also provided direct support to
help communities get back on their feet. For example,
my department provided £35,000 to a specific local
authority to enable caseworkers to provide support to
affected families for six months. Therefore, there has
been a response all round to this almost unprecedented
event, not only from volunteers and local residents but
from the Government. There was no blueprint for
response to this event. Having seen that, we must
ensure that it does not happen again.
The six themes around which the panel’s report is
structured focus on some of the Government’s priorities,
some of which we have already made significant progress
on. Both the panel and the Government share an
ambition to give power back to communities, reform
and join up public services and extend opportunities
for young people. A number of contributors have
spoken of the importance of good parenting. The
importance of good parenting was brought out strongly
in the panel’s report. As noble Lords will know, this is
being addressed through the Government’s trialling of
universal parenting classes, giving access to high-quality
parenting classes to mothers and fathers of young
children. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel,
that we should encourage parent involvement as good
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
GC 84
parenting is what it is all about. One wants to concentrate
on addressing the absence of good parenting. The
noble Earl referred to elements of the troubled families
programme. That programme will support some of
the report’s recommendations and offer 120,000 troubled
families immediate support by getting parents into
work. It will also start to address the lack of education
described by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
The report raises the lack of hopes and aspirations
for young people facing unemployment. We have recently
introduced the youth contract, which will provide
additional support worth almost £1 billion to young
unemployed people over the next three years. The
report highlights the fact that many of the rioters had
previous convictions, as a number of noble Lords
mentioned. We are confident that payment by results
for offender rehabilitation will encourage providers to
tailor services to help offenders turn their lives around.
If I have time, I wish to respond to points made by
noble Lords. I shall do so with a broad sweep as I am
not sure whether I shall run out of time. I understand
that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords are
keen for the Government to respond formally to the
report. As she will know, there are more than
60 recommendations which go across government.
Every single department is affected by the report and
needs to consider what its response will be. There will
be a response; that is vital. I am not in a position today
to give any date for that but I can give the reassurance
that this has been taken extremely seriously. Any response
needs to underline that and needs to demonstrate that
it has taken the recommendations clearly into account.
So although I cannot give a date today, I can give an
assurance that the response will surely come.
I will try to pick up some of the other points that
were made. I hope that noble Lords, particularly the
noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, will forgive me if I
cover the same ground again. There is an intention to
look at the Riot (Damages) Act. Delays have been
caused by the fact that this is a very old Act of
Parliament and has to be looked at very carefully. That
is a matter for the Home Office, as is the public
consultation. Concerning youth job offers, we have
already got a number of programmes for youth including
apprenticeships and encouragement to go to work.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham
welcomed the faith organisations. The vast majority of
young people in this country are responsible, hardworking, law-abiding and care about their communities.
Therefore, one has to be careful not to tar a whole
generation with the same brush. Having said that, we
have to understand that there are always going to be
problems and that needs to be part of the response.
Regarding the Riot (Damages) Act, I would like to
make it clear that the vast majority of people affected
have received compensation—92% of businesses from
insurance, while 93% of valid uninsured claims are
being dealt with. The noble Baroness, Lady Healy,
referred to the revolving door situation. The Government
are looking at this revolving door and the short sentences
that often lead to reoffending. The Government, in
line with the public and the panel, believe that sentences
should have a very clear element of punishment and
that rehabilitation should be incorporated into those
GC 85
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
[LORDS]
[BARONESS HANHAM]
sentences. They should not be allowed to leave prison
with nowhere to go, no support and nothing to help
them care for the future.
I am out of time. There were a number of other
very important points and I am sorry if I have not
Riots Communities and Victims Panel
GC 86
picked them up. I will pick them up and ensure that
everybody gets a response to the points they made and
that that response is in the Library. Again, I thank all
noble Lords very much indeed, especially the noble
Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for introducing this debate.
Committee adjourned at 6.18 pm.
WA 93
Written Answers
[28 MAY 2012]
Written Answers
Monday 28 May 2012
Airports: Holding Facilities
Question
Asked by Lord Rosser
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the
improvements to accommodation by the UK Border
Agency in 2011 referred to in paragraph 1.2 of the
Report of the Independent Monitoring Board on
the non-residual short term holding facilities at
London Heathrow Airport for the year February 2011
to January 2012; what has happened to date to
deliver those improvements; and what is the timetable
for delivering all the improvements promised.
[HL329]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
The recommendations referred to in paragraph 1.2 of
the recently published report of the Independent
Monitoring Board (IMB) on the non-residential shortterm holding facilities at Heathrow Airport asked for
the following accommodation improvements to be
implemented at the facilities:
upgrade to the facilities in the Terminal 5 holding
room;
refurbishment of the holding room in Terminal 3;
a shower for the holding room in Terminal 1 and
lighting which can be dimmed; and
an upgrade to the holding rooms in Terminal 4 to
include a shower and a family room.
The provision of facilities at ports of entry is to be
provided by the port operator, BAA. The UK Border
Agency has worked closely with BAA since the last
IMB report to try and progress accommodation
improvements.
There are a number of constraints to implementing
the board’s recommendations. This includes the availability
of space, significant infrastructure changes and cost.
However, one recommendation has been taken forward
and lighting which can be dimmed has been installed
in Terminal 1.
Some improvements will take time to implement
due to the need for structural changes to the
accommodation. UK Border Agency officials are now
working very closely with BAA to establish how the
outstanding improvements can be made and to agree a
timetable.
Armed Forces: Aircraft
Questions
Asked by Lord Judd
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how their
analysis of threats necessitates aircraft carriers in
the 2020s but no such provision in the interim
period.
[HL302]
Written Answers
WA 94
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry
of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): The Ministry of
Defence (MoD) has conducted a number of investigations
into the threats that the country faces in the short,
medium, and long term. The MoD believes that the
decision to delay regeneration of Britain’s carrier strike
capability is manageable in the short term, and Libya
showed that we could in the short term make alternative
arrangements for overseas basing, but we are not
prepared to accept further delays beyond the timetable
set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review,
with flying from the Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier to
begin in 2018.
Asked by Lord Judd
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will review the early retirement of the Sea Harriers
[HL304]
from service in the navy.
Lord Astor of Hever: The Sea Harrier was withdrawn
from service in 2006 and this decision cannot now be
reviewed.
Aviation: Flying Restrictions
Question
Asked by The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will issue guidance to county councils and local
authorities to ease flying restrictions at airfields
during the run-up to, and during, the 2012 London
[HL357]
Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Earl Attlee: There are no plans to provide guidance
to county councils or local authorities in respect of
easing flying restrictions at airfields in the run-up to,
and during, the forthcoming London 2012 Games.
Bank of England
Questions
Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
have they made of the decision by the Bank of
England to cut its United Kingdom growth estimate
from 1.2% to 0.8%.
[HL236]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): The Monetary Policy Committee publishes
economic forecasts in the Bank of England’s quarterly
inflation reports.
As the May 2012 Inflation Report notes, “The single
biggest threat to the [UK] recovery stems from the
challenges within the euro area”.
The outlook for growth in the May report has been
revised since February. As explained in the report, in
the near term this reflects “the impacts of a higher
near-term outlook for inflation on real incomes and
the higher level of sterling on net trade. Further out in
the forecast period the profile is lower due to a slower
WA 95
Written Answers
[LORDS]
pickup in productivity growth and the implications
that this is likely to have for household and business
spending”.
The Governor of the Bank of England made clear
at the inflation report press conference on 16 May that
“the big picture remains one in which the economy
gradually recovers”.
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 26 March
(WA 198–9), whether they had the authority to instruct
the Court of the Bank of England to commission
an independent report on the failures of the bank
in advance of and during the early stages of the
[HL289]
global banking crisis.
Lord Sassoon: The decision to commission such a
report is a matter for the Court of the Bank of
England. The Government are pleased that the court
has this week announced the commission of three
independent reviews into areas of the Bank’s performance
and current capabilities and looks forward to seeing
the outcome of this work.
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
they have made of the comments by the Governor
of the Bank of England on 15 February at the
Bank of England inflation report press conference
that “when the time comes for us to reduce the size
of the (bank’s) balance sheet we’ll find that a whole
lot easier than we did when expanding it”. [HL293]
Lord Sassoon: The Monetary Policy Committee
(MPC) has operational responsibility for monetary
policy. The MPC makes decisions on its policy tools,
including quantitative easing (QE), or the stock of
asset purchases financed by the issuance of central
bank reserves, in order to meet the 2% inflation target
in the medium term. It is for the MPC to decide the
timing and pace of an exit from QE through the sale
of assets, based on its assessment of the balance of
risks to the inflation target in the medium term.
Banks: Green Investment Bank
Question
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect
the Green Investment Bank to be able to raise funds
from the private sector.
[HL290]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox):
The UK Green Investment Bank (GIB) will receive
borrowing powers from April 2015, subject to public
sector net debt falling as a proportion of the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). It will be central to the
operation of the GIB from its inception that it will
co-invest alongside private capital, mobilising funds
from the private sector to finance green infrastructure
projects in the UK.
Written Answers
WA 96
Banks: Iceland
Question
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what amounts
have been repaid by the administrators of each of
the failed Icelandic banks to date; how much is
outstanding from each bank; what is the overall total,
and how each debt is to be retrieved; and what the
charges of each of those administrators have been
[HL308]
to date.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): Details of the loans to Icelandic banks as at
31 March 2011, including repayments and interest
received, can be found in Sections 33, 34 and 36 of the
Treasury annual reports and accounts 2010-11. Figures
as at 31 March 2012 will be published in the Treasury
annual reports and accounts 2011-12.
Bounty-Pitcairn Conference
Question
Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will
be sending representatives to the Second International
Bounty-Pitcairn Conference in Los Angeles in
August 2012.
[HL268]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We have no plans
to send a representative to the conference.
Care Services: Elderly People
Question
Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their
response to the letter to the Prime Minister of
8 May from committees and campaign groups on
the state of care for the elderly.
[HL255]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): We know that urgent reform of
the care and support system is needed to provide
people with more choice and control, and to reduce the
insecurity that they and their families face.
We will shortly be publishing the care and support
White Paper, and progress report on funding, which
will transform care and support. The Government
have also committed to publishing a draft Bill for
pre-legislative scrutiny in the second session and we
plan to do this shortly.
Care Services: Funding
Question
Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will bring forward proposals to implement the Dilnot
Commission recommendations on funding long-term
care; and, if so, when.
[HL258]
WA 97
Written Answers
[28 MAY 2012]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): The Coalition Program set out
the Government’s clear commitment to reforming the
system of social care to provide much more control to
individuals and their carers, and to ease the cost burden
that they and their families face. This commitment to
reform is why we acted quickly to set up the Commission
on Funding of Care and Support, which published its
report in July 2011.
The Government welcomed the report as a valuable
contribution to the debate on social care reform, but
funding is not the only thing that needs to change in
the social care system. We want a package of reforms
that goes much wider, addresses the key failures of the
current system, and ensures that people get the best
possible social care.
