My Lords, before the Minister moves that the first statutory instrument be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of each statutory instrument the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. I should perhaps make it clear that the Motions to approve the statutory instruments will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. I also remind the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber I shall adjourn this Committee for 10 minutes.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Commons Councils (Standard Constitution) (England) Regulations 2010.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

My Lords, these regulations are an essential step towards the establishment of commons councils in England, with statutory powers to manage common land. Commons councils will bring together the interests in a common to exercise management control.

The schedule to the regulations sets out the standard constitution which will apply to all commons councils. It addresses such matters as the appointment of council members, the proceedings of a council and the preparation of accounts. Each commons council will be created by its own establishment order made by the Secretary of State, which will set out additional or alternative provisions tailored to its particular requirements. Defra has published two model establishment orders to show how they might supplement the provision in the standard constitution—for example, by designating the number of council members and who will be entitled to elect them. No two commons are the same and this approach will ensure that each council operates under a single core framework but is responsive to local requirements.

A commons council can only be established if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it has substantial support, having particular regard to representations from commoners and others with a legal interest in the common. That is crucial to our approach: the Government cannot impose commons councils on unwilling commoners but can only respond to a call to set one up. The great advantage of commons councils is that they will be able to manage their own affairs by majority voting, hence relieving the difficulty of reaching unanimity among the collective interests. Councils will be able to enter into environmental stewardship and make rules, similar to by-laws, to enforce adherence to good commoning practice and the terms of the agreement.

These regulations follow a consultation which began in September 2008. As a result, we have made a number of modifications, such as to confer greater flexibility for keeping “live registers” of commoners’ rights. The next step will be to work towards the establishment of the pioneer councils. Natural England has entered into negotiation concerning the potential establishment of commons councils on Brendon Common, Bodmin Moor and in Cumbria, and has allocated resources for this purpose. We expect the first commons council to be set up late this year or in 2011.

The regulations are part of enabling a long-sought new approach to the management of common land by those who know it best—the commoners, landowners and other local interests. Common land represents about 3 per cent of the land area of England but is exceptionally valued for its contribution to nature conservation, hill farming, recreation, archaeology and culture. This new legislation will play a significant role in improving the management of such lands and I commend it to the Committee.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. The very slimline statutory instrument presents an interesting contrast with a highly substantial Explanatory Memorandum, but I suspect that that it is inevitable given the complexity of the issue. I understand the Government’s strategy of trying to present a framework that can then be adapted to meet the individual circumstances of particular commons.

A lot of the complexity comes from the fact that commons are occupied in a number of different ways and usually have grazing rights, and the relationship between the commoner or grazier and landowner is often complex. That is particularly so in respect of stewardship schemes; I would be interested in the Minister’s view on the way in which environmental stewardship schemes and commons work together. There are circumstances in which landowners have been obstructive on commoners getting involved in stewardship schemes. There have also been situations in which landowners have sought to retain the benefits of the stewardship schemes for themselves, in which case what benefit is there for the commoner?

Getting the balance right is difficult. I understand the concerns. The CLA has written to me, pointing out a number of issues on which it is concerned. It believes that there is a risk in setting up the commons councils, and that the rights of the commoners and landowners can become confused. There is an important distinction between what a commoner and a landowner can do on common land. While all parties will often run their businesses alongside each other in a holistic manner, the lack of understanding of commons law by statutory government agencies has often led to commoners being encouraged to adopt management schemes through agri-environment schemes that the landowner should in fact be involved in adopting or delegating as he thinks fit. That brings us back to the issue that I mentioned.

Therefore, it is imperative that landowners are properly represented on commons councils where the landowner is known. Indeed, the Minister will understand that in certain cases the landowners of commons are not identified as such. There should be no bar to setting up a commons council where that might be the case. There can be a considerable difference in the dynamics of a commons council where the commoners are local and active as opposed to distant and remote. Similar is the case for those with an active landowner—the landowner may be non-existent, as I said, or largely absentee. However, I accept the Government’s general premise that the complexity should not prevent the creation of commons councils where they are desired and there is a general belief that they can improve the management of common land.

I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. Two things indicate the challenge of the statutory instrument: the time lag from 2006 to now in getting the regulations tabled, and the sheer thickness of the Explanatory Memorandum. I draw one point in particular to the Minister’s attention, because it shows that the Explanatory Memorandum may have multiple sources and have been put together in a hurry. If he turned to page 28 he would see draft accounts, carefully notated—note 1, note 1b, note 2 and what have you—but there are no notes. I have looked through the Explanatory Memorandum and I find them not. I suspect this is indicative of the fact that several documents have been put together to provide an Explanatory Memorandum.

I will not labour that point but I have some direct questions for the Minister. On page 6—of the Explanatory Memorandum, rather than the regulations—paragraph 4.1 says:

“Statutory councils will be formed only where there is substantial local support”.

How will this be judged? For example, will support or opposition from the National Farmers’ Union, of which I am a member, or the CLA, of which I am not, outweigh that of tenant farmers? Also on page 6, paragraph 5.1 says that,

“we plan to establish commons councils at a steady pace, so that we cannot achieve our target number overnight”.

Does this mean that the Secretary of State will hold back on approvals if there is a great rush of requests, even if demand is considerable? Does it also mean that the Government, having passed the legislation, have a hidden agenda not to achieve the target? In other words, do the Government really want to play this softly, or are they prepared to respond to demand if local opinion produces a large number of applications?

Turning to page 7, I see that paragraphs 5.2 and 5.4 seem to suggest that the Government may be planning to support the creation of councils in certain areas. In other words, they already feel that a commons council might be useful for particular areas. If this is the case, what criteria have the Government set themselves in saying that these areas are ones which ought to be looked at? I move on to page 10 and paragraph 5.13, which says:

“Benefits have not been monetised due to a lack of available evidence … it is expected that the principal benefits … will be substantially greater than costs. Work has been commissioned … This is expected to report in early 2010”.

Do we have that report? Where is it? Has it shown the expected benefits or not? I hope that, in asking these questions, I am not probing the Minister too far. It is useful if we have explanations on the record.

Finally, what happens when a commons council runs out of steam? The motivation for setting them up is the enthusiasm and thrust of local people who want to see a commons council in operation. Have the Government a strategy for circumstances in which the people who have engaged in running a commons council find that they do not have the time or interest to support the momentum that originally led to it being set up?

My Lords, I too welcome these regulations and the ability to debate them this afternoon. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Open Spaces Society and a member of the Access, Conservation and Environment Group of the British Mountaineering Council.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has raised several relevant questions, with which I will try not to overlap too much. I welcome the volume of information that we have been provided with this afternoon. Sometimes we get regulations which the Explanatory Memorandum simply rewrites in slightly different—and sometimes not even slightly different—words. This Explanatory Memorandum, particularly the annexes to it, provides a great deal of useful help and information.

It was before I came.

The noble Lord says that it was before he arrived on the scene. Some of us have fond memories of those debates, as always, but they seem rather a long time ago. We had hoped that Part 2 might have been commenced before January this year. Nevertheless, it has now started and we can get to work. I ask as an aside—the Minister may want to write to me afterwards—how many parts of the Commons Act have not yet been commenced and when do the Government propose that they are? What orders and regulations do the Government expect to publish and bring before the House? Which of the orders and regulations set out in the Act are they not intending to act on?

The proposals put forward for membership of and elections to the councils are sensible. They are flexible in that they will allow each order for each commons council to reflect the circumstances of that common, which has to be right. I see that the Duke of Omnium is to be a member of the Barset National Park Commons Council; I would have thought that he might have been too busy doing all his opinion-polling at the moment, but never mind. The proposals are sensible, and the flexibility built into the system is okay, but it will require a lot of time and effort to adopt and adapt the model constitution to each proposal for a commons council. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked what the capacity of Natural England is to deal with them. The impact assessment suggests that, over 20 years—which is quite a long time, even by House of Lords standards—10 umbrella commons councils might be set up. I presume that they will be the bigger councils for wider areas, including in some cases a lot of commons. Then there will be 29 smaller ones that might include just one common or perhaps two or three together. That is 39 commons councils over 20 years—an average of two a year, which, on the face of it, does not seem to be a huge burden on Natural England. If this proposal becomes very popular and more commons come forward spontaneously—as opposed to those which Natural England is trying to motivate people to set up, presumably because they are in SSSIs or important areas for conservation or landscape according to Natural England’s criteria—will the organisation be able to cope or will there be a queue that is not met during this period? Thirty-nine over 20 years does not seem to be a very ambitious target, although perhaps it is not a target but an estimate of the number of councils that there will be.

That leads on to the question of where the applications or processes for setting up commons councils will come from. How many do the Government expect to be led top-down, whereby Natural England goes around the country trying to persuade people to set them up? Perhaps it already has a list of what it considers to be priority places. Is that what will happen? How far will it be able to react as spontaneous applications come in?

The next issue that I want to raise is relatively detailed and arises from the regulations in front of us today, and from the draft constitutions for Barsetshire or Borsetshire. If I read out paragraph 14(2) it will be fairly obvious what is meant:

“The public may, by resolution of the council or committee (as appropriate), be excluded”—

normally the public will be allowed into these meetings—

“from a council or committee meeting during an item of business in respect of which it is likely that publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of that business, or for other special reasons stated in the resolution”.