As we seek to get the country’s finances under
control, it is more important than ever that we fully
scrutinise all policies to make sure that every pound is
spent in the best possible way. This is why we have
been working hard since the commission reported to
determine the best approach to the future of social
care in this country. In particular, we held a series of
engagement events in which we worked closely with
stakeholders from across the social care sector to
identify the top priorities for reform and establish the
trade-offs between them. The results of this engagement
are published online and will inform our thinking as
we make these important policy decisions. We will
shortly publish a White Paper on social care and a
progress report on funding reform.
Cayman Islands
Written Answers
WA 98
Charities: Medical Research
Questions
Asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what agreement
they have reached with medical research charities
over the financing of excess treatment costs.[HL316]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role the
medical charity sector will have in drawing up guidelines
with the Department of Health to ensure that all
NHS Trusts apply the same criteria when allocating
[HL317]
costs linked to research infrastructures.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): On 4 May 2012, the Department
and the Association of Medical Research Charities
announced the publication of new guidelines for attributing
the cost of health and social care research and development.
The department continues to work with medical research
charities on implementation of the guidance by the
research community.
Under the current system, the patient care costs
(sometimes referred to as treatment costs) for patients
who are taking part in research funded by Government
and research charity partner organisations are funded
through normal arrangements for commissioning
patient care. The Government have made a commitment
that clinical commissioning groups and the NHS
Commissioning Board will ensure that these costs
continue to be met through these arrangements.
Disabled People: Employment
Question
Question
Asked by Lord Ashcroft
Asked by Baroness Turner of Camden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their
assessment of the comments in a statement by
Premier McKeeva Bush of the Cayman Islands that
the United Kingdom-appointed Governor has done
“nothing of substance” to help the country; that
he has “stealthily and insidiously undermined”
Government efforts to “get our economy off the
ground and get jobs for people”; and that “He’s
done nothing for three years to help us but to throw
cold water on whatever we were trying to do”.
[HL327]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): I have noted the
Premier of the Cayman Islands’ comments in the
media attacking the Governor and the Government
and suggesting that there is a conspiracy to undermine
the Cayman Islands, and can assure the noble Lord
that there is no truth whatsoever in those suggestions.
As the Governor said in his statement on 3 May:
“the UK Government’s vision for the Cayman Islands was set out
clearly during the visit by the Minister for the Overseas Territories,
Henry Bellingham (from 18-21 April 2012): a vision of a flourishing
and vibrant economy, whose public finances are well managed
and whose adherence to internationally recognised standards of
governance enhances its reputation as a good place to live, work
and do business”.
The Governor shares that vision and that commitment,
and he has our full support.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
disabled employees will be made redundant as a
result of the decision to close 36 Remploy factories;
and what plans the Government have for the future
[HL159]
of those employees.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): There are 1,752
Remploy employees at risk of redundancy. This includes
1,518 disabled people working in the 36 Remploy
factory sites (25 in England, seven in Wales and four in
Scotland), identified as non-viable and proposed for
closure and associated sites, as well as the modernisation
group of employees.
Remploy began collective consultation with employee
representatives on 19 March 2012. As part of collective
consultation, the Remploy Board will consider all
proposals to avoid compulsory redundancy. The collective
consultation process is also covering ways of mitigating
the consequences of redundancy dismissals, including
redundancy payments and the comprehensive personal
package of support which would be made available
to any Remploy employee who is, in the event, made
redundant.
To help the transition from sheltered segregated
employment into mainstream employment, we are
committed to providing a comprehensive support package
WA 99
Written Answers
[LORDS]
for all disabled members of Remploy staff affected by
the government announcement on 7 March. This offer
will be for individualised support for up to 18 months
and we have set aside £8 million to support this work.
The support package is designed to be flexible and will
be tailored to meet each individual’s specific needs
through the development of a personalised action plan.
This will be managed with the support of a personal
case worker who will make best use of skills and
experience from partner agencies and organisations
both nationally and locally.
The support package will include access to work-related
opportunities available from Remploy and Jobcentre
Plus employer networks and we will also be working
with other employers, including local employers, and
the Employers Forum on Disability to look to offer
targeted work opportunities to help affected staff find
new employment. The support package will also include
a personal budget to provide additional support that is
not available elsewhere to help people who may have
difficulties with the transition to mainstream employment.
The support package includes making £1.5 million
available for the Community Support Fund. This fund
will support individuals to become involved in their
local communities as well as providing support for
those who wish to make the move from sheltered to
mainstream employment. Local disabled people’s user-led
organisations and voluntary sector organisations will
be able to apply for modest amounts of funding to
take forward a variety of projects or activities to
support disabled people in areas affected by the Sayce
announcement.
Drugs: Thalidomide
Question
Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further
support they intend to provide for victims of
thalidomide, following the conclusion of the pilot
[HL381]
three-year grant in April 2012.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): The Thalidomide grant is a
three-year pilot, running from April 2010 until March
2013, to explore how the health needs of Thalidomide
survivors can best be met in the longer term and how
such a scheme might be applied to other small groups
of geographically dispersed patients with specialised needs.
Officials met with members of the National Advisory
Council (NAC) to the Thalidomide Trust in June 2010,
to discuss their evaluation of the first year. The
Government expect to receive the evaluation of the
second year of the pilot study shortly, and will look to
meet with the NAC to discuss that report. We will
consider the future of the grant further into the pilot.
Elections: Overseas Electors
Questions
Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
overseas electors resident in Canada are entitled to
vote in United Kingdom general elections, by United
Kingdom constituency.
[HL213]
Written Answers
WA 100
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
overseas electors resident in Australia are entitled
to vote in United Kingdom general elections, by
[HL214]
United Kingdom constituency.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
overseas electors resident in New Zealand are entitled
to vote in United Kingdom general elections, by
[HL215]
United Kingdom constituency.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
overseas electors resident in South Africa are entitled
to vote in United Kingdom general elections, by
[HL216]
United Kingdom constituency.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
overseas electors resident in Jamaica are entitled to
vote in United Kingdom general elections, by United
[HL217]
Kingdom constituency.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
overseas electors resident in Trinidad and Tobago
are entitled to vote in United Kingdom general
elections, by United Kingdom constituency. [HL218]
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The information requested
falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics
Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.
Letter from Stephen Penneck, Director General for
ONS, to Lord Jones of Cheltenham, dated May 2012.
As Director General for the Office for National
Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your questions
on overseas electors:
how many overseas electors resident in Canada are
entitled to vote in United Kingdom general elections,
by United Kingdom constituency. (HL213)
how many overseas electors resident in Australia
are entitled to vote in United Kingdom general
elections, by United Kingdom constituency. (HL214)
how many overseas electors resident in New Zealand
are entitled to vote in United Kingdom general
elections, by United Kingdom constituency. (HL215)
how many overseas electors resident in South Africa
are entitled to vote in United Kingdom general
elections, by United Kingdom constituency. (HL216)
how many overseas electors resident in Jamaica are
entitled to vote in United Kingdom general elections.
by United Kingdom constituency. (HL217)
how many overseas electors resident in Trinidad
and Tobago are entitled to vote in United Kingdom
general elections, by United Kingdom constituency.
(HL218)
ONS does not hold the information requested.
ONS collates and publishes data on the number of
overseas electors registered to vote in UK general
elections but no information is collected on which
country overseas electors are resident in.
Elections: Police and Crime
Commissioners
Questions
Asked by Lord Rennard
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will give further consideration to the issue of election
addresses in the police and crime commissioner
WA 101
Written Answers
[28 MAY 2012]
elections, given studies reported during the London
mayoral campaign suggesting a low rate of use of
the most popular search engine to seek information
[HL148]
on candidates.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
The Government are not expecting the public to use a
search engine to find information on the police and
crime commissioner candidates. We are instead offering
a multichannel approach whereby the public can go
directly to a specific website for information on candidates
or can request information in a paper booklet if they
wish.
Asked by Lord Rennard
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
consider that encouraging online searches will provide
sufficient information to voters to decide who to
vote for in the police and crime commissioner elections;
and what representations they have received from
the Local Government Association and the Electoral
[HL149]
Commission on this matter.
Lord Henley: The Government considered a number
of representations from a range of partners in making
their decision. We will offer a multichannel approach
whereby the public can go directly to a specific website
for information on candidates or can request information
in a paper booklet if they wish.
Written Answers
WA 102
Energy: Shale Gas
Question
Asked by Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what information
they have received about the potential for producing
gas from shale in Middle Eastern and North African
countries that have small or no oil resources; and
whether they will share any such information with
[HL369]
the governments concerned.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): The
Government have not made their own assessment of
these matters. We are aware of the assessments of
global shale gas resources produced by:
US Energy Information Administration www.eia.gov/
analysis/studies/worldshalegas/;
and the International Energy Agency in Are We
Entering a Golden Age of Gas? www.iea.org/weo/docs/
weo2011/WEO2011_GoldenAgeofGasReport.pdf.
These reports are in the public domain and are
therefore available to Governments in the Middle East
and North Africa.
EU: Treaties
Question
Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Employment: Temporary Workers
Question
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Answer by Baroness Wilcox on 26 March
(WA 224), (1) whether allowances paid to United
Kingdom workers by way of an HM Revenue and
Customs dispensation agreement are considered as
contributing towards national minimum wage (NMW)
pay; (2) whether allowances paid to workers on
secondment to the United Kingdom by way of such
an agreement are considered as so contributing; (3)
whether allowances paid to United Kingdom workers
by way of an HM Revenue and Customs dispensation
agreement for Section 338 expenses are considered
as contributing towards NMW pay; and (4) whether
allowances paid to seconded workers in the United
Kingdom under such a dispensation agreement are
[HL248]
considered as so contributing.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox):
Where a worker qualifies for the national minimum
wage (NMW), the same rules, including the rules for
expenses and allowances, apply regardless of the nationality
of the worker. There are no separate rules for allowances
paid by way of HM Revenue and Customs dispensation
agreements. Any money payments paid by the employer
to a worker in respect of travelling expenses that are
allowed as deductions from earnings under Section 338
of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
do not count towards NMW pay.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the
measures subject to the United Kingdom’s opt-out
under Protocol 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union; which of those the United
Kingdom has agreed to amend or opt-in to; which
they do not intend to opt-in to; and what they
expect to be the position on 1 June 2014. [HL299]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
Under Protocol 36 to the Treaties of the European Union,
the UK has a block opt-out in the field of Justice and
Home Affairs (the 2014 decision). Protocol 19 to the
Treaties of the European Union relates to the application
of the Schengen Acquis. The list of all measures
subject to the 2014 decision, including measures which
form part of the Schengen Acquis, was annexed to a
letter to Lord Roper, the then chair of the Lords
European Union Committee. The letter to Lord Roper
and the annex will be placed in the House Library. The
letter can also be viewed using the following link: www.
parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/
european-scrutiny/Ministerialpercent20
Correspondencepercent202010-12.pdf.
Measures will cease to be within scope of the 2014
decision if they are repealed and replaced, or amended,
by measures brought forward under the Lisbon Treaty.
So far, the UK has chosen to participate in the following
measures which will potentially affect measures subject
to the 2014 decision:
initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic
of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom
of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
Slovenia and the Kingdom of Sweden for a directive
WA 103
Written Answers
[LORDS]
of the European Parliament and of the Council
regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal
matters;
proposal for a directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council on preventing and combating
trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims,
repealing Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA;
directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on combating the sexual abuse and sexual
exploitation of children and child pornography,
and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/
68/JHA;
agreement between the European Union and Australia
on the processing and transfer of passenger name
record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian
Customs and Border Protection Service;
proposal for a directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council on attacks against information
systems, repealing Council Framework Decision
2005/222/JHA;
proposal for a directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council establishing minimum standards
on the rights, support and protection of victims of
crime;
agreement between the European Union and the
United States for the transfer and use of passenger
name record (PNR) data to prevent and combat
terrorism and other serious transnational crime;
proposal for a directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the protection of individuals
with regard to the processing of personal data by
competent authorities for the purposes of prevention,
investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal
offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and
the free movement of such data. (Schengen opt-out
under protocol 19).
Given that the Government cannot say with certainty
what proposals the Commission will bring forward, it
is not possible to say what the position will be in 2014.
Finance: Gilts
Question
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will publish their estimate of the interest they expect
to receive during the fiscal year 2012–13 on the
gilt-edged securities acquired under the Asset Purchase
Scheme and quantitative easing; and how much
interest they expect to pay on the same gilt-edged
[HL292]
securities.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): The Asset Purchase Facility (APE) is a
subsidiary of the Bank of England. To ensure that the
APE is operated in an open and transparent manner,
the Bank publishes a quarterly report on the transactions
as part of the facility and an annual report which
contains the financial statement of the facility. These
can be found on the Bank of England’s website:
www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/Pages/apf/
default.aspx.
Written Answers
WA 104
The APE has purchased £325 billion of gilts to date,
details of which, including coupon rates and maturities
of the specific gilts held, are also available on the
bank’s website. Details on individual gilts in issue can
be found on the Debt Management Office’s website:
www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx? page=Gilts/Gilts_In_Issue.
Financial Services Compensation Scheme
Question
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much by
way of current shortfalls the Financial Services
Compensation Scheme has to levy on the financial
services industry, and whether any such levy has yet
[HL310]
been announced or commenced.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): This is a matter for the Financial Services
Compensation Scheme (FSCS), whose day-to-day
operations are independent from government control
and influence. This question has been passed on to the
FSCS, which will reply to you directly by letter. A
copy of the response will be placed in the Library of
the House.
Firearms: Licensing
Question
Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what monitoring
or supervision is conducted by the Home Office of
how police forces handle firearms certificates.
[HL251]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
The Home Office does not conduct any monitoring or
supervision on how police forces handle firearms
certificates because that is a matter for the chief officer
in each police force area.
Gaza
Question
Asked by Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action
they will take to assist in protecting Gazan fishermen
who comply with the three-mile zone restriction
imposed by Israel from being arrested, detained or
shot at; and what representations they are making
to Israel about compensation for fishermen who
[HL242]
lose boats and equipment.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The UK regularly
makes representations at both ministerial and official
level to the Government of Israel on the urgent need
to ease restrictions on Gaza. The Secretary of State
for International Development my right honourable
friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)
and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
WA 105
Written Answers
[28 MAY 2012]
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my honourable
friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire
(Mr Burt), discussed these issues during visits to the
region in December 2011 and January 2012.
Alongside our European Union partners, we have
urged Israel to extend the fishing zone from 3 to
20 nautical miles, as stipulated in the Oslo Accords.
While the UK is not in a position to take specific
action to prevent fishermen from being arrested, detained
or shot at, or to ensure that losses are compensated, as
part of our engagement with the Israeli authorities we
frequently emphasise the impact restrictions have had
on industry in Gaza.
Health: Cardiology
Questions
Written Answers
WA 106
Health: Clinical Senates
Question
Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when clinical
senates will be established.
[HL351]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): There are likely to be 14 to 16
clinical senates established in the new health system,
reflecting major patient flows through the system.
They will cover the whole of England and will help
clinical commissioning groups, health and well-being
boards and the NHS Commissioning Board to make
the best decisions about healthcare for the populations
they represent by providing strategic advice and leadership.
Clinical senates will be operational from April 2013.
Asked by Baroness Cumberlege
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
have plans to develop a commissioning support
pack for atrial fibrillation.
[HL323]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
they have made of the number of excess deaths
[HL326]
from atrial fibrillation.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): In 2011, the National Health
ServiceImprovementHeartTeamlaunchedacommissioning
support document Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation.
Dissemination of this document is ongoing. The document
can be found at: www.improvement.nhs.uk/heart/
HeartImprovementHome/AtrialFibrillation/
AtrialFibrillationAnticoagulation/tabid/129/
Default.aspx.
No assessment has been made of the number of excess
deaths from atrial fibrillation. However, we do know
that around 12,500 strokes per year may be directly
attributable to atrial fibrillation and therefore there
may be scope to reduce this number with the recognition
and optimal treatment of atrial fibrillation.
Asked by Baroness Cumberlege
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
quality standard on atrial fibrillation is expected to
[HL324]
be published.
Earl Howe: We asked the National Institute for
Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to develop a
quality standard on atrial fibrillation in March 2012
as part of a library of approximately 170 National
Health Service Quality Standards. NICE has not yet
published a timescale for the development of this
quality standard. A full list of quality standards,
including information on those currently in development
and those already published can be found on NICE’s
website: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qualitystandards/
qualitystandards.jsp.
Health: General Practitioners
Question
Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate
they have made of the number of general practitioners
due to retire in the next five years.
[HL257]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): The department does not hold
the data in the format requested. The Centre for Workforce
Intelligence (CfWI) was established in 2010 as a new
national body aimed to act as the authoritative voice
on workforce intelligence. Included within its remit,
CfWI undertakes analysis and provides evidence to the
department and the system on workforce supply and
demand issues to support workforce planning and
education and training decisions.
Health: Healthcare Assistants
Question
Asked by Lord Turnberg
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate
they have made of the costs of assured voluntary
registration of healthcare assistants.
[HL373]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): The costs of assured voluntary
registration for healthcare support workers will depend
on a number of factors including the number of people
on the register, the approach taken to registration and
the standards of training required for entry to the
register. The costs, which will fall on individual registrants,
will be considered as part of the development of a
voluntary register. We would expect that the costs of
registration are kept at a level that ensures that the
register can run effectively without deterring individuals
from joining it.
WA 107
Written Answers
[LORDS]
Health: In-vitro Diagnostic Tests
Question
Asked by The Countess of Mar
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans
they have to enhance the current regulations defined
by European Union Directive 98/79 to ensure proactive
verification and certification of medical devices;
and what data they possess for the performance
characteristics and limitations of the ELISA and
Western blot serology tests, including the test to be
used at the Porton Down laboratory that is required
from the manufacturers in accordance with Annex III
[HL142]
of Directive 98/79.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): Directive 98/79/EU is currently
the subject of a revision by the European Commission,
with proposals expected to be adopted in September
2012. This proposal is not expected fundamentally to
alter the current regulatory system functions, whereby
notified bodies are responsible for ensuring that in-vitro
diagnostic devices are in conformity with the requirements
of the directive.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory
Agency (MHRA) has a mainly post-market and
enforcement role under Directive 98/79/EC and does
not routinely collect data used by the manufacturer to
demonstrate that the claimed performance characteristics
of any diagnostic test can be achieved before it is
Conformité Européenne (CE) marked and placed on
the market. Any such information obtained in the
investigation of post-market incidents and compliance
issues reported to MHRA is required to be kept
confidential between them and the manufacturer
concerned, subject to any obligations that member
states’competent authorities have to disseminate warnings
and to provide information under criminal law.
The primary diagnostic and confirmatory tests for
Lyme disease used by the Health Protection Agency
are commercial assays that are CE marked and Food
and Drug Administration approved, and supporting
data for these approvals are held by the manufacturer
and by the relevant regulatory agencies in Europe and
the United Kingdom. Testing by the agency’s Porton
Down and Southampton laboratories has shown that
the sensitivity and specificity of these tests meet the
manufacturers’ specifications.
Health: Lyme Disease
Questions
Asked by The Countess of Mar
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, with reference
to the “new test” to be used by the Health Protection
Agency (HPA) Lyme Unit at Porton Down for
Lyme borreliosis, what data they hold for the sensitivity
and specificity of the test kits for the local genospecies
of Borrelia in England and Wales; what testing has
been carried out by the HPA or other body to
confirm the sensitivity and specificity of the test
kits for the local genospecies in England and Wales;
and, if testing was carried out, what were the sensitivity
[HL141]
and specificity results.
Written Answers
WA 108
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the transfer
of the Lyme Reference Laboratory to the Rare and
Imported Pathogens Laboratory at Porton Down is
expected to be complete and whether the Health
Protection Agency will include Lyme on its list of
Reference Services published on its website. [HL143]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): The full service for Lyme
disease will be transferred from the Health Protection
Agency’s (HPA) Southampton laboratory to the agency’s
Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory (RIPL)
(formerly Special Pathogens Reference Unit) from
1 June 2012.
The primary diagnostic test used is a commercial
immunoassay system (ELISA) that has been used at
the Health Protection Agency’s Southampton laboratory
for several years and which is used widely internationally.
This assay is Conformité Européenne (CE) marked
(which means that the manufacturer confirms that the
product complies with the requirements of applicable
European Commission directives) and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approved, and the supporting
data for this approval are held by the manufacturer
and by the relevant regulatory agencies in Europe and
the United Kingdom. The confirmatory tests used are
commercial western blot tests covering all three Borrelia
species associated with disease; this test is also CE
marked and FDA approved with supporting data held
by the manufacturer and regulatory agencies. Testing
by the HPA’s Porton Down and Southampton laboratories
has shown that the sensitivity and specificity of these
tests meet the manufacturers’ specifications. The Lyme
Disease Action Group has been informed of the test
systems used by RIPL. Result reports are issued with
advice on interpretation of the results and the caveats
around negative results.
Lyme disease is already on the list of reference
services published on the HPA website.
www.hpa.org.uk/ProductsServices/
InfectiousDiseases/Laboratories
AndReferenceFacilities/
www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&
HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1232698015016
www.hpa.org.uk/ProductsServices/
InfectiousDiseases/MicrobiologyServices/
SpecialistMicrobiologyNetwork/
PublicHealthLabsSouth East/).
Asked by The Countess of Mar
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the
Written Answer by Earl Howe on 12 December 2011
(WA 213), whether they will ensure that both the
National Health Service and the Health Protection
Agency communicate scientific fact-based evidence
for significant failures in both early and late stage
Lyme disease tests to all United Kingdom clinicians.