Paragraph 15(2) goes on to say:

“A commons council may exclude from any such publicly available agenda and minutes any information … in respect of which it has passed a resolution under paragraph 14(2)”,

excluding the public. My reading of that is that, first, the argument is rather circular. It says that the public can be excluded because the business is confidential. However, I compare that with local government practice, where the nature of the confidentiality has to be clearly set out in a resolution. It may, for example, be due to a personnel issue, it may be about employees or it may be to do with a contract, a legal case or a number of criteria set out in the Local Government Acts which clearly have to be invoked. You cannot simply say, “You’re going out because we don’t want you to know what we’re talking about”. I do not understand why the wording from the Local Government Acts has not simply been lifted and put into these regulations. That wording is tried and tested, it works well, and I think that that would have been the sensible thing to do. People will think that we want something to be confidential simply because it is controversial and we do not want them to know what we are talking about.

Secondly, not having an item on the agenda for the meeting so that people do not even know what is being discussed is not local government practice. Under local government practice, the agenda for the meeting will be published and, if it is confidential, it will be in Part 2. The press and the public will be excluded but they will know that the item is going to be discussed. Equally, excluding an item from the minutes begins to make it sound like the meeting of a secret society. Even if the minutes themselves cannot include confidential details, it is possible to write minutes that refer to a confidential item without necessarily prejudicing its confidentiality. It seems to me that the wording in paragraphs 14(2) and 15(2) does not follow good local government practice and, potentially, if the people on the commons council wanted to run it that way it could lead to it being something of a secret society. I am sure that outcome is not intended, but quite often you have to set down rules and regulations clearly and not just rely on the good nature of the people carrying them out.

My next point is about the cost. I suppose that the Minister will say, “Suck it and see”, but what appears to be being said in this documentation is that the initial setting-up costs will be to some extent subsidised by the Government or by Natural England. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? The setting-up costs set out here are not inconsiderable, particularly if you are asking ordinary commoners, some of whom may have quite a low-level use of the common, to pay them. On,

“Establishment costs per commoner (one-off)”,

on option 3, which is the supported system that the Government are proposing, it is suggested that:

“For a smaller council, the cost per commoner would be £356. For an ‘umbrella’ council, the cost per commoner would be £294”.

That might not be much money for the Duke of Omnium, or for some other large landowner who happens to own part of a common, but it is a reasonably large amount of money for somebody who is just grazing half a dozen sheep or something like that. On,

“Operating costs per commoner (per annum)”,

it is suggested that “for a smaller council”, it might be £263 per annum, while “for an ‘umbrella’” is £105. It clearly says that the commons councils have to be self-financing, at least after a certain period.

My questions are: first, are the Government intending to subsidise those setting-up costs—at least for the first commons, to see how they go—and if so, how long will it take for that subsidy to fall away and for the commons to have to pay the whole costs? Secondly, have the Government or Natural England done any testing, perhaps in those three first areas, of whether commoners are prepared to pay that and whether it is therefore a viable proposition? Thirdly, what happens if a majority of commoners on a common are quite happy to pay that money but some of them refuse to pay? Will they be excluded from the commons council but still subject to the rules and regulations that it sets out? Exactly how will that work?

My final point is about the elections, not surprisingly. I think that it says, in the draft West Barsetshire order, that the election of those people who have to be elected from a group, perhaps from commoners or from other groups, will be,

“by ballot … at the meeting”.

Given that “ballot” is used, I am probing whether that involves making votes on pieces of paper or whether it can be a show of hands, or whatever. I think that is what is in the model orders.

I am not clear how the election at the first meeting is to take place. Will that be by the secret ballots organised by the returning officer who is appointed by the Secretary of State, will it be by a show of hands, or it is down to how the returning officer feels like doing it at any given time? I assume that if there is an election for more than one person, the commoners—if they have five or six people to elect, for example—will have that number of votes, and if there is a piece of paper that you would be able to vote for that number of people. It does not quite say that, but I am assuming that that is the case. Can the Minister please confirm that? Having asked those detailed questions, I simply reiterate our great welcome for seeing these regulations at last. We wish the enterprise great success.

My Lords, I shall not repeat what my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach said, but I shall pick up on one or two comments. Having taken the Bill through all those years ago—it seems like a long time ago—I do not think that certain issues have been finally cleared up in the regulations.

Any one person can call for a council to be set up. The Explanatory Memorandum says “substantial”, but I think that when we had the debate the Minister said that it was a majority. I am not happy to see the word “substantial” if it should be “majority”. Some commoners may be in favour of a council being set up and others may not be. I would be grateful for clarification on that.

It has been said that Natural England has allocated resources for the first two proposed councils. Is that just for those two? We are all aware of the current crunch on funding. If funding is not available, will the proposed councils be put on hold for the time being or would it be up to the members who want to form that council to find alternative funding?

I should have declared that I am a member of the CLA and the NFU, but we do not have any common ground to declare.

Paragraph 8.2 refers to the widely differing views expressed in Defra’s consultation on costs and benefits. I will be grateful if the Minister will enlarge on what the issues were. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised the issue of what happens when people refuse to pay, which I had intended to ask. As in any society, there will be some people who refuse to pay. Do the others carry the extra burden? Are those who refuse to pay entitled to some of the benefits that that council will bring? An important benefit is the opening of the door to agri-environment schemes. It seems slightly wrong that if people are not prepared to pull their weight and take part in the full sense, they should benefit from other people being willing to do that.

Paragraph 9.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to Natural England publishing guidance in April 2010. That is a very few days away. Is it available? It seems strange that we should be debating these regulations when follow-up information is to be made available to us after the event. It does not seem logical, but some aspects of the way we went about the Bill were not very logical.

Figures for the administrative burdens are given on page 3. They are based on 2005 prices. Have they been upgraded? If so, what difference does that make to the figures we are considering today?

Some agreements in force now are voluntary agreements among associations and seem to be working quite well. Will the Minister update us on how many there are and how many of them have indicated that they would like to become full councils? That would help.

The noble Lord also raised closure procedures, which I wish to raise. I suspect that some councils remain strong, but over time some may wilt on the vine. What review will there be of that? What would that council’s position be?

Page 13 refers to “moderate significance” with regard to significance and benefits. I was quite surprised to see that in the significance rating agri-environment schemes are listed only as moderate. One big thrust behind even considering this issue when the Bill came through was the ability of the commoners to be able to access agri-environment schemes, which they would certainly not have been able to before. It would have been the landlords who were able to do that. I am slightly puzzled why it was put down as only moderately important.

From the briefing from the CLA that I have had—and which I suspect that others have had—I raise two other things. There is obviously a difference in role between the commoner and the landowner. Sometimes the landowner is missing; I expressed my views on that earlier. I think that the councils and the proposals will deal with that well. But sometimes the commoner is involved only in the grazing of the cattle, or whatever else he is holding on the common, so his applying for agri-environment schemes may be looked at in a different way, if he is able to do it, whereas the landowner has to consider the long-term welfare of the environment for biodiversity and everything else, and has to balance that—particularly in moorland areas—with cover for game birds. There is a big issue around management of moors and game birds, and the burning of scrub, for example, which we dealt with when we discussed this in Committee. I have not managed to look in here and find clarification on the issues in which I was interested. Clearly, there could be differing views between the commoner and landowner. I am uncertain in my own mind as to how, even within the commons councils, those diverse issues will be overcome.

Having said that, I welcome this measure. I am sad that it has taken four years, but the benefit is that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach is now on the Front Bench. I sit proudly behind him, supporting his efforts on this Bill. We went into great detail on what was considered a fairly small Bill at the time, because there are real, practical issues. I am not too convinced, having waded through the Explanatory Notes and having had briefings from other organisations, that we have got it totally right. If we have not, would the Government’s view be to push ahead, or would they have the common sense to delay the authority of this proposal until some of these details have been clarified?

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this short but intensive debate. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who gave me some indication of some of the trickier questions that he would ask. I feel slightly better equipped to respond to several of his than I might be to respond in full to those of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. However, I shall do my best on these detailed issues.

First, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for recognising that the basic structure here is a framework. That is why the Explanatory Memorandum is extensive. The noble Lord is right that it has several component parts, but we seek to create a framework in which there can be a range of variations, not all of which we are necessarily able to foresee at this juncture. I hope to convince noble Lords that we have thought about most of the issues to which they have pointed, and which may lead to difficulty in future.

The model for the whole issue of commons, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has noted, comes from Trollope in the 19th century. The noble Lord must forgive the thoughtfulness of my officials, who have followed the well established pattern that, whenever they refer to a fictitious county, it is always one of Trollope’s. You cannot expect to lurch into the 21st century with one or two examples, which might catch one or two of us out—whereas we all feel totally secure, particularly in the upper House, with regard to Trollopian references. That is what we have on this occasion. The noble Lord went on to develop that in his illustrations. These illustrations are against a background in which we recognise that there are aspects of variation, which is why this structure has to be able to cope with the variations.

I emphasise, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that the commons councils will certainly be able to apply for environmental stewardship agreements. The landowner will be expected to join in on consent to the agreement. That is one dimension that we expect to benefit from the structure that we are developing. As with all environmental stewardship agreements, it will be for the applicant—in this case the commons council—to determine how the payments will be distributed among those contributing to delivery of the agreement. Natural England has published guidance on the principles which should be considered in deciding how to allocate payments in relation to uplands ELS agreements on common land. This will be illustrative and instructive when that opportunity develops. We certainly want to see that aspect of it.