[HL378]
Earl Howe: The Health Protection Agency (HPA)
Lyme diagnostic service, currently transferring to HPA
Microbiology Services at Porton Down, advises clinicians
of the limitations of tests for Lyme disease through
comments issued with reported results, clinical case
WA 109
Written Answers
[28 MAY 2012]
advice, and information on the publicly accessible
HPA website. In addition, the HPA is reviewing and
strengthening the national Lyme specialist function to
provide advice and diagnostic support to clinicians.
Health: Musculoskeletal Conditions
Question
Asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans
they have to develop a national outcomes strategy
for musculoskeletal conditions in England. [HL226]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): We have concluded that it
would not be appropriate this year to initiate the
development of a national outcomes strategy that
seeks to cover issues relating to the prevention,
management and social care support given to those
with musculoskeletal conditions. Instead, officials working
with the National Health Service leadership team have
engaged in discussions with professional organisations
and patient groups with a particular interest in NHS
performance towards these patient groups. The joint
intention is to establish a strategic partnership to
decide the measures needed to ensure that patient
outcomes can be improved and to ensure that these
measures are taken. Proposals under discussion will
be put in due course to the NHS Commissioning
Board for endorsement.
Health: Pharmacies
Question
Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will
ensure that the contribution of community pharmacy
is recognised by Clinical Commissioning Groups.
[HL354]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): As commissioners, clinical
commissioning groups (CCGs) will need to have strong
relationships with a range of health partners to provide
them with access to information, advice and knowledge
to help them make the best possible commissioning
decisions. They will be under a statutory duty to seek
advice in commissioning services from a broad range
of professionals, which can include community
pharmacists. They will also be able to access advice
from clinical senates and the pharmacy local professional
network of the NHS Commissioning Board. The NHS
Commissioning Board will also be responsible for
issuing guidance to commissioning groups (to which
they must have regard) on their duty to obtain appropriate
professional advice, for example in relation to working
with multidisciplinary clinical networks and senates.
Health: Research
Questions
Asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they
are taking to ensure that priorities for health-related
research reflect the priorities of patients. [HL319]
Written Answers
WA 110
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): The department’s National
Institute for Health Research (NIHR) encourages patients
and the public to be actively involved in all NIHR-funded
health and social care research, including setting research
priorities. The NIHR funds INVOLVE which promotes
active public participation in National Health Service,
public health and social care research to improve the
way that research is prioritised, commissioned, undertaken,
communicated and used.
All the NIHR’s research programmes actively engage
patients and the public in all stages of research. For
example, any person or group can make a suggestion
for research to the NIHR Health Technology Assessment
(HTA) programme by completing an online suggestion
form. Panels of independent experts decide which of
the many suggestions received by the HTA programme
should be commissioned as research. This decision-making
process involves clarifying research questions that are
most likely to fill the main gaps in knowledge for
the NHS. Six HTA advisory panels are responsible
for this work, and members include service user
representatives.
Asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps
they are taking to exercise the duties to promote
research contained in the Health and Social Care
[HL320]
Act 2012.
Earl Howe: The Health and Social Care Act 2012
places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote
research on matters relevant to the health service.
The Secretary of State currently supports research
through two main routes and will continue to do so
in the future. The first main route is through the
National Institute for Health Research which provides
the research evidence to underpin decisions about health
by clinicians, managers and patients in the National
Health Service. The second main route is through the
NHS, which supports and enables research funded by
Government, research charity partner organisations,
and industry.
The Act places a duty on the NHS Commissioning
Board such that, in the exercise of its functions, it
must promote research on matters relevant to the health
service. This duty will take effect from April 2013. The
NHS Commissioning Board Authority is currently
developing a research strategy setting out its intentions
for how the board will exercise this duty.
The Act creates a duty for clinical commissioning
groups (CCGs) to promote research, in line with the
duty on the NHS Commissioning Board. The NHS
Commissioning Board Authority is leading on
authorisation of CCGs and, in April 2012, published
clinical commissioning group authorisation: draft guide
for applicants. As set out in this document, to meet the
threshold for authorisation CCGs will be required to
provide a statement certifying that systems and processes
are in place to ensure that the CCG complies with its
statutory duties and other requirements, including the
commitment to promoting patients’ recruitment to
and participation in research.
Written Answers
WA 111
[LORDS]
Written Answers
Houses of Lords: Peerages
Immigration
Question
Question
Asked by Lord Roberts of Conwy
Asked by Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
peers were created during the premiership of each
of the last three Prime Ministers, including the
present incumbent; and, in each case, how many of
those were appointed to serve as (1) Conservative,
(2) Labour, (3) Liberal Democrat, and (4) crossbench,
[HL176]
members of the House of Lords.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I refer my right honourable
friend to the table below:
Party
Tony Blair
Gordon
Brown
David
Cameron
62
162
54
96
4
11
2
17
47
39
24
10
Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrat
Independent/
Crossbench/other
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, of the 207
individuals accused of torture, genocide or crimes
against humanity on which the UK Border Agency
recommended “adverse immigration action” between
June 2010 and December 2011, how many are from
[HL277]
Sri Lanka.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
Thirty-eightwereSriLankans.Theadverserecommendations
were as a result of the applicant not satisfying the
British citizenship character test or where exclusion
from the Refugee Convention was justified because
there were serious reasons for considering that the
applicant had committed a war crime or crime against
humanity.
Immigration: Children
Question
Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno
Housing
Question
Asked by Baroness King of Bow
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much
funding from the Spending Review settlement for
2011–15 the Homes and Communities Agency has
made available to (1) Barratt Developments Plc,
(2) Bellway Plc, (3) Berkeley Homes Group,
(4) Bovis Homes Group Plc, (5) Crest Nicholson
Operations Ltd, (6) Galliford Try Plc, (7) Persimmon
Ltd, (8) Redrow Regeneration Ltd, (9) Taylor Wimpey
[HL345]
UK Ltd, and (10) Telford Homes Plc.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
forCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessHanham):
The Homes and Communities Agency through their
Affordable Homes Programme and existing commitments
under the National Affordable Housing Programme
and Kickstart has made allocations available to the
following developers as set out in the table below.
Total (£m)
Barratt Developments PLC
Bellway PLC
Berkeley Homes Group
Bovis Homes Group PLC
Crest Nicholson
Galliford Try PLC
Persimmon Ltd
Redrow Regeneration Ltd
Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
Telford Homes PLC
WA 112
42.60
16.66
65.09
5.70
5.13
29.12
23.99
2.74
2.30
22.30
The above developers will also be key partners in a
number of Homes and Communities Agency projects
in relation to the land and property programme but,
due to the nature of the programme forecasts, allocations
cannot be made against individual partners.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
children were detained for immigration purposes in
the United Kingdom in (1) 2008, (2) 2009, (3) 2010,
and (4) 2011.
[HL364]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
The requested information is available only from 2009
when publication of these data began. 1,119 children
entered detention in 2009, 436 in 2010 and 99 in 2011.
Figures on people entering detention relate to those
solely detained under Immigration Act powers in
immigration removal centres, short-term holding facilities
and pre-departure accommodation, and exclude those
recorded as entering police cells, Prison Service
establishments and short-term holding rooms at ports
and airports (for less than 24 hours), those recorded as
detained under both criminal and immigration powers
and their dependants.
The Home Office releases statistics on detention, solely
under Immigration Act powers on a quarterly basis
within Immigration Statistics, which are available from
the Library of the House and from the Home Office’s
Science, Research and Statistics website at: homeoffice.gov.
uk/science-research/research-statistics/.
Imports and Exports
Question
Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Office for National Statistics Monthly Review
of External Trade Statistics, April 2011 edition,
table G2 (top 30 export and import commodities in
2010), what was, for each of the 30 imports commodity
categories and in relation to imports from countries
outside the European Union, the value of gross
customs duties collected by HM Revenue and Customs
[HL297]
on those imports.
WA 113
Written Answers
[28 MAY 2012]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord
Sassoon): Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is unable
to provide the gross customs duty figure against the
commodities listed within the Office of National Statistics
table G2, as the information is not held by the department
in the requested format.
International Labour Organisation:
Domestic Work
Question
Asked by Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will respond to Convention 189 and recommendation
201 from the International Labour Conference on
decent work for domestic workers; and, if so, when.
[HL203]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox):
A copy of Convention 189 and Recommendation 201
on decent work for domestic workers was laid in Parliament
on 27 April 2012 as Command Paper 8338. The explanatory
memorandum laid alongside this Command Paper
sets out the UK position on this matter.
Iran
Question
Asked by Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will implement European Union sanctions on Iranian
oil shipping in July.
[HL278]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The UK is pursuing
a dual-track policy of engagement with and pressure
on Iran over the nuclear issue. International sanctions
have brought Iran back to the negotiating table in
recent weeks and the UK remains committed to increasing
the pressure on Iran until it negotiates seriously. The
European Union embargo on Iranian oil imports is
expected to come into full effect on 1 July. The related
ban on protection and indemnity insurance for ships
carrying Iranian oil is subject to a European Union
review and we are in discussions with EU partners
about this.
Israel
Questions
Asked by Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
plan to hold discussions with the Government of
Israel concerning the case for prisoners who require
medical attention to be visited by an independent
physician who is not employed by the Israeli Prison
[HL240]
Service.
Written Answers
WA 114
the need to treat detainees in accordance with international
law, including access to the medical care required by
the state of their health. We have raised our concerns,
including in early May with the Israeli Foreign Minister,
Vice-Prime Minister and National Security Adviser
and with the Israeli Ambassador in London. There is
no legal requirement for these detainees to be treated
by independent physicians. However, we are in close
touch with the International Committee of the Red
Cross and the non-governmental organisation Physicians
for Human Rights, which are active in lobbying for
appropriate access by medical professionals.
Asked by Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
accept the validity of the law under which Israel has
declared the settlement outposts of Bruchin, Rechelim
and Sansana to be legal; and, if so, what are the
implications for the peace process of the acceptance
of this law by the international community. [HL243]
Lord Howell of Guildford: The outposts of Bruchin,
Rechelim and Sansana were authorised by the decision
of a sub-committee of the Israeli cabinet on 23 April 2012.
We have consistently made clear that Israel should be
removing, not legalising, illegal outposts, in line with
its Roadmap commitments. On 24 April the Secretary
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my
right honourable friend the Member for Richmond
(Yorks) (Mr Hague), released a statement strongly
condemning the Israeli Government’s decision to legalise
these three outposts in the West Bank. The Foreign
Secretary made clear that this decision set a dangerous
precedent for future outposts and risked sending the
message that Israel was not serious about its commitment
to the two-state solution. He called on Israel to rescind
this decision.
The Foreign Secretary most recently raised concerns
about Israel’s settlement policy during the visit in May
2012 of the Israeli National Security Adviser. Our
ambassador to Tel Aviv has also raised our concerns
about the issue of legalising outposts with senior
Israeli officials, including draft legislation on authorising
the compulsory purchase of private land for settlement
building that is currently pending before the Knesset.
We have regular discussions with European partners
on the issues of Israeli settlements and outposts in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories. On 14 May the European
Union Foreign Affairs Council issued conclusions that
expressed concern at Israel’s settlement policy and
decisions regarding the status of certain outposts.
Israel and Palestine: West Bank
Questions
Asked by Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their
assessment of the economic viability of a Palestinian
state within Areas A and B of the West Bank.
[HL244]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The UK is continuing
to monitor closely the situation with regard to Palestinian
detainees and prisoners in Israeli prisons. We have
held regular discussions with the Israeli authorities on
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The key economic
constraints on the West Bank are Israeli restrictions
on the movement of Palestinian people and goods
WA 115
Written Answers
[LORDS]
internally and externally and on access to natural
resources. These restrictions have meant that the Occupied
Palestinian Territories are dependent on foreign aid to
prevent a humanitarian crisis and to allow the Palestinian
Authority to deliver basic services. The West Bank has
recently experienced an increase in economic growth
due to a slight lifting of the restrictions in 2010 and
2011 and high aid flows. However, this is from a very
low base line. The Department for International
Development provides technical and financial assistance
to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in order to
promote economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza.
The UK will provide £349 million in support of Palestinian
development between 2011 and 2015.
Asked by Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action
they are taking to help Palestinians remain in their
homes and on their land within Area C of the West
[HL245]
Bank.
Lord Howell of Guildford: We are concerned about
demolitions of Palestinian property in Area C of the
West Bank. We are urging Israel to desist from such
demolitions, which we consider to be contrary to
Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian
law and harmful to the peace process, as well as
causing unnecessary suffering to ordinary Palestinians.
The European Union’s Foreign Affairs Council, in
conclusions agreed on 14 May, called on Israel to meet
its obligations regarding the living conditions of the
Palestinian population in Area C, including by halting
the forced transfer of population and the demolition
of Palestinian housing and infrastructure, ensuring
access to water and addressing humanitarian needs. In
addition, the UK continues to support Palestinians
facing demolition or eviction through our funding of
the Norwegian Refugee Council legal aid programme
which helps individuals to challenge these decisions in
the Israeli legal system.
Justice: Youth Courts
Questions
Asked by Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they
will publish the responses to the consultation on
youth court locations in Lancashire.
[HL183]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord
McNally): The response to the consultation was published
on 16 May 2012. All the organisations/persons that
were sent the original consultation paper together
with any additional respondents were notified by e-mail,
which included the response to the responses paper as
an attachment, where an e-mail address was available.
Otherwise hard copies were sent out by second-class
post. It was also published on the internet that day.
Asked by Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
responses were received to the consultation on proposals
to close the youth court in Chorley; and how many
responses were (1) in favour, and (2) against, the
[HL184]
proposal.
Written Answers
WA 116
Lord McNally: The full detail is contained within
the response to consultation paper that was published
on 16 May 2012. In total 60 individual responses were
received. Of those 16 were in favour, 43 against and
one did not indicate either agreement or opposition. It
should be noted that members of several organisations
contributed to a response from their organisation but
also contributed responses in a personal capacity. The
employees of one company submitted individual responses
rather than a collective response from the company.
When an adjustment is made for the latter aspect, the
following outcome is shown: if each person or organisation
were to be treated as having the opportunity to comment
only once then 20 respondents would oppose the
proposals, as compared to 16 who supported them
with one respondent not specifying support or opposition.
Asked by Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a
decision has been taken on the future of the Chorley
[HL185]
youth court.
Lord McNally: A decision was taken by Her Majesty’s
Courts and Tribunal Service, through the North West
Region’s Delivery Board, following approval by the
Lancashire Cluster’s Senior Management Team, to
accept the proposals contained in the consultation
paper in full, and this outcome was published on the
16 May 2012. It should be noted that this decision
does not involve the closure of any court buildings.
Following implementation, the venues dealing with
youth court matters will be reduced from 11 to six.
Chorley Magistrates’ Court is one of these venues,
with effect from 1 July 2012, where youth court matters
will be no longer dealt with.
Asked by Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will outline the alternative arrangements to be made
in the event of the closure of Chorley youth court;
and what assessment they have made as to the
[HL186]
impact this would have on local justice.
Lord McNally: So far as the youth court business
that is currently dealt with in Chorley Magistrates’
Court is concerned, youths will be bailed or summoned
to appear at Preston Magistrates’ Court. Youths who
are detained in police custody pending appearance
before the youth court will be brought before Preston
Youth Court too on each weekday apart from Thursday,
when they will be brought before the Ormskirk Youth
Court. On Saturdays and bank holidays the existing
arrangements for such youths to be brought before
Preston Magistrates’ Court will continue. Currently,
Chorley Magistrates’ Court is closed to all other business
on one day each week to accommodate the youth
business because that building is not suitable for dealing
with youth and adult business simultaneously because
of the impracticability of segregation. The Preston
Youth Court is a separate self-contained and purpose
built facility, which enables both adult and youth
business to he heard at the same time in discrete parts
of the building, as necessary and appropriate. There
are currently four separate youth panels in the Central
WA 117
Written Answers
[28 MAY 2012]
and South West Lancashire business district. The Chorley
Youth Panel is one of these. In line with changes that
have already taken place in the other two business
districts in Lancashire, discussions are ongoing with a
view to a merger of the four separate panels to form
one combined youth panel, with membership from all
the current youth court panels. In this way the principles
of local justice will remain intact and the administration
of justice in the Central and South West Lancashire
business district will be best served by a more efficient
and effective use of the existing resources.
Asked by Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether cases
currently heard at Chorley youth court will be
transferred to Ormskirk if Chorley youth court is
[HL187]
closed.
Lord McNally: Youths who are currently bailed or
summoned to appear before the court sitting in Chorley
will instead be bailed or summoned to appear in the
Preston Youth Court. Within Lancashire there is a
flexible approach to listing cases and, subject to
consultation with the parties to proceedings, some of
the cases appearing before Preston Youth Court may
be adjourned to Ormskirk Youth Court to be dealt
with, particularly if that court can accommodate any
trial more expeditiously. See also the response to the
previous PQ with regard to youths, who are brought
before the youth court from police custody.
Asked by Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will publish the business case for the closure of
[HL188]
Chorley youth court.
Lord McNally: There are no plans to close any
court buildings at Chorley Magistrates’ Court. The
rationale behind the decision to move youth court
business away from Chorley Magistrates’ Court, in
common with similar proposed movements of work
in other areas of Lancashire, is contained within the
consultation paper and the aim is to rationalise the
provision of youth courts throughout the whole of
Lancashire, as part of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals
Service’s obligation to improve operational efficiency
and achieve financial savings in service delivery, while
maintaining a good service to all those who use the
youth courts in Lancashire. The facilities at Preston
Magistrates’ Court are better suited to dealing with
youth business and, unlike the facilities available at
Chorley Magistrates’ Court, the full range of youth
business can be listed. The youth courts’ workload
nationally continues to decrease and Lancashire is no
exception. During the period 1 January 2012 and
31 March 2012 the Chorley Youth Court sat on 12 days
and there were 20 court sessions. The sessions were for
a total of 56:30 hours, which equates to an average
session length of less than 2½ hours. When compared
to the sessions held in Preston and the available capacity
at Preston Magistrates’ Court, the business from Chorley
can be easily absorbed into the current court sitting
schedule there. This will result in a total of 50 sitting
days per annum being saved at Chorley Magistrates’
Written Answers
WA 118
Court alone, thereby freeing up resources for both the
Crown Prosecution Service and HMCTS. On Tuesday
each week, following implementation, the Chorley
magistrates’ courthouse may be closed for court business
with a reduction in the attendant costs. In this way, the
available resources will be utilised more efficiently
and effectively and should better match the workload
demand. Further details are contained within the response
to the consultation and the consultation paper that
preceded it.
Asked by Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
have made all the responses to the consultation
exercise on the future of Chorley Youth Court
available to the North West Regional Delivery Board
[HL219]
of HM Court Services.
Lord McNally: All the responses to the consultation
exercise on the consultation in relation to the future of
Chorley Youth Court were available to the North West
Regional Delivery Board of HMCTS, as they had
been similarly available earlier to the Lancashire Cluster’s
Senior Management Team.
Asked by Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the
functions and composition of the North West Regional
Delivery Board of HM Court Services; and how
[HL220]
many lay members sit on the board.
Lord McNally: The purpose of the North West
(NW) Regional Delivery Board is to monitor operational
performance and formulate strategy and business plans
for the region. The board comprises:
NW Delivery Director;
NW Head of Crime;
NW Head of Civil, Family and Tribunals;
NW Head of Regional Support Unit;
NW Head of Finance;
NW Estates Manager;
NW Human Resources Business Partner;
NW Lean Lead;
I x Justices’ Clerk (Regional Legal Adviser Resource
Committee) representative); and
6 x Cluster Managers (Greater Manchester Civil.
Family and Tribunals; Cheshire Merseyside Civil,
Family and Tribunals; Greater Manchester Crime;
Cheshire Merseyside Crime; Lancashire: Cumbria).
There are no lay members on the board.
Local Authorities
Question
Asked by Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Answer by Baroness Hanham on 30 April
(WA 410–1), by what means local councillors will
be able to hold the executive to account in authorities
run by elected mayors given that (1) the membership
of the cabinet does not consist of a majority of
elected councillors, and (2) the membership of mayoral
advisory panels includes unelected appointees.
[HL196]
WA 119
Written Answers
[LORDS]
Baroness Hanham: Section 9C of the Local Government
Act 2000 provides that the mayor and cabinet executive
form of governance may consist of an elected mayor
and two or more councillors of the authority appointed
by the elected mayor. Members of the executive can be
drawn only from existing councillors on the council
and cannot be non-elected individuals.
All principal councils operating mayor and cabinetexecutive governance arrangements are required under
the Local Government Act 2000 to have at least one
overview and scrutiny committee. Overview and scrutiny
committees consist of non-executive members of the
council and have powers allowing them to review or
scrutinise executive decisions and make recommendations
to the local authority or executive on how matters
might be improved. Moreover, on certain matters, it is
open to the full council to amend or reject a proposal
from the mayor; for example, the full council can by a
two thirds majority reject or amend the mayor’s proposed
budget.
Mayors
Question
Asked by Lord Rennard
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the
cost of holding the mayoral referendums in English
cities on 3 May; and what assessment they have
made of the outcome.
[HL145]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
forCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessHanham):
The referendums were an example of genuine localism—
local people deciding how they want their city to be
governed. Over 1 million people took part in the
referendums; almost 429,000 wanted their city to be
run by a mayor, the majority view in Bristol. The
councils concerned are now establishing the costs of
the referendums and will be submitting their claims for
government funding.
NHS Information Strategy
Question
Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they
will publish the NHS Information Strategy.[HL411]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): I refer the noble Lord to my
Written Statement on 21 May (Official Report, col. WS
47). Copies of the strategy are available in the Library.