I reassure the noble Lord on the rights of landowners in this situation. As I sought to emphasise in my opening contribution, the Secretary of State cannot set up a commons council without consulting all local interests and confirming that there is substantial support for its establishment. He will pay particular attention to the representations of those with legal interests, such as landowners. They clearly have a stake of great particularity and importance in the issue. In all but exceptional circumstances, all key interests in the common, including those of landowners, will be represented on the council.

The concept of the commons council is a consensual one. I cannot emphasise that too much and I know noble Lords fully share that aspiration. We anticipate that disagreements will be few and far between. Certainly, there are no disagreements about the concept of its establishment. If there is substantial objection, the council cannot be formed. We expect all key interests to be accommodated. If no landowner can be traced for the common, or if no landowner is willing to be involved in the council, the expectation of the representation of the landowner with an interest in the common may not, in that case, be fulfilled. Owners will be bound by rules made by the council on, for example, the exercise of grazing rights, as will any other person on the common. However, landowners’ rights cannot be ignored, since there is a requirement for a council to obtain the consent of the landowner before undertaking any activities on the land that would normally require the landowner’s consent. I emphasise that we have taken that very important consideration into account.

I also emphasise that all the major interests in a common, including landowners, will have the opportunity to be represented on the council. The council needs to be tailored to the local circumstances. That is why we have a framework for the concept of a council. I am not so sure I can even call it a typical council. As the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor, and—perhaps rather more sorrowfully—the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, progress on this will not be at speed. There should be great concern about the multiplicity of councils that come forward with a wide disparity of models. We have a framework and each council that is formed will be tested against that framework. There will be the understanding of variation and sufficient time to take that into account. Anxieties should not be entertained about who will form part of the council.

“Why certain areas?”, I have been asked. Do the Government have a favoured piece of Barsetshire that they want to emphasise? No, we will support the creation of councils in some areas, particularly because discussions have already taken place. In my opening statement, I indicated the issue with regard to Brendon Common and Bodmin Moor, and potential issues in Cumbria. These discussions are reaching the stage where those are the likely early initiatives.

In terms of available funding, it is likely that any grant support for the establishment of councils will be limited to circumstances which directly address government priorities and which are of the greatest public benefit—for example, where a council achieves favourable outcomes on a site of special scientific interest. Noble Lords would expect the Government to be more enthusiastic about proposals that met our broad strategy on the development of land. Within that framework, as has been indicated, it is not as though we are anticipating being subject to a flood of proposals. We will be able to indicate where opportunities lie for the development of commons councils against a background of meeting broad objectives.

The opposite, my Lords. Of the councils that the Minister is promising may come into existence fairly soon, at least two—the Lake District and Bodmin Moor—have existing structures and there may be existing voluntary commons councils there. I remember my noble friend Lord Tyler waxing lyrical about his history of helping the commoners and landowners on Bodmin Moor to get things sorted out, and we had the noble Lord from the Lake District—

Was it the noble Lord, Lord Chorley?

No, it was the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I was remembering his nickname in my head and thought, “You can’t possibly say that”. He waxed lyrical about the Lake District, its commons and some of the land that he owns there, where people are already co-operating well. They are the easy ones, in a sense. Can the Minister tell us how many apart from the three are in an active queue, as it were, waiting to come forward in the next few years?

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for shifting us on to that constructive and optimistic perspective. I emphasise that Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006, which provides for updating the commons registers, has been implemented in England in seven pilot local authority areas. To ensure that we can learn fully all the lessons from the pilots, we have decided that the decision on how and when to go ahead with national commitments should await the completion of the pilot period in September 2010. Part 3 of the 2006 Act, which deals with consent for works on common lands, and Sections 16 and 17, which deal with exchanges of common land, were brought into force on 1 October 2007. Responsibility for casework consent was transferred to the Planning Inspectorate at the same time.

We have no plans at present to bring into force Section 50, which provides for updating schemes of regulation made under the Commons Act 1899, but we do not think there was any anxiety about the capacity of Natural England to cope with prospective take-up of commons councils. That answers the noble Lord’s question. We do not expect a flood; he will have recognised that from the tentative figures. Those figures are an estimate of the rate, not a commitment or plan. Remember that we are dealing with a concept that requires the consent of all concerned and a consensus to emerge. It would be presumptuous in the extreme for the Government to lay down figures that have to be reached. If the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, did not assault me for the heavy hand of central government if I did that, I assure him that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would not miss that point; he would say that this was all about centralisation. That is not the concept behind this; it has to emerge from local consensual positions. That is the only thing that will work successfully.

As I mentioned, Natural England has explored the potential of the two areas. If there were a surge in demand to establish councils, we would have regard to the probable benefits and costs of each in deciding what resources to allocate. In practice, it is unlikely that a candidate commons council would be encouraged to work up a detailed proposal without resources having been allocated to the project. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pressed me a little further on this. We expect resources from Natural England, but it is possible that resources would be available from Defra with regard to the establishment of the councils, against an obvious background that we will not run before we can walk. We do not expect a great deal of running to be necessary, because of the nature of the process by which the councils will be set up.

I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we will focus resources on commons where the councils are most likely to deliver our objectives with regard to biodiversity. That does not mean that councils could not be set up elsewhere and meet the criteria, only that priority councils will obviously have first call on resources. They will know the name of the game—that they will have a better chance of acceleration than others if they are able to establish gains in terms of the Government’s broad objectives with regard to issues such as biodiversity. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—hinted at that, but not with the force that he spoke about the concerns about costs. He knows—we have established—that the estimate of a small council’s set-up costs is about £13,500. I am not minimising that, nor am I exaggerating the resources that might need to be established to take on a few more councils than we expect in the early days. Grant support is potentially available from Defra or Natural England. That support will follow government priorities for rural development. In that respect, the noble Lord’s anxieties need not be taken too far, nor does he need to be concerned about process.

Will the Minister clarify that the setting-up costs of a commons council, if the Government and Natural England approve and support it, will be paid whole or in part from grants from Defra and/or Natural England? Would those grants pay for some of the running costs for the first year or two before the council got under way? Would the council then be on its own?

Those seeking to establish a commons council will know that it will be easier to get access to such support grants if they indicate that they will fulfil benefits consistent with the Government’s overall strategy. Therefore, Defra and Natural England will make the resources available. After the start-up costs have been met, the principle is that a commons council will sustain itself. We will make resources available for start-up, but a council then will run itself. It will do so in a democratic fashion—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, did not think for one moment that there would be any expectation other than that the first election of council members would be by ballot. A returning officer would be established, coming probably from the local authority.

Will it be a secret ballot?

We would expect the ballot to set up the council to follow democratic norms. The noble Lord should not be unduly anxious about the council going into secret session—it will not do any of those things. It is not a local authority, with direct responsibility to a wide range of electors. I accept entirely the noble Lord’s unexceptionable principles on how a local authority should act and why the rules should be clearly drawn when the council is engaged in confidential activity. There will not be much with a commons council which remotely approaches that, because it will not be a major employing authority with a disciplinary aspect and all those things which throw up unavoidable issues of confidentiality and require those rules. The commons council will after all be a small, consensual council of people working together. We are indicating only that, if someone has a direct financial interest in what is being discussed by the council, it is necessary that the interest be quantified in a certain way and that the individual concerned has rights. Therefore, I do not think that this is a great issue.

In our discussions when we took the Bill through, we identified “substantial” as being “majority”. I raised the issue because there is a difference between “substantial” and “majority”.

The problem with “majority” is that you will have to identify with the greatest accuracy everyone who has a right to participate and then count the majority. Of course it will be a majority. By definition, you cannot have a consensual concept without there being a majority opinion. I am shying away from the idea that the council will be computed and set up on a 7:5 majority. It cannot be, because that would not look consensual enough. The concept is clearly one in which the Secretary of State must believe that the council will work consensually. In setting up the council, the idea that significant interests could be overwhelmed by the majority vote would destroy the very concept of the council and its work.

I did not say that it should be a 7:5 majority but that is where the reference is on the page; I meant paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Forgive me; I feel I have misguided the Minister. I am concerned about the difference between the words “substantial” and “majority”, and I have laboured the point because, if that is what we agreed, it seems silly to back away from it. If I said “7.5” it was a reference, not a majority.

My Lords, I am not being clear enough and I apologise to the noble Baroness. There is a difference between the council being set up as a consensual model and how it operates afterwards, which is what the noble Baroness may be describing. Clearly the council will be in awful trouble if it wins votes by 51 to 49 and works on that principle. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness is right: in certain circumstances it will be a majority decision. However, I think she and I would agree that if there were too many votes of that kind on a consensual council, the concept of the council would be in serious trouble.

There is an element of force behind what happens when someone refuses to pay. If a commoner refuses to pay a levy set by the council, it will be recovered as a civil debt and, until the debt is paid, the defaulter is excluded from being a member of the council, from voting for a member of the council and from participating in the business of the council. That is to be expected. After all, by definition, if they have withdrawn their financial support they have withdrawn their contribution and their right to participate. There is bound to be an element of compulsion in such circumstances, otherwise the concept of the council working and being able to make a levy would be a complete nonsense.