NHS Institute for Innovation and
Improvement
Written Answers
WA 120
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): The NHS Institute for Innovation
and Improvement is largely funded by a grant in aid
allocation from the department. This allocation is
made up of:
admin/programme revenue/grant in aid limit for
resources, this includes funding to cover payment
of provisions;
cash limit for revenue cash drawdown;
ring fenced depreciation and impairment limit;
annually managed expenditure limit;
capital resource limit; and
capital cash limit.
In 2011-12 the final revenue resource limit and cash
limit was £52,794,000. This was used to deliver the
requirements of the agreed business plan (published
on the NHS Institute website) for the NHS Institute,
and the priority programmes contained within. On
occasion, for example with some of the training and
development programmes, National Health Service
organisations provide a contribution to the funding of
the programme through a co-payment.
Whenever NHS organisations require additional
work outside of this funding agreement, these will be
charged for on a full cost recovery basis. For example
during 2010-11, £9.8 million was invoiced to customers
for additional services provided under a range of
agreements. Details of grant in aid allocations and
services invoiced to customers are contained within
the annual report and accounts for the NHS Institute
for Innovation and Improvement (published on the
NHS Institute website).
NHS: Clinical Commissioning Groups
Question
Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role
the Commissioning Outcomes Framework will play
in the performance management of clinical
commissioning groups.
[HL414]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): The NHS Commissioning Board
will translate the NHS Outcomes Framework into a
setof measuresintheCommissioningOutcomesFramework
to provide clear, comparative data on the quality of
services commissioned for local populations and the
outcomes achieved for patients. This will help clinical
commissioning groups (CCGs) drive local improvements
in quality and outcomes for patients. It will enable the
NHS Commissioning Board to hold CCGs to account
for improving quality and outcomes and reducing
inequalities. In addition it will ensure clear, publicly
available information on the quality of healthcare
services commissioned by CCGs.
Question
Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why contracts
for the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement
are being let on a block basis, with no element of
risk share in the event of greater than expected
[HL253]
demand.
NHS: Complaints
Question
Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the
Written Answer by Earl Howe on 21 May (HL 15),
what is the anticipated cost of the commissioning
WA 121
Written Answers
[28 MAY 2012]
process through local authorities in 2012–13 for the
Independent Complaints Advisory Service, compared
[HL371]
to the total cost of the service.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): The costs of commissioning
independent advocacy will fall to individual local
authorities and will be dependent on the procurement
model used. It is not possible to estimate these costs.
NHS: Primary Care Trusts
Question
Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans
they have to change the weighting formula of primary
care trust allocations.
[HL356]
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): The final round of primary
care trust allocations was made on 14 December 2011
for 2012-13. For 2013-14 the NHS Commissioning
Board will be responsible for the allocation of resources
to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and the
department will make a ring-fenced public health grant
to local authorities for their new public health
responsibilities. The Secretary of State has asked the
Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA),
an independent expert committee, to develop formulae
for the allocation of resources to both CCGs and local
authorities. ACRA’s recommendations will be published
in due course.
NHS: Quality Standards
Question
Asked by Lord Turnberg
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will
ensure that the recommendations in the National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Patient
experience in adult NHS services quality standard
[HL374]
are implemented.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): Under the Health and Social
Care Act (2012), on commencement of the relevant
provisions in the Act from April 2013 the Secretary of
State and NHS Commissioning Board, in discharging
their duties to improve the quality of health services,
“must have regard to the quality standards prepared
by NICE”. Although these standards set out aspirational
but achievable care and are not targets, the care system
should also have regard to them in planning and delivering
services as part of a general duty to secure continuous
improvement in quality.
NHS: Salaries
Written Answers
WA 122
are paid more than the proposed salary of the chairman
[HL370]
of HealthWatch England.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): The department does not hold
this information. National Health Service foundation
trusts (FTs) are free to set their own rates of remuneration
for their chairs. The department does not keep information
on the remuneration of FT chairs. However, according
to the Incomes Data Service NHS Boardroom pay
report 2012, the minimum remuneration of an FT chair
was £22,500, the maximum £72,500 and the average
£44,643.
The department is currently recruiting the chair of
Healthwatch England. The time commitment for the
role is approximately two to three days per week with
remuneration of £35,000-£40,000 per annum. The
Secretary of State will determine the length of the
appointment, which will be for up to a maximum of
four years.
Overseas Aid
Questions
Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what amounts
and types of aid they provide to governments that
criminalise consensual same-sex relationships.
[HL210]
Baroness Northover: The UK Government advocate
strongly for the repeal of laws that criminalise
homosexuality or discrimination on the grounds of
sexual orientation. Concerns about the treatment or
status of lesbian gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)
people are raised at the highest levels by ministers and
senior officials.
Since 2010 DfID has focused its bilateral aid programme
in 28 countries. Consensual same-sex relationships are
criminalised in some way in 20 of those countries:
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma Ethiopia, Ghana,
India, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Nepal, Nigeria, Occupied
Palestinian Territories, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
Sudan, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia,
and Zimbabwe. The nature of those laws and the
extent to which they are enforced varies considerably.
Detailed figures on DfID’s bilateral aid programme
in these countries can be found in Statistics for
International Development at www.dfid.gov.uk. UK
aid is provided in several ways, including funds to
non-governmental organisations, UN agencies, and
regional bodies. DfID provides direct financial assistance
to Governments in only a small number of countries.
Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what amounts
and types of aid they provide to governments that
[HL212]
retain the use of the death penalty.
Question
Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 21 May
(HL 15), how many chairmen of foundation trusts
Baroness Northover: Global abolition of the death
penalty continues to be UK government policy. DfID
works closely with the FCO to deliver the FCO’s
Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty, published
in October 2011.
WA 123
Written Answers
[LORDS]
Since 2010 DfID has focused its bilateral aid
programme in 28 countries. Of those, the death penalty
is legal and remains in use in 13 countries: Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Congo (Democratic Republic), Ethiopia,
India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Sierra
Leone, South Sudan, Sudan, Uganda, Yemen and
Zimbabwe. There are a further nine countries to which
DfID provides aid where the death penalty exists
legally but has de facto been banned. These are: Ghana,
Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Tanzania
and Zambia.
Detailed figures on DfID’s bilateral aid programme
in these countries can be found in Statistics for
International Development at www.dfid.gov.uk. UK
aid is provided in several ways, including funds to
non-governmental organisations, UN agencies and
regional bodies. DfID provides direct financial assistance
to Governments in only a small number of countries.
Passports
Questions
Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
applications for passports were processed by passport
personal interview offices in (1) 2010, and (2) 2011.
[HL362]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many
passport applications processed by passport personal
interview offices were rejected in (1) 2010, (2) 2011.
[HL363]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
The Identity and Passport Service processed a total of
5,367,259 passports in 2010 and 5,259,835 in 2011.
Identity authentication interviews take place in Customer
Service Office locations across the UK.
Figures for the number of interviews conducted
and for the number of passports rejected as a direct
result of identity authentication interviews are given
in the table below. In addition to the instances of
confirmed fraud, applications have also been withdrawn
when customers are advised that an interview must be
completed before a passport can be issued.
2010
2011
Interviews
Applications
rejected
Applications
withdrawn
302,825
263,999
5
2
1,633
872
Written Answers
WA 124
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Answer by Lord Henley on 15 March
(WA 113), what potential ill effects of the use of
pelargonic acid vanillylamide (PAVA) spray in civil
circumstances were identified in the testing and
medical assessment process; and whether such
[HL170]
assessments have been published.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
The Himsworth recommendations have been implemented.
The statements on the use of pelargonic acid
vanillylamide (PAVA) (and CS) by the Committees on
the Toxicity, Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity of
Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the
Environment are contained in the Home Office report
by the Police Scientific Development Branch (now the
Centre for Applied Science and Technology) entitled
Comparison of CS and PAVA: Operational and
Toxicological Aspects (Pub No 88/04). This can be
downloaded from: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
20100413151441/http://scienceandresearch.
homeoffice.gov.uk/hosdb/publications/policeweaponry/Compairson_CS_and_PAVAe8f5.html?
view=Standard&pubID=385487
A series of independent toxicological assessments
relating to the use of PAVA as an incapacitant spray
have been published by the Committee on Toxicity of
Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the
Environment (COT).
The first was published in 2002: cot.food.gov.uk/
cotstatements/cotstatementsyrs/cotstatements2002/
pavastatement
Third in 2007: cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/pava200705.pdf.
Afourthstatement,publishedbyCOTin2006,examined
the combined use of CS and PAVA: cot.food.gov.uk/
pdfs/cotstatementcspava0604.pdf.
All COT statements are publicly available.
Pensions
Questions
Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate
they have made of the number of United Kingdom
state pensioners who had been residing in countries
where the United Kingdom state pension is frozen
and who, in each year since 2005, returned to the
United Kingdom to resume permanent residence.
[HL265]
PAVA Spray and CS
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): There are insufficient
data to provide an estimate.
Questions
Asked by Lord Tyler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the
recommendations of the Himsworth Committee on
the publication of medical and scientific information
about the potential ill effects of using chemical
agents in civil circumstances have been implemented.
[HL169]
Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what long-term
projections have been made of the number of United
Kingdom residents who are forecast to choose to
reside overseas permanently on their retirement.
[HL266]
WA 125
Written Answers
[28 MAY 2012]
Lord Freud: It is projected that in 2050-51 the UK
state pension will be paid to 1.6 million people living
overseas.
Source: DWP projections
Notes:
1. Projections are based on autumn 2011 long-term projections,
realigned to Budget 2012 medium-term forecasts. These are
published at: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/ltp1p_notes.pdf.
2. Projections assume that once people have moved abroad, they
do not come back to the UK.
3. Figures relate to all people living overseas who are projected to
be receiving a UK basic state pension in 2050-51. Not all of these
people are UK nationals, and not all of them will have moved to
live overseas when they reached state pension age.
4. Figures exclude deferrers.
5. Figures are rounded to the nearest 100,000.
Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what would
be the cost of uprating the United Kingdom state
pension in each of the countries affected by the
frozen pension regulations where, in year 1, the
uprating was restricted to persons over 90 years of
age; in year 2 to persons over 85; in year 3 to persons
over 80; in year 4 to persons over 75; in year 5 to
persons over 70; and in year 6 to all others in receipt
[HL267]
of a United Kingdom state pension.
Lord Freud: Information is not available in the
format requested. Information on the cost of uprating
the United Kingdom state pension for all the countries
affected by the frozen pension regulations in 2012-13
by age group is in the table below.
The estimates in the table represent the increased
expenditure that would result if individuals with frozenrate state pensions were to be paid in 2012-13 at rates
reflecting what their entitlements would be, had their
rates of state pension never been frozen. The estimates
do not include the increased expenditure that would
result were arrears to be paid, reflecting increases in
individuals’ state pension entitlement in previous years
that were not awarded due to freezing regulations.
Estimates are for the 2012-13 tax year only. Costs
would be expected to increase in subsequent years.