If any aspect of the standard constitution—this is another point about which the noble Baroness was exercised—as set out in the draft regulations is not appropriate to a particular commons council, different provision can be made in the order establishing that council and the special provision will take precedence. We are looking for flexibility. I know that the noble Baroness could be quite fertile in identifying areas where some special dimension needed to be taken into account and, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, emphasised, we are looking for an element of flexibility in those terms.

I am grateful to noble Lords for what I had anticipated would be a close examination of the nature of these negotiations. What I have also detected from the contributions is that we all want these commons councils to work, where they are appropriate and where there is a will to get them established. We have a framework that will make that possible, and I look forward to the progress that is made in establishing the commons councils.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Funding Code: Criteria and Procedures.

Relevant document: 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

My Lords, the funding code, which is created under Section 8 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, sets out the merits criteria for granting civil legal aid in different types of cases and the procedures for operating the civil legal aid scheme. Those cover, for example, application, refusal and appeal procedures. The funding code’s criteria and procedures are being modified under Section 9 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. That section requires any changes to the code criteria, as here, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before coming into effect. This is done by laying the whole funding code, as amended, before each House, rather than by laying amendments alone.

The funding code does not set out the remuneration arrangements for civil legal aid, which are set out in orders and contracts. Nor does it cover financial eligibility rules for civil legal aid, which are in regulations. The funding code instead covers the test that cases must meet, in the judgment of the Legal Services Commission, in order to merit civil legal aid funding. This merits test includes considering the likely costs of a case against the likely damages and how likely the case is to succeed. It also sets out considerations that apply to cases which are not primarily about money.

Generally, the intention is to model the approach that a reasonable, privately paying client would adopt with regards to litigation, taking into account the importance of the issues at stake, the likelihood of success and all the other circumstances. This helps to ensure a level playing field between those who can afford to litigate privately and those who do not have the financial resources to do so. It follows that public funding should not be provided if a case is insufficiently strong for a private client to risk his or her own money, and to bear the risk of having to pay the costs of the other side.

The revised funding code before the Committee introduces a number of changes to the operation of civil legal aid. We devote very significant resources to civil legal aid—around £1 billion annually—so it is important that we review regularly how that money is being spent, and the cases and matters on which it is being targeted, to ensure we are achieving value for money. Following a review of the funding code by the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services Commission, we published a range of proposals to refocus and target resources on to more meritorious cases. These changes have not been driven primarily by financial considerations. Indeed, the savings from these changes of £5 million per year are relatively modest, compared with the overall expenditure on civil legal aid.

Rather, we have looked critically at the existing funding rules to identify areas where they can be strengthened to ensure that funds are being properly targeted. These changes were the subject of a full consultation last year, and we have had further useful discussions with interested parties following the consultation. As a result of the representations we received, we have very substantially revised our original proposals. For example, we are no longer pursuing proposals to withdraw solicitors’ authority to self-grant funding for judicial review challenges to the Government, and we have dropped plans to restrict funding for individual damages claims against public authorities.

In addition to discontinuing some proposals, we have substantially modified many of our other proposals in the light of suggestions from stakeholders. For example, we are acting to restrict legal aid for low-value multi-party action damages claims, but we are retaining funding for multi-party claims for discrimination, child abuse claims and cases of wider public interest, as suggested by consultees. Stakeholders have expressed gratitude for being fully engaged in the process.

This is a series of somewhat technical changes, and it may assist your Lordships if I summarise the key changes we are making. In section 2 of the code criteria, we have tightened the definition of the wider public interest test so that not only must the case have the potential to produce real benefits for individuals other than the client, but the case must also be considered on its particular facts to be an appropriate case to realise those benefits. This change is to ensure that when funding is sought for a weaker case—one with borderline prospects of success—on the basis that the case could benefit others, it receives funding only if the outcome has a realistic prospect of delivering benefits to others, rather than just a theoretical possibility.

Section 5 of the code criteria sets out the criteria of general application. Here we are withdrawing funding for claims that are part of a multi-party action where the likely damages, as assessed by the Legal Services Commission, are £5,000 or less. However, we have retained funding for lead claims as we consider that this will allow legal aid to fund the initial determination of the issue, and further cases can then proceed on a private or conditional fee basis. We are imposing an identical restriction, through the Lord Chancellor’s direction on the scope of the Community Legal Service, for out-of-scope cases that are funded on the basis of wider public interest, such as some personal injury claims. The direction is not subject to parliamentary approval, but has been provided to noble Lords for information.

Section 7 of the code criteria covers funding for judicial review. Here we have made two changes. The first is to ensure that funding is available only to individuals seeking a benefit for themselves or their family. Legal aid is intended to assist individuals with their personal legal problems. It should not be used as a tool for those who wish to campaign about matters with which they have no personal connection. It is important that we focus our resources on our priorities, such as debt, employment and housing advice in the current economic climate, and that resources should not be diverted. Of course, campaigning organisations are free to seek judicial reviews, although they are not eligible for legal aid, which is only provided to individuals.

The second change is to remove the existing presumption of funding. The presumption applies to cases of wider public interest, overwhelming importance to the client, or raising serious human rights issues. In practice, the presumption means that where a judge has granted permission for a judicial review, legal aid funding follows without any consideration by the Legal Services Commission of the likely costs or benefits of the case or the prospects of success.

While a judicial decision will always carry very great weight indeed, it is the proper role of the Legal Services Commission to decide whether the use of public funds is justified, and we want to ensure that it is able to carry out this role. While we want these roles to be clear, we anticipate that funding would be withheld in only a handful of cases.

Section 8 of the code criteria sets out the criteria for damages claims against public authorities. Here we have included an additional prompt by referring to the prison and probation complaints schemes. There is already a general requirement to this effect, but this is intended to highlight the need to consider alternative forms of dispute resolution before commencing litigation.

Sections 12 and 13 of the code criteria relate to mental health and immigration matters respectively. Here we have taken the opportunity to update the references to the tribunals to recognise the reformed Tribunals Service implemented under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. This is not a substantive change to legal aid for these cases, but simply a change in terminology.

The code procedures set out the operational procedures for civil legal aid. Here I shall confine my remarks to the two main changes we are making. Section C15A of the procedures sets out the new process we are introducing to fight fraud. Before legal aid is granted in an ancillary relief or a private law children case, the Legal Services Commission will notify the other party to invite it to provide evidence if it believes that the applicant is financially ineligible for funding. The other party will have 14 days to put forward any evidence, after which funding will commence in the usual way. This notification requirement does not apply to domestic violence cases or to urgent cases, where it can be waived. If the commission receives any evidence that the applicant may not be eligible, it will pass it to its fraud team to investigate or will contact the Department for Work and Pensions if the allegations concern benefits entitlement.

Our intention is to consider this process for all areas of civil legal aid, but the changes before the Committee are confined to private law children and finance cases. We currently receive the highest proportion of genuine representations about client eligibility in these areas and 50 to 60 per cent of representations about client eligibility in these areas are of substance. We have therefore chosen to start the new process in these areas because we are conscious of the risk that the new process may increase the number of vexatious representations made. The new power is drafted as a discretion, so that the Legal Services Commission can roll out the new process gradually. If we were to find that it was not as effective as anticipated, the process could stop and we could reconsider.

Section D of the procedures sets out the new special controls regime. This brings together the existing oversight panels for public interest and multi-party action cases and expands their remit to cover individual weaker cases—those with borderline prospects of success—which depend on the case being of public interest or raising human rights issues to merit funding. Cases subject to the new special controls regime can be referred to the new special controls review panel for advice on their merits, or, where funding is refused, cases will be referred to the panel for reconsideration. The panel will then report and the Legal Services Commission will make the final decision, taking into account the panel’s findings.

Some noble Lords have asked why we are making changes to legal aid now, in advance of the transformation of the Legal Services Commission into an executive agency. Transforming the commission into an agency will require primary legislation. It will inevitably be some time before any changes can take effect, so the current system continues in place for the time being. Clearly, any changes we implement will need to ensure that decision-making in individual cases is independent of Ministers.

In conclusion, I hope that the Committee has found this explanation of the revised funding code of help. These are technical but important changes that will help to ensure that funding is directed towards cases of the highest merit. I commend the revised funding code to the Committee.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear exposition of what is in this order—except it is not quite an order—on the funding code criteria. It includes some rather wonderful lines. I particularly liked the bit about stakeholders expressing gratitude for being included in the consultation process. We then noticed in paragraph 8.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“The vast majority of responses were opposed to most of our original proposals”.

That is rather a good way of expressing their gratitude.

I have a number of fairly straightforward questions which I should be grateful if the noble Lord could address. First, I think it would have been better if the Minister himself could have come to introduce the code—I would have been perfectly flexible about finding a date. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, is, after all, the Minister responsible for these matters and it was he who signed the impact assessment. Therefore, although the noble Lord has done the job very well, I think that the Committee would have been better served if the Minister had appeared before us.

Secondly—here I have some praise for the department; it is always worth offering praise where it is due—I wish to say how impressed I was with the Explanatory Memorandum. I refer in particular to Annexe A, where we are taken through all the changes that have been made in a fairly straightforward manner that is relatively easy to understand, and therefore the number of questions that we might have put are reduced. I also thank the noble Lord’s department for sending me a copy of the Lord Chancellor’s authorisation with the appropriate amendments. Again, that made life considerably easier when I was examining the document.

My major line of questioning relates to the fact that we presume these changes were designed to make savings. I appreciate that the Minister says that they were not driven primarily by the need to make financial savings but, as he knows, there is considerable pressure on the legal aid budget, and the civil side of the legal aid budget probably seems a much easier target than many. We also know that the department will have to find very large sums of money to meet a number of commitments that have recently been made by the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor. I think, for example, of the offer of some £200 million or thereabouts—the figure varied from £50 million to £200 million—to those who have developed pleural plaques. Again, I should be very grateful if the Minister could comment on this when he comes to respond but I have heard odd whisperings that that will not all come out of the department’s own budget and that other departments might be made to contribute. For example we have heard that, perhaps at a time when the Ministry of Defence is engaged in a war, the Ministry of Justice will be looking to the Ministry of Defence to make sacrifices to meet that commitment. I should be very grateful for the noble Lord’s response to that.

The noble Lord says that this code is not designed to make savings. The figure for the net impact is given in paragraph 3.8 of the cost-benefit analysis section of the Explanatory Memorandum. It gives a figure for savings of £5.5 million a year, which represents a reduction in the civil legal aid expenditure of just 0.5 per cent after all the work that the Government have put into this. As we see, every possible form of assessment has been undertaken. We have had a competition assessment, a small firms impact assessment, a race equality assessment, a disability assessment, a gender equality assessment and a human rights assessment. It has even been rural-proofed. After all that straining, the Government are delivering a net saving of £5.5 million, or 0.5 per cent of the civil legal aid budget. We are very grateful for that reduction but I think that they will have to do somewhat better if they are to get to grips with these costs and with the whole legal aid budget. I refer not just to the civil legal aid budget, which is what we are dealing with here, but to other parts of the budget as well. Therefore, I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us whether any more assessments will be done in due course that might lead the Government to find greater savings in that budget.

I do not have any further questions at the moment but I would certainly be very grateful if the noble Lord could address those points.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument for our consideration today. I really do not know why the Government are bothering at this stage, when they have every intention of abolishing the Legal Services Commission and replacing it with an executive agency whose responsibilities are not yet clear. I very much suspect that we will be going through all this again quite shortly, but one or two things need to be said.

First, if the legal aid budget in the sphere of civil actions is to be looked at, surely the very first thing is to ensure that the family Bar is properly provided for. There is a crisis at present in the family Bar, which we have been discussing throughout this year. Nothing in this code assists the family Bar at all. Indeed, I am amazed to discover that the first of the plums that the Minister pulled out of the duff was in relation to the new provisions to allow an opponent in family law proceedings, private law, family, children or finance cases to oppose the granting of legal aid. The Minister referred to vexatious representations. Certainly, in my experience the most challenging and difficult cases are those involving families and children, where the litigants are very much at each other’s throats. Since the notice is to be given to the opponent by the legal aid authorities, I can see this giving rise to very considerable conflict and disquiet.

The savings that have come out of this enormous exercise are not great, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said. Indeed, the Minister says that having come to the end of it and looked at everything, the code is not designed to make savings at all. The best way of making savings was described by Lord Justice Wall, in the Court of Appeal in the case of SW and KSW v Portsmouth City Council, reported at [2009] EWCA Civ 644. In that case, a stepfather had been accused of raping his stepdaughter. As a result of her accusations, his two children by the mother of all three children were taken into care and were living with foster-parents. That is the sort of issue arising in those proceedings. The stepfather was made a party to the care proceedings but was refused public funding and had to represent himself.

There was a finding-of-fact hearing to ascertain whether the rape allegation was true. Some 14 days were spent on that hearing alone. Lord Justice Wall said that,

“those who control the court’s purse strings simply do not—or will not—understand … that competent legal representation not only saves time (and by the sensible identification and elucidation of issues makes cases easier for the court to resolve) but that it also saves money”.

He continued,

“I am in no doubt at all that if the appellant had been legally represented before the judge in the care proceedings; (a) the hearing would not have overrun so grossly; (b) the result would have been much more likely to be perceived by all to have been fair; and (c) the cost to the public and the parties in terms of both money and stress would have been substantially less”.

The legal aid authorities can best save money by ensuring that the parties in family proceedings are properly represented. That is why I particularly deplore this, since it is in that area that opposition to the granting of legal aid is now to be allowed and considered by the legal aid authorities. I find that very much a retrograde step.

There are also other changes which juggle the Legal Aid Fund around without—quite deliberately—making any particular saving in cost. The whole problem with legal aid is that it has remained at a fairly constant level over many years, for both civil and criminal legal aid. Whereas billions are paid to bankers to keep banks on the road for a very limited period, the Legal Aid Fund has increased, I think, by £500 million to £2.1 billion, where the ceiling now exists, over the whole period that the Government have been in power—from 1997 to the present. It simply causes problems and expense. I hope that whatever Government may be in power will, in looking at the proposals for an executive agency in due course, look at this artificial cap on legal aid, which has caused the problems that I have outlined.

My Lords, I am sorry to the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that I am not my noble friend Lord Bach. When I am not being him, I always wish he was here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for commending the EM. They are extremely important documents. The whole process by which this House encourages improved quality of Explanatory Memorandums is a good thing. I am sorry that the quality of my speech and that of the Explanatory Memorandum means that I do not have any questions to answer on the procedure and criteria. I note the noble Lord’s concern about making savings overall; it is a concern that the Government share. However, we are here to look at a specific set of changes, which add up to an estimated £5.5 million. On their own grounds, they are good and worth while.

As I set out, we consulted over a whole series of ideas. They were considered— perhaps not consensually, but certainly by stakeholders—to be practical and sensible to introduce now. That is why we have done so. If we can usefully say anything further on either pleural plaques or the Ministry of Defence, I will write to the noble Lord.

The Government and the Legal Services Commission announced their plans for reforming the way legal aid practitioners are paid in the paper Legal Aid Reform: The Way Ahead, published in November 2006. This followed the review by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, of legal aid procurement. These reforms have helped to maintain spending at broadly the same level over the last few years. This has been achieved through a combination of measures, including an extension of solicitors’ and advocates’ fixed and graduated fee schemes. Spending has remained broadly level since 2003-04 through a combination of measures, including an extension of solicitors’ and advocates’ fixed and graduated fee schemes, and the introduction of means-testing in magistrates’ courts so that those who can afford to pay for their defence do so. Without such reforms, the taxpayer would have been burdened with funding that was £250 million higher than the spend in 2007-08, and an increased spend of around £600 million more in total between 2004-05 and 2007-08. We are moving to improve management information to acquire a fuller understanding of price and volume pressures, and to support future policy developments to gain better control over cost and achieve greater efficiencies.

The Ministry of Justice will also be well placed to co-ordinate whole system improvements in the justice system. This is being taken forward in programmes such as the criminal justice “simple, speedy, summary” initiative. We recognise the importance of managing costs in all areas of government, but I do not in a sense want to end up apologising for the legal aid system, which is an important part not only of the justice system but of the fabric of our society. We know that in both criminal and civil cases the legal aid system stands behind people who cannot afford to be properly represented in cases in which they should be properly represented—and that is a good thing.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asks why now. I thought I had said why now. We take the view—in fact, it is an absolute fact of life—that moving to an agency will take time and require primary legislation, and no doubt there will be a great deal of discussion about it. I was asked whether we would discuss again all the items from today as part of that. I hope that we will not; I hope that the codes and practices that we have found work will be imported across to any new legislation en bloc and what we are doing today is worth while. I was asked, too, whether these reforms resolve the crisis in the family Bar. No, they do not, and I do not think that they were designed to. I understand that there are problems in the legal profession, and I understand that discussions are ongoing, but at the end of the day these are narrow, technical proposals, which each on their merits, with the exception of one—as far as I can tell from the discussions on this issue—have received universal support.

The process of advising the other party formally 14 days before aid is granted is an extension of where we are now. I understand that it is a voluntary scheme now. It is an extension of a process that has been used in Scotland and been found to work very well. It will produce savings, although, once again, it is quite right to point out that they are modest. The noble Lord mentioned complicated cases; I think that I mentioned the exceptions in my speech but, if not, I shall write. We are introducing this measure in a permissive way, so that it can be rolled out area by area and we can consider whether its value is disproportionately outweighed by vexatious behaviour. The very high relevance rate that we have at the moment with the voluntary scheme, where 50 to 60 points are considered substantial, is a good thing.

While I am sure that everything we do in legal aid is not perfect, I do not think that any of us would demur from what Lord Justice Wall has said—that competent legal representation creates value in terms of both justice and the efficiency of the system. I would hope that the profession is working towards—and that, given the way in which we are commissioning legal aid and announcing various changes all the time, we are all trying to work towards—that concept of competent representation.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Charities (Disclosure of Revenue and Customs Information to the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland) Regulations 2010.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

My Lords, these regulations provide a statutory gateway for the sharing of information between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the recently established Charity Commission for Northern Ireland, mirroring the information-sharing gateways that are already in place between HM Revenue and Customs and the other UK charity regulators.

The current position for organisations in Northern Ireland seeking recognition as a charity is that they can apply to HM Revenue and Customs to be recognised as a charity for tax purposes. Approximately 7,500 organisations in Northern Ireland are recognised by HMRC as such. However, the regulatory landscape for charities in Northern Ireland is undergoing a major change under the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. One of this Act’s main reforms is the establishment of the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland as the first independent registrar and regulator of charities in the Province.

Although the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland was formally established last year, it has yet to take on most of its functions, which are set out in the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. Two commencement orders have been made to date and these have provided for the establishment of the commission, consultation on public benefit guidance, the definition of charity and charitable purpose, and the establishment of the Charity Tribunal for Northern Ireland. A further commencement order is scheduled to be introduced in April 2010 to provide for registration of charities in Northern Ireland and to allow the commission to conduct investigations.

In order for the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland to take on its functions and begin registering charities, it needs the basic information that HMRC holds on organisations in Northern Ireland which have been recognised as charities for tax purposes. While charity law is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, taxation is not. Matters relating to charity taxation and tax reliefs are reserved to the United Kingdom Government in Westminster, and operational responsibility falls to HMRC. This is why the provisions establishing the information-sharing gateway between HMRC and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland were not included in the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 and why the power to make these regulations was, instead, included in the Charities Act 2006.

The regulations will allow HMRC to share information with the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland for the purpose of enabling or assisting it to discharge any of its functions. The power in Section 72 of the Charities Act 2006 under which these regulations are made is very narrow; in effect, it requires the information gateway between HMRC and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland to mirror the provisions of that which already exists between HMRC and the Charity Commission for England and Wales in Section 10A of the Charities Act 1993. This means that the information shared by HMRC is subject to an automatic prohibition against onward disclosure unless such onward disclosure is explicitly authorised by HMRC. Unlawful disclosure is an offence, although a defence is provided where the disclosure was reasonably believed to be lawful or where the information had already lawfully been made available in the public domain.

These features are the same as in the information-sharing provisions which apply to HMRC staff in Section 18 of the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs Act 2005 and the information gateway which has been established between HMRC and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.

The Charity Commission for Northern Ireland and HMRC have been working together and have developed a memorandum of understanding covering the practical arrangements for sharing information and for working together in the future. This is expected to be approved next month. Once the information gateway is in place, HMRC will provide the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland with contact details for all Northern Ireland charities registered for tax purposes. This will be an electronic exchange of information with due regard for information security. These data will be used by the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland to contact charities in Northern Ireland inviting them to register with the commission. In future, there is expected to be a two-way flow of information between the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland and HMRC—for example, about charities that appear to be engaging in non-charitable activities or incurring non-charitable expenditure—to assist each of those bodies in exercising their functions.

The mission of the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland is to introduce a regulatory framework for the charitable sector in Northern Ireland in line with developments in the rest of the UK and Ireland. This will provide a structure and process through which charities can demonstrate their contribution to society, the public can be assured regarding how charities are spending any donations and government can assist in the better governance of the charitable sector.

These regulations may represent a small and technical step in the modernisation of charity law and regulation in Northern Ireland but they will allow the new regulator to get on with its job and will enable charities in Northern Ireland to be officially recognised and regulated as charities in the same way that charities in England, Wales and Scotland are currently. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s words. As she pointed out, we have to be aware that an overhaul of the system in Northern Ireland is taking place. I understand that until now there has been no register of charities. Given that the Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie, announced the appointment of the six commissioners—in particular the chief commissioner, Tom McGrath—on 1 June last year, these are early days. We are seeing the introduction of a regulatory framework for the charitable sector in Northern Ireland, which has always been accepted as an exceedingly valuable dimension of the work that is carried on there.

However, the Northern Ireland Charity Commission has only recently been established. In fact, when one checks the internet, there is but a temporary information page, which I accessed a short time ago. There is an ongoing consultation on public benefit guidance that has sought the views of employees, trustees, volunteers and members of the public, mainly in meetings last September and October. Comments were invited by 27 November, and I imagine the work continues in assessing the responses. Therefore my first question is: how does this all fit into the timetable which is now envisaged in this key year—2010—in the evolution of the new charity commission? Secondly, to what extent are there similar provisions in England, Wales and Scotland? The Minister said that there is a comparison to be made. Are we in fact judging like with like and to what extent are these powers identical to those powers that already exist?

Thirdly, the consultation on public benefit guidance may well affect the attitude of those involved in the administration of the 7,500 HMRC-recognised charities operating in Northern Ireland. Therefore, is it not premature to ask the HMRC to supply this information before one even knows what is to be the test of public benefit? We are now looking at the birth of a new system: to what extent is this information necessary as the new regulators look forward to setting up a reasonably democratic and identifiable system of registration for the first time? It would be helpful if the Minister could answer such questions.

We know from our debates on Section 72 of the Charities Act 2006 that the disclosure of information under that section would apply only when the body was established. When will that occur? I know that the six commissioners were announced less than a year ago, but to what extent does the Minister regard the system as evolving, or is it already fixed in mind? Provided that it mirrors the restrictions on the disclosure of such information to and from other UK charity regulators, I cannot see any objection to the powers, which are obviously part and parcel of the need to ensure an adequate system. Those of us with knowledge of the charitable sector are already aware of the tremendous bureaucracy involved in it whereas there used not to be any at all; there was hardly any form-filling. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in saying that I do not want the charitable sector, which forms such a vital part of life in Northern Ireland, to be overburdened by regulatory requirements and intensive bureaucracy. I am looking for reassurances from the Minister. However, otherwise, one of course welcomes and accepts the need for the regulations.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. I echo what has just been said. When I was in Northern Ireland, I was quite staggered by the imaginativeness, bravery and ingenuity that the charitable sector had to show in order to help Northern Ireland and itself survive during the Troubles. It is good that we are now getting back to a better framework, but I, too, hope that it will not inhibit the remarkable activities of the charitable sector in Northern Ireland.

We on these Benches support the order, but I have three questions. I am pleased that it is intended that the memorandum of understanding between HMRC and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland will be compliant with both the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act, but will the Minister assure us that both parties are seeking the advice of the Information Commissioner in drawing on the memorandum of understanding?

Secondly, will the noble Baroness give us any detail on how information will be shared between the two parties? Will she assure us that it will be transmitted securely? Given the track record of government departments over the past 10 years or so it is not easy to give that reassurance, but what procedures will be in place to ensure individuals’ privacy? How can we be sure that such sensitive information will not go astray?

Thirdly, charity law is devolved in Northern Ireland and we would not in any way seek to interfere with the Assembly’s relationship with the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland; however, we believe that there should be a new attitude of respect towards data protection and data security. How can the Government ensure that this culture of respect is developed and applied, not only within government departments but within organisations that report to Parliament and the devolved Administration, such as the CCNI?

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments, which I welcome. I endorse the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who was impressed by what he saw in Northern Ireland as far as the charitable sector is concerned. I also endorse the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that we do not want the charitable sector to be overburdened by regulatory requirements and that we live in a new, modern and transparent age where people want to know where their donations are going, what will happen to them and whether charities are regulated properly. It is important that that is the case.

A number of questions were put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the provisions for Northern Ireland’s information gateway and whether they are equivalent to those in Scotland, England and Wales. I hope I can reassure him that the gateway between Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland must mirror that which exists between Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Charity Commission for England and Wales. I will write to the noble Lord on Scotland as I do not have that detail.

The regulations in front of us ensure that the interplay between Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the charitable sector in all parts of the UK is the same. That is the case as far as England and Wales is concerned, and I will write to him on Scotland.

I thank the Minister for that reassurance that we are dealing with identical situations. Can she reassure us also that the exchange of information is working well and that if there are any lessons to be learnt from the way in which it has proceeded in England and Wales, they will be taken on board as HMRC considers the best way to communicate with the new authority in Northern Ireland?

I hope I can give the noble Lord that reassurance. The experience so far has been very positive. We will of course monitor the situation and make sure that we learn any lessons from that experience. I am assured by my officials that the experience is positive and that we have not come across any significant problems.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, also asked about the timetable for the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. Revised public benefit guidance is to be published in April 2010, which is only a month away. Once transfer of data has taken place, registration will commence on a phased basis during 2010-11. The noble Lord pressed me on whether we were almost there or up and running. On the journey we are taking, we are almost there. Once these regulations go through, registration can commence, on a phased basis, during 2010-11—otherwise the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland will have no access to the basic details of the 7,000-plus charities that it very much needs.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. How will it proceed? As I understand it, it will be up to those organisations which feel they are providing public benefit to make application and, when those applications are received, no doubt they will be adjudicated upon by the new regulator. To what extent will the information flowing from the HMRC come in before, during or after the consideration of the applications that are being made? That is my point on the timetable and it would be helpful if the Minister could outline how it is going to happen.

The registration has to take place first. This will be basic information—taxation reference numbers, names, addresses and so on. The charities can then be contacted by the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland because it will have their addresses and basic information in front of it. After that, there will be a phased exchange of information between the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, including whether there are question marks about certain charities and so on. So it will be registration first, then contacting the charities and then starting the exchange of information.

The noble Lord asked about the timetable, which I have gone through with him. The noble Lord, Lord Clifton, asked about the risk of loss of personal information and referred to past experiences in this field. Both the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will ensure that information is disclosed in a secure, efficient and proportionate manner. I understand that a secure e-mail is being set up and that all the information will be passed electronically. As soon as these regulations are agreed, we will be ready to go.