Estimated costs in 2012-13 of unfreezing the frozen state pensions of all
recipients by age group in 2012-13
Cost in 2012-13 tax year
Age at 31 March 2011
(in 2012-13 price terms)
60-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
90+
Total
93
115
134
139
113
62
656
Source: DWP estimates based on 5% sample administrative data
for 31 March 2011.
1. Figures are in £ million per annum in 2012-13 price terms.
2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £1 million.
3. State pension here includes basic state pension, graduated
retirement benefit, state earnings related pension scheme, and
state second pension. It includes inherited amounts, and
additional amounts received due to individuals having deferred
claiming their state pension.
Written Answers
WA 126
Pitcairn Island
Question
Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their
assessment of the current financial situation in
Pitcairn Island; and what steps they intend to take
to help resolve the difficulties.
[HL269]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The UK has provided
bilateral aid to Pitcairn since 2002. In 2010-11 this aid
amounted to £2,447,000. The Government is working
with the Territory in trying to boost revenue through
small business development and by increasing tourism.
Police and Crime Commissioners
Question
Asked by Lord Condon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether officials
carried out the planned engagement events in the
first quarter of 2012 in England and Wales to
encourage awareness and interest in the election of
police and crime commissioners; and if so, when
[HL131]
and where those events were held.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
Home Office officials delivered a series of 17 events
for key partners between January and March 2012.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice attended
a number of these events. The events were designed to
bring together the range of local professionals who
will need to work with police and crime commissioners,
with the aim of aiding discussions and preparations
for their arrival. Below are the dates, locations and
police forces covered at each event:
24 January— Lancaster, Cumbria and Lancashire
Police Force areas;
25 January—Crewe, Merseyside, Cheshire, and
Staffordshire Police Force areas;
31 January—Birmingham, West Mercia and West
Midlands Police Force areas;
1 February—Leicester, Warwickshire, Leicestershire,
and Northamptonshire Police Force areas;
2 February—Derby, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire,
and Lincolnshire Police Force areas;
7 February—Portsmouth, Hampshire and Surrey
Police Force areas;
8 February—Reading, Thames Valley Police Force
area;
9 February—London, Kent and Sussex Police Force
areas;
21 February—Ipswich, Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk
Police Force areas;
22February—Cambridge,Bedfordshire,Cambridgeshire,
and Hertfordshire Police Force areas;
23 February—Leeds, North Yorkshire, South
Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, and Humberside Police
Force areas;
WA 127
Written Answers
[LORDS]
28 February—Exeter, Devon and Cornwall and
Avon and Somerset Police Force areas;
29 February—Swindon, Dorset, Gloucestershire,
and Wiltshire Police Force areas;
1 March—Cardiff, South Wales, Gwent, and Dyfed
Powys Police Force areas;
6 March—Newcastle, Northumbria, Cleveland, and
Durham Police Force areas;
7 March—Manchester, Greater Manchester Police
Force area; and
8 March—Llandudno, North Wales Police Force
area.
Written Answers
WA 128
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
The Government are delivering a comprehensive package
of measures to tackle metal theft. In addition to the
provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment
of Offenders Act 2012, we are enhancing enforcement
activity through a National Metal Theft Taskforce
and Operation Tornado, a joint collaboration between
law enforcement and the scrap metal industry; and
developing innovative design solutions that both improve
the traceability of stolen metal and act as a stronger
deterrent for thieves and unscrupulous scrap metal
dealers. The Home Office is also in discussion with
other government departments regarding possible changes
to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964.
Prisoners: Transsexuals
Question
Security Industry
Asked by Baroness Gould of Potternewton
Questions
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what provision
is made for transsexuals in prison with respect to
access to specialist healthcare for gender dysphoria.
[HL189]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord
McNally): Prisoners who have been diagnosed with
gender dysphoria are provided with the same quality
of care (including counselling, pre-operative and postoperative care and access to hormone treatment) that
they would receive from the NHS if they had not been
sent to prison.
Prisons: Substance Misuse
Question
Asked by Lord Patel of Bradford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government within which
prisons substance misuse services are being
re-commissioned in line with the Patel report; and,
of those, which are providing both clinical substance
misuse treatment and psychosocial interventions
services; and which are only providing psychosocial
[HL230]
interventions services.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
of Health (Earl Howe): Substance misuse services in
all prisons in England are being recommissioned to
provide recovery-oriented drug treatment services in
line with the 2010 Government Drug Strategy and the
2010 Patel report. Detail on this activity is provided in
a report published by the National Health Service’s
National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse entitled,
Prisons Commissioning Status Summary April 2012.
A copy has been placed in the Library.
Scrap Metal Theft
Question
Asked by Lord Bradshaw
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans
they have to address the problem of scrap metal
theft beyond the provisions included in the Legal
Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders
[HL448]
Act 2012.
Asked by Lord Rogan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
have oversight of the appointment of private security
firms by police authorities.
[HL222]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
have published criteria for selection of private security
firms for use by police authorities, and if so, what
[HL223]
those criteria are.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether
employees of private security firms working under
contract for police authorities have powers similar
[HL224]
to those of a police constable.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley):
Decisions to engage private sector providers are taken
by chief constables and approved by police authorities
or, from November, elected police and crime
commissioners. Chief constables retain operational
control and accountability. There is no intention to
allow private companies to carry out police activities
that require warranted powers, except to the extent
that this is already permitted for detention and escort
officers by legislation passed in the Police Reform
Act 2002.
South Sudan
Question
Asked by Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion
of the global pooled fund for South Sudan will be
devoted to maternal health and family planning.
[HL259]
Baroness Northover: The Health Pooled Fund will
be the UK’s primary mechanism for supporting basic
health care in South Sudan from 2013. It will provide
almost half the population of South Sudan with access
to health services, with a particular focus on maternal
and child health. It will help to increase the use of, and
access to, comprehensive antenatal care, ensuring that
more women are helped by skilled birth attendants
during delivery, improving access to emergency obstetric
services and increasing the use and awareness of family
WA 129
Written Answers
[28 MAY 2012]
planning. As the fund is not separated out into vertical
components, we cannot accurately assign a proportion
of the funding to maternal health and family planning.
However, the fund will provide around 22,000 women
with access to four antenatal care visits, ensure that
around 22,000 women receive preventive treatment against
malaria and assist almost 11,000 people to start a new
method of family planning. The pooled fund will have
contributions from the Australian Agency for International
Development, the Canadian International Development
Agency, the Swedish International Development
Co-operation Agency and the EU. DfID will act as
lead donor.
Sudan and South Sudan
Questions
Asked by The Earl of Sandwich
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what diplomatic
measures they are taking with the governments of
Sudan and South Sudan, with the African Union
and in the United Nations to draw attention to the
number of refugees in South Sudan and to find an
early political solution to the border conflict.
[HL194]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We have made clear
at ministerial and official level to both Sudan and
South Sudan that they must restart negotiations and
fully comply with the African Union roadmap and
United Nations Security Resolution 2046, to bring
about a peaceful settlement to internal and cross-border
conflicts. We continue to raise the humanitarian impact
of these conflicts, including the increasing number of
refugees, and make clear to both Governments their
responsibility to protect all civilians. We continue to
work with our international partners, including the
African Union and UN, to ensure an effective response
to the growing humanitarian need in South Sudan.
Asked by Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions
they have had with the Government of China
concerning the continuing hostilities between Sudan
[HL260]
and South Sudan.
Lord Howell of Guildford: We continue to discuss
Sudan and South Sudan with the Government of
China, and welcome their continued efforts to support
the African Union mediation between the two countries.
Officials at our embassies in Khartoum, Juba and
Beijing regularly meet Chinese officials to discuss both
countries. The Secretary of State for International
Development, my right honourable friend the Member
for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), discussed Sudan
and South Sudan during a meeting with China’s special
envoy for Africa in February, and again with the
Chinese ambassador in London in May. The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department
for International Development, my honourable friend
the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien), met the
Chinese Ambassador to Sudan during his visit in
Written Answers
WA 130
February this year. The newly appointed UK Special
Representative for Sudan is seeking an early opportunity
to meet his Chinese counterpart.
Sudan: Darfur
Question
Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
they have made of the effectiveness of the United
Nations personnel deployed as part of the African
Union and United Nations Hybrid operation in
Darfur; what review is being carried out of its
mandate; and what discussions they have initiated
in the United Nations Security Council about the
[HL205]
nature of peacekeeping in Africa.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): Given the difficult
conditions under which it operates, we assess the
African Union/United Nations hybrid operation in
Darfur’s (UNAMID) overall effectiveness to date as
satisfactory. However, as acknowledged by a recent
report by the United Nations Secretary-General, it
has not always been sufficiently proactive in dealing
with security threats and could be more effective in
carrying out its mandate to protect civilians. The
recent UN review of uniformed personnel was both
timely and welcome, usefully highlighting the changing
nature of the conflict in Darfur and outlining a series
of recommendations to ensure a more effective and
efficient use of uniformed resources. We will consider
these recommendations and how else UNAMID might
be reconfigured to better support the ongoing peace
process and newly created Darfur Regional Authority
ahead of mandate renewal in July. UK officials will
shortly be carrying out an assessment mission to Sudan
to inform our approach. In order to promote more
effective peacekeeping, the UK has initiated regular
dialogue within the council on cross-cutting challenges.
Most recently, under the UK’s presidency of the Security
Council in March 2012, the council discussed the
relationship between peacekeeping and peace-building.
Such discussions are particularly relevant to the nature
of peacekeeping in Africa.
Syria, Egypt and Lebanon
Question
Asked by Lord Turnberg
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment
they have made of the recent treatment of Christians
and other minority groups in (1) Syria, (2) Egypt,
and (3) Lebanon.
[HL376]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): In Syria, the regime’s
actions continue to undermine the stability and security
of the country and therefore endanger all Syria’s citizens,
including Christians and other religious minorities.
We call on all sides to refrain from violence. We are
calling for a political solution to the crisis in Syria that
corresponds to the wishes of the Syrian people, including
WA 131
Written Answers
[LORDS]
the Christian minority. In our contacts with the opposition,
including meetings held with my right honourable
friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague)
in Tunis and Istanbul, we encourage the opposition to
reach out and engage with all minority communities,
including Christians, and to maintain a clear commitment
to a peaceful and non-sectarian approach.
Ministers have regularly raised our concerns with
the Egyptian authorities about the dangers of extremism
and sectarianism in Egypt. We continue to press the
authorities to promote religious tolerance, revisit policies
which discriminate against anyone on the basis of
their religion, and enshrine respect for human rights in
the constitution, including guarantees for minority
rights.
In Lebanon, the rights of Christians are enshrined
in their national pact and constitution. Our officials in
Beirut are in regular contact with leaders of the Christian
community and continue to monitor religious and
sectarian relations in the country. We continue to urge
the authorities to create the conditions for pluralist
and non-sectarian politics and to establish policies
that prevent discrimination against anyone on the
basis of their religion.