The staff at the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland will be civil servants, so there is that security. Those who will be able to use this information gateway are at present undergoing mandatory information security training, which will conclude by the end of this month.

Underpinning all this, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, knows, is the fact that it is a criminal offence for any unlawful disclosure of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs information, which, on conviction, could result in a prison sentence of up to two years. We feel that we have robust systems in place to cope with the transfer of this amount of information.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked about sharing data with the Information Commissioner. That will be the case—that information will be shared with the commissioner.

I think that I have answered all the questions put to me but I shall check Hansard to see whether I have.

I was not asking about sharing, but whether advice would be taken from the Information Commissioner in going ahead.

Yes, we will be very happy to take the advice of the Information Commissioner.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Controlled Activity and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2010.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

My Lords, I shall also speak to the second and third Motions in my name. These orders help to implement the vetting and barring scheme under the 2006 Act. Two are from the Department for Children, Schools and Families and one is from the Ministry of Justice.

The 2006 Act reforms arrangements for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults from the risk of harm by workers with significant access. The scheme covers two categories of work: regulated and controlled activity. Regulated activity is most of the scheme, covering specified settings, activities or posts, such as work in schools, caring for children, or treating the sick. Controlled activity covers fewer posts, mainly in further education or health, outside regulated activity. These do not involve activities such as caring, but give an opportunity for contact with, or access to, sensitive records about vulnerable people.

The scheme creates different safeguarding measures for each category. The first order narrows the circumstances where work is regulated activity and so an individual must register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority, or ISA, as we now refer to it. The controlled activity regulations introduce a narrow arrangement to exist only while we roll out the scheme. It closes a safeguarding gap by requiring employers, before employing individuals in controlled activity, to check whether they are barred from regulated activity. The third instrument, amending the exceptions order under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, enables the arrangement created by the controlled activity regulations.

The first order narrows the scope of regulated and controlled activity, which partly depends on work being intensive, so that work is only intensive if it takes place on more than three days in a 30-day period. Previously we specified work on more than two days. This implements a recommendation by Sir Roger Singleton, accepted by the Government in December. The order also adds to regulated activity a small number of specialised categories, which cover relatively few people, and lets the ISA share information with the police in Scotland and Northern Ireland to help us to join up safeguarding across the UK.

The controlled activity regulations create interim arrangements to prevent the risk of certain employers appointing people without knowing whether they are barred. The regulations require employers to ascertain whether individuals are barred from regulated activity before letting them start a controlled activity in England. Welsh Ministers have laid before the Assembly draft regulations making provision for Wales. Modifications to the Police Act in the regulations that we are debating cover England and Wales, and support both sets of regulations.

Regulations 2 and 3 state when an employer may permit an individual to engage in controlled activity. They apply only to permitting an individual to start controlled activity after the regulations come into force, and the scheme will provide a new checking service for this. If the person is barred, the Criminal Records Bureau will issue an enhanced criminal record certificate as usual. If the person is not barred, and if entry into controlled activity is the only reason for the application, the CRB will issue only a notification, with “not barred” being the response.

We aim to avoid an individual starting in controlled activity without an employer knowing of a bar from regulated activity. While the law does not prevent a barred individual applying for controlled activity in England, we want to enable any employer choosing whether to employ in such cases to be aware of the applicant’s status and history.

The purpose of issuing only a notification where there is no bar is to balance providing information for safeguarding vulnerable groups with keeping the information disclosed proportionate. Notifications will state “not barred” without disclosing any cautions or convictions. This is in keeping with the Government’s aim of supporting rehabilitation of offenders by limiting how far rights to CRB disclosures are extended to workers. We intend this requirement to last until we replace it either by permanent requirements for workers in controlled activity generally to be ISA-registered, which we plan for 2015, or by any alternative arrangements that emerge from a review of controlled activity recommended by Sir Roger Singleton, on which we plan to consult shortly.

This is an interim arrangement. It is light-touch, with no criminal penalties for non-compliance. Its purpose is to give legal backing for making checks that responsible employers want to and should make. If Parliament approves these regulations, they should come into force on 1 April, subject to final confirmation of operational readiness. The CRB is about to consult on a fee for the checks. We expect nearly all employers to receive a “not barred” notification, which will cost less to produce. Therefore, the fee should be under £10, which is much less than the cost of “ordinary” disclosures.

I apologise for a minor error in the drafting, which will be corrected before the regulations are made. Regulation 9(6) refers to a regulation in a previous order. It should refer to an article. The regulations make minor changes to when the ISA must automatically bar a person, adding any Channel Island or Isle of Man offences that equate to England and Wales offences. Finally, they make minor amendments to tidy up the treatment of a few Scotland and Northern Ireland offences.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 provides for certain convictions, after a period of time has elapsed, to be deemed as “spent”. Ex-offenders are not required to disclose their spent convictions for most purposes—for example, when applying for most employment or for insurance—in order to aid their resettlement into society. However, we have to balance rehabilitation with the need to protect members of society from people who pose a risk to them. To that end, the exceptions order exempts particular employers, bodies and proceedings from the general provisions. As a result, sensitive areas of activity, such as work with vulnerable groups where there are particular opportunities to abuse trust and cause harm, are excluded from the Act’s regime by the exceptions order, and the employer is entitled to a CRB check containing details of spent convictions. This allows employers to make a fully informed decision on whether an individual may safely be offered a post in that area of employment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I state right away that we on these Benches share the Government’s concern about how best to protect the public, especially the young, from those who pose a risk to them. To this end, it is important that people who have committed serious crimes do not end up being responsible for vulnerable groups. I doubt that anyone would object to that as the principle behind the orders. However, like other secondary legislation which has followed the 2006 Act, the instruments before us today will fuel even more concern and confusion about the Government’s policy in this area. It is a serious and delicate area which we cannot afford to treat lightly. Regulation should be well thought out, rigorous and robust, but what we have before us is not. I therefore have some questions for the Minister.

The Singleton recommendations advised the Government to review the need for controlled activity policy. What consideration did the Government give to this advice and why does it appear from the orders today that they have ignored much of it? It has been asked whether it is reasonable to expect employers and voluntary organisations to implement the regulations in their current form, and how easy it is determine whether an individual is covered by the rules. The lack of clarity around the rules has led to confusion about vetting and barring, among not only people on the ground but the public in general. Are the Government satisfied that the scheme is easily accessible? I remind the Government that, on Report on the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, Members in another place called a vote on this communication issue and still, many years later, the problem persists.

There have been reports of mistakes when information about individuals has been sought and returned with the employers being told that potential employees have a criminal record when they did not. Mistakes have been rectified later, but by then the job, or the opportunity to have one, has passed—that is, if that mistake ever gets rectified and how easily. There are instances where individuals still bear the scars of incorrect information being returned. Can the Minister tell the Committee what data security safeguards are in place to ensure that people's information is protected?

While the need to protect vulnerable groups is paramount, we must be confident that we are making a proportionate response and that we assume people are innocent rather than guilty. The Government have managed to create an atmosphere in which we are all guilty until we prove that we are innocent. It is costly and complex and, yet again, a symptom of the Government’s inability to trust people. What is required is a system which is rigorous but simple for employers and other organisations to implement.

Can the Minister tell us what she expects the likely cost to businesses to be? I am aware that voluntary organisations will not have to pay, which is a good thing. However, there are already organisations and regulations in place to vet potential employees. Is the Minister sure that there will not be duplication of roles, paperwork and, more importantly, costs? It should go without saying that we must be extremely careful not to impose additional burdens and bureaucracy on business if it is not absolutely necessary, and that, if we are to, we at least owe business the decency to make new rules as easy to abide by as we can.

What analysis and assessment has been carried out to measure the impact these orders will have on the rehabilitation and re-employment of ex-offenders? Can the Minister tell the Committee what proportion of offences against children and vulnerable adults were committed by first-time offenders, and how many offenders would have been caught by this register? I presume there would have been none if the register works only after conviction. If there are a significant number of first-time offenders, we must surely warn the public that this legislation does not tackle them and that they still need to be vigilant. I shall raise a significant point that was not answered in another place. Can the Minister tell the Committee what the Government are going to do to warn the public that these provisions in their current form do not automatically guarantee 100 per cent protection? This legislation does not address the serious issue of vulnerable children in their own homes.

Can the Minister say what these orders will cover? I notice that one of the statutory instruments clearly states that it is for England only. The other does not, but both have England and Wales in the title. Furthermore, one of the statutory instruments reads as if it will apply to Northern Ireland as well. In the other place the Minister said:

“There will be a UK-wide scheme—it will be the same scheme—but because of the relevant powers … it will be necessary for Welsh Ministers to make the arrangements”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee 15/3/10; col. 5.]

I listened carefully to the Minister, but I would like some clarification on this area. Can she tell the Committee what she anticipates these arrangements will be and whether they will be identical to those before us today? If there is a chance of any deviations, what procedures will be in place to rectify any loopholes or confusion?

Overseas workers make up a large proportion of the workforce, particularly in healthcare and schools, and the number is ever increasing. What progress have the Government made on imposing proper procedures to obtain conviction data for overseas workers? Can the Minister tell the Committee whether our European partners have equivalent systems in place? If they do not, this fails to protect us from workers coming in from the EU. I am worried, largely due to the lack of clarity and explanation by the Government, that the measures will give a false sense of security as it is clear that they will not capture everyone. The Government need to explain more about why these measures are the right way to go, how many people will be affected and how they will make people safer. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

My Lords, these orders have resulted from the rigorous work of Sir Roger Singleton. I notice that he has chosen a very appropriate title for his report: Drawing the Line. That really goes to the heart of what we should be doing—that is, drawing the line in the right place to ensure that we do as much as we possibly can to protect children and vulnerable adults, without putting an undue burden on conscientious employers, employees, volunteers and public agencies. On these Benches, we judge all these things on whether they are proportionate.

Sir Roger made some very sensible recommendations, most of which the Government are now trying to implement. However, I notice that, although the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that there will be a considerable reduction in the number of people who will be affected by the need to register because of the changes to the frequency and intensity rules, there is no detailed assessment of the impact of those changes on the protection of children and vulnerable adults. Can the Minister say what the Government have looked into before implementing those recommendations?

I share some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about overseas workers. Whenever this Committee has discussed orders to do with things that came out of the 2006 Act, we have always taken the opportunity to ask the Minister for an update on the Government’s negotiations with other countries about the sharing of information. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that point.

In another place, there was great concern about communication—not surprisingly, because every time you make a change, it adds further confusion. I compliment the Government on the Mythbusters document, which is a very good way of trying to counter some of the outrageous and inaccurate claims that have been made in the media. It is important that documents of that kind are very widely distributed and that very clear guidance is given to employers, potential employees and volunteers about what they have to do, particularly given the penalties that will result from not doing it.

Three points came out of Sir Roger Singleton’s report which are not dealt with by these orders. I take the opportunity to probe the Minister a little on three of the recommendations about further work that Sir Roger made at the end of his report. First, he asked whether private medical practitioners should be looked into, as well as whether they should register. I think the Department of Health is taking the lead on looking into that. Can the Minister tell us what co-ordination is going on between her department and the Department of Health and who is being consulted on that matter? Secondly, how will the Government approach deciding whether there is any need for the controlled activity category to continue? This is another matter that Sir Roger raised. Will the Government ask Sir Roger to look into it further? It was beyond the remit of his original report, which is why he raised it at the end. Thirdly, he raised the issue of whether there will be a continued requirement for CRB checks.

This brings me to some anecdotal information, which I can pass on to the Minister. In the past four days, I have met four people who work with children and vulnerable adults who have four concurrent CRB checks. One was a volunteer who runs a cadet force in a school. He has to have one CRB check for the school and another for the military for the same voluntary job. Then he works in another school, doing some coaching, so he needs another CRB check for that. Finally, he volunteers in an old people’s home, so he needs a fourth CRB check for that. This afternoon, I met a young teacher who works in two different schools and is on sabbatical from a third. He has three CRB checks for those three different schools and is a school governor in a fourth, so he has another one for that.

People complain about how long it takes to get CRB checks back—indeed, I heard again today about surgeons who cannot carry on doing their work when they move from one hospital to another because their check has not come back—yet all that duplication is going on. What are the Government going to do to stop this waste of time and money? Until November, when the new registration scheme comes in, it is all we have. Clearly, checks could be done a lot quicker if there was not so much duplication.

Finally, can the Minister tell us anything about another matter that the Government have asked Sir Roger Singleton to look into: the physical punishment of children in part-time learning situations? The Government have indicated that they expect him to report by the end of the month, but as far as I can see there will be no legislative opportunity for the Government to put his recommendations into operation straight away, as they said they would. Does the noble Baroness have any further information than she had the last time I asked her about this—which was nothing—on how the Government are going to approach that matter?

I thank both noble Baronesses for their contributions and for participating in this debate, which is an important act of scrutiny of these important orders. I have had quite a lot of questions; I will do my very best to cover them all now but, as ever, if I do not or miss any answers, I undertake to write to the noble Baronesses. My right honourable friend in another place has just written to honourable Members in response to their debate. Some of the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, touched on were picked up there, so we are addressing them. I apologise if I am not going about this in the right order, but here goes anyway.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked whether we have made an assessment of the negative effect of the whole scheme on ex-offenders in finding work. We have made a great effort to ensure that the exceptions that these provisions make to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are as narrow as possible. That means that, as much as possible, we are trying to leave standing all the work that people have been doing around the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act to get it right. The only entitlement to details of spent convictions in relation to controlled activity is if the individual concerned has been barred by the ISA from regulated activities, which means that the ISA has already deemed a person to pose a risk to vulnerable groups. We estimate that the CRB might get around 5,000 applications a month, of which between one and five might be barred. It is a tiny proportion.

Both noble Baronesses asked how we deal with foreign offences, which I know is a matter of concern. As they know, we deal with them in several ways. Since the EU decision in 2005, an EU member state must inform the UK if a UK national is convicted in other EU states, as the noble Baronesses are aware. A standard for exchanging information electronically is being developed and the CRB is pursuing bilateral agreements on exchanging information for employment vetting purposes. We know that a prospective employer in the UK can also ask an applicant from overseas for a police certificate of good conduct. We would obviously also expect employers to take up references and to check with previous overseas employers, but that is of course an imperfect system. We rely on the sound judgment of employers, but we are working to create as strong and proportionate a system as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked about the coverage of the scheme. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also asked, but perhaps not. To be clear, the scheme as it relates to regulated activity—where people on the barred lists are prevented from working—applies in England and Wales under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, and parallel legislation in Northern Ireland provides similar arrangements there. So there is some alignment. The only difference relates to the different structures there; for example, the existence of health and social care trusts and education and library boards rather than local authorities. The ISA is the barring authority in both England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and an ISA bar is already recognised in those countries.

I do not want to focus on too much detail, but Scotland will have a slightly different scale operating under the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act. However, it is important that we intend to recognise Scottish bars and Scotland intends to recognise ours, so a person barred anywhere in the UK will be barred across the whole UK. It is therefore right to describe the system as a UK system.

Arrangements may be made for controlled activity in Wales which are different from those for England. However, the Welsh Assembly Government intend to make the same interim provisions for controlled activity in Wales as we intend to make for England. In Northern Ireland, employers are entitled to obtain enhanced disclosures on all workers in controlled activities, not only on those who are barred, and therefore there is no need for these interim arrangements. Scotland will be covered in the same way.

Will Scotland be covered with regard to controlled activity?

Scotland does not have controlled activity; that is the difference. I shall set that out for the noble Baroness when I write to her.

The noble Baroness referred to concerns that this scheme is about people who work with children, whereas a great deal of child abuse takes place in families. That is an area of concern and that is why last week we launched our report on the progress that we have made on the review of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on safeguarding in the UK. We are working to make sure that we have a safeguarding strategy across the piece but we can never be sure that people who work with children are perfectly safe. The scheme does not promise that and we are careful not to raise expectations. Our communications need to be crystal clear on this. The scheme complements, for example, safe recruitment and employment practices; it excludes those who pose a risk—the barred people—from regulated activity and gives information about them to employers; but it does not indicate that there is no reason for someone not to work with children. We have to be clear about what the scheme can do, as both noble Baronesses have said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked for clarity about who is covered in controlled activity. The Government issued detailed guidance on this last week, including case studies and examples to illustrate the coverage of the scheme. I shall be happy to copy that information to the noble Baronesses and we shall be interested to receive any feedback from them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, was concerned about security. The ISA has new IT systems which are built to the Government’s confidential criteria and are more secure than any other government IT system.

Vigorous safeguards mean that personal information is properly protected and cannot be downloaded from the system or accessed from less secure computer systems. The ISA has set in place a robust security system. Any potential breaches can quickly be identified and dealt with through audit, and we are confident that we are well placed effectively to deliver our security requirements. These are, as the noble Baronesses would expect, also reviewed and tested on a regular basis.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, wanted to know what the Government’s position is on the Singleton recommendations. When Sir Roger published his report, we accepted his recommendations and clearly indicated to him that we would need to operate interim arrangements pending the longer-term consideration of those recommendations; otherwise, we would have barred people entering into controlled activity and employers would not even know that they had been barred. Therefore, we have had to tighten up the loophole that we identified, but this is a light-touch requirement to prevent the risk of barred people entering into controlled activity. We accept Sir Roger’s analysis, and his suggestion that the scheme can be simplified is very helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, was interested in knowing the percentage of convictions in England and Wales given to offenders with no previous criminal history. The figures that I have for autobar offences—those where the offender is automatically placed on the barred list, either with or without representations—show that in 2008 46 per cent of convictions in England and Wales were given to offenders with no previous criminal history. That is quite an interesting figure.

I agree with the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about the impact of mistakes and wrong information being supplied to employers. It is an extremely important point on which to focus in these deliberations. In the event that a dispute is raised by an applicant, the CRB works with the relevant police force to ensure that the dispute is resolved very swiftly and ensures that the registered body—the employer—is made aware that any information released in a disclosure has been disputed. That swift action is important. In accordance with Treasury policy, the Criminal Records Bureau makes financial awards to redress customers for maladministration. Again, that is important. The CRB also awards customers for any loss of earnings that arise as a direct consequence of the CRB’s maladministration. Again, I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that we take this very seriously.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, touched on a point about which I, too, feel very strongly