Transport: Eyesight Tests
Question
Asked by Lord Bradshaw
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how and when
they expect to implement European Commission
Directives 2009/113/EC and 2006/126/EC regarding
eyesight requirements for licensing group 1 and
[HL288]
group 2 drivers.
Earl Attlee: Changes have already been implemented
to ensure that GB meets the minimum European
standards for eyesight. Domestic legislation, scheduled
for introduction this summer, will introduce the remaining
changes.
Written Answers
WA 132
vehicles and the implementation of changes to Network
Rail and Supertram infrastructure. We are keen that
the pilot should begin as soon as it practically and
safely can.
Unemployment: Under 25s
Question
Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the
answer by Lord Freud on 14 May (Official Report,
col. 132), how the figure of 719,000 people who are
unemployed and not students, was calculated, and
what was the age range of people included in this
[HL235]
figure.
TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department
for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): The figure relates
to those aged 16-24. It comes from the Labour Force
Survey, run and published by the Office for National
Statistics, and is based on the replies respondents give
to questions about their education and labour market
status. To be unemployed, individuals need to have
looked for work in the past four weeks and be ready to
take up work in the next two weeks, or be waiting to
start a job they have already found. Figures are published
monthly and are an average for a three-month period.
The latest figure, published on 16 May and covering
January to March 2012, is 707,000.
Zimbabwe
Question
Asked by Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they
will make representations to the Government of
South Africa about the case for upholding agreed
Commonwealth values by investigating and prosecuting
Zimbabweans suspected of involvement in torture
whenever such persons enter their jurisdiction.
[HL252]
Transport: Tram Trains
Question
Asked by Lord Bradshaw
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to
the Written Statement by Earl Attlee on 17 May
(WS 44–6), whether there is any scope for introducing
the tram trains earlier than 2015 and reducing the
time allowed for evaluation, in the light of the
successful demonstration of the concept in Germany.
[HL365]
Earl Attlee: Tram Train has been successful in
Germany and other countries and the Sheffield pilot
draws on best practice from these examples. However,
the vehicles will need to be compliant with the different
railway operating systems and standards that are found
in the UK. The date for introduction to passenger
service also reflects the construction timescales for the
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We recognise South
Africa’s important role as the Southern African
Development Community’s lead in the Zimbabwe
facilitation process and President Zuma’s ongoing personal
commitment to the process. Our officials remain in
close contact with South African authorities on matters
in Zimbabwe, and support their encouragement of all
Zimbabwean parties to respect the human rights of
the population. We are aware of the recent South
African court case that ruled that Zimbabwean officials
who are accused of involvement in crimes against
humanity in Zimbabwe should be investigated, and
support the principle that perpetrators of human rights
violations should be held to account for their actions.
We continue to work with the Commonwealth Secretariat
and all member states to ensure that the Commonwealth
core values are upheld.
Monday 28 May 2012
ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS
Col. No.
Col. No.
Airports: Holding Facilities............................................... 93
Immigration: Children ..................................................... 112
Armed Forces: Aircraft...................................................... 93
Imports and Exports........................................................ 112
Aviation: Flying Restrictions ............................................. 94
International Labour Organisation: Domestic Work ....... 113
Bank of England ............................................................... 94
Iran.................................................................................. 113
Banks: Green Investment Bank ......................................... 95
Israel................................................................................ 113
Banks: Iceland ................................................................... 96
Israel and Palestine: West Bank ....................................... 114
Bounty-Pitcairn Conference .............................................. 96
Justice: Youth Courts....................................................... 115
Care Services: Elderly People............................................. 96
Local Authorities ............................................................. 118
Care Services: Funding ...................................................... 96
Mayors............................................................................. 119
Cayman Islands ................................................................. 97
NHS: Clinical Commissioning Groups ............................ 120
Charities: Medical Research .............................................. 98
NHS: Complaints ............................................................ 120
Disabled People: Employment ........................................... 98
NHS Information Strategy .............................................. 119
Drugs: Thalidomide........................................................... 99
NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement.............. 119
Elections: Overseas Electors .............................................. 99
NHS: Primary Care Trusts............................................... 121
Elections: Police and Crime Commissioners .................... 100
NHS: Quality Standards .................................................. 121
Employment: Temporary Workers ................................... 101
NHS: Salaries .................................................................. 121
Energy: Shale Gas............................................................ 102
Overseas Aid.................................................................... 122
EU: Treaties ..................................................................... 102
Passports ......................................................................... 123
Finance: Gilts .................................................................. 103
PAVA Spray and CS ......................................................... 123
Financial Services Compensation Scheme ....................... 104
Pensions........................................................................... 124
Firearms: Licensing ......................................................... 104
Pitcairn Island ................................................................. 126
Gaza ................................................................................ 104
Police and Crime Commissioners..................................... 126
Health: Cardiology .......................................................... 105
Prisoners: Transsexuals .................................................... 127
Health: Clinical Senates ................................................... 106
Prisons: Substance Misuse ............................................... 127
Health: General Practitioners .......................................... 106
Scrap Metal Theft ............................................................ 127
Health: Healthcare Assistants.......................................... 106
Security Industry ............................................................. 128
Health: In-vitro Diagnostic Tests ..................................... 107
South Sudan .................................................................... 128
Health: Lyme Disease ...................................................... 107
Sudan and South Sudan .................................................. 129
Health: Musculoskeletal Conditions ................................ 109
Sudan: Darfur.................................................................. 130
Health: Pharmacies.......................................................... 109
Syria, Egypt and Lebanon ............................................... 130
Health: Research.............................................................. 109
Transport: Eyesight Tests................................................. 131
Houses of Lords: Peerages............................................... 111
Transport: Tram Trains.................................................... 131
Housing ........................................................................... 111
Unemployment: Under 25s .............................................. 132
Immigration..................................................................... 112
Zimbabwe ........................................................................ 132
NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS
Col. No.
Col. No.
[HL131] ........................................................................... 126
[HL236] ............................................................................. 94
[HL141] ........................................................................... 107
[HL240] ........................................................................... 113
[HL142] ........................................................................... 107
[HL242] ........................................................................... 104
[HL143] ........................................................................... 108
[HL243] ........................................................................... 114
[HL145] ........................................................................... 119
[HL244] ........................................................................... 114
[HL148] ........................................................................... 101
[HL245] ........................................................................... 115
[HL149] ........................................................................... 101
[HL248] ........................................................................... 101
[HL159] ............................................................................. 98
[HL251] ........................................................................... 104
[HL169] ........................................................................... 123
[HL252] ........................................................................... 132
[HL170] ........................................................................... 124
[HL253] ........................................................................... 119
[HL176] ........................................................................... 111
[HL255] ............................................................................. 96
[HL183] ........................................................................... 115
[HL257] ........................................................................... 106
[HL184] ........................................................................... 115
[HL258] ............................................................................. 96
[HL185] ........................................................................... 116
[HL259] ........................................................................... 128
[HL186] ........................................................................... 116
[HL260] ........................................................................... 129
[HL187] ........................................................................... 117
[HL265] ........................................................................... 124
[HL188] ........................................................................... 117
[HL266] ........................................................................... 124
[HL189] ........................................................................... 127
[HL267] ........................................................................... 125
[HL194] ........................................................................... 129
[HL268] ............................................................................. 96
[HL196] ........................................................................... 118
[HL269] ........................................................................... 126
[HL203] ........................................................................... 113
[HL277] ........................................................................... 112
[HL205] ........................................................................... 130
[HL278] ........................................................................... 113
[HL210] ........................................................................... 122
[HL288] ........................................................................... 131
[HL212] ........................................................................... 122
[HL289] ............................................................................. 95
[HL213] ............................................................................. 99
[HL290] ............................................................................. 95
[HL214] ........................................................................... 100
[HL292] ........................................................................... 103
[HL215] ........................................................................... 100
[HL293] ............................................................................. 95
[HL216] ........................................................................... 100
[HL297] ........................................................................... 112
[HL217] ........................................................................... 100
[HL299] ........................................................................... 102
[HL218] ........................................................................... 100
[HL302] ............................................................................. 93
[HL219] ........................................................................... 118
[HL304] ............................................................................. 94
[HL220] ........................................................................... 118
[HL308] ............................................................................. 96
[HL222] ........................................................................... 128
[HL310] ........................................................................... 104
[HL223] ........................................................................... 128
[HL316] ............................................................................. 98
[HL224] ........................................................................... 128
[HL317] ............................................................................. 98
[HL226] ........................................................................... 109
[HL319] ........................................................................... 109
[HL230] ........................................................................... 127
[HL320] ........................................................................... 110
[HL235] ........................................................................... 132
[HL323] ........................................................................... 105
Col. No.
Col. No.
[HL324] ........................................................................... 105
[HL365] ........................................................................... 131
[HL326] ........................................................................... 105
[HL369] ........................................................................... 102
[HL327] ............................................................................. 97
[HL370] ........................................................................... 122
[HL329] ............................................................................. 93
[HL371] ........................................................................... 121
[HL345] ........................................................................... 111
[HL373] ........................................................................... 106
[HL351] ........................................................................... 106
[HL374] ........................................................................... 121
[HL354] ........................................................................... 109
[HL376] ........................................................................... 130
[HL356] ........................................................................... 121
[HL378] ........................................................................... 108
[HL357] ............................................................................. 94
[HL381] ............................................................................. 99
[HL362] ........................................................................... 123
[HL411] ........................................................................... 119
[HL363] ........................................................................... 123
[HL414] ........................................................................... 120
[HL364] ........................................................................... 112
[HL448] ........................................................................... 127
Volume 737
No. 11
Monday
28 May 2012
CONTENTS
Monday 28 May 2012
Questions
Airports: Heathrow ......................................................................................................................................................... 959
Care Homes ..................................................................................................................................................................... 961
NHS: Health Tourism .................................................................................................................................................... 963
Taxation: Plastic Bags ................................................................................................................................................... 966
Syria
Private Notice Question ................................................................................................................................................. 968
Justice and Security Bill [HL]
First Reading ................................................................................................................................................................... 971
Parliamentary Privilege....................................................................................................................................................... 971
Draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Draft Communications Data Bill
Motions to Agree ............................................................................................................................................................ 972
Five Statutory Instruments
Motions to Approve......................................................................................................................................................... 972
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Second Reading ............................................................................................................................................................... 973
Grand Committee
Infrastructure Planning (Waste Water Transfer and Storage) Order 2012 ............................................................... GC 43
Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances (Abolition) Order 2012
Considered in Grand Committee ............................................................................................................................... GC 50
National Health Service Trust Development Authority (Establishment and Constitution) Order 2012 ................. GC 56
National Health Service Trust Development Authority Regulations 2012
Motions to Take Note ................................................................................................................................................ GC 68
Riots Communities and Victims Panel Final Report
Question for Short Debate ......................................................................................................................................... GC 69
Written Answers.............................................................................................................................................................. WA 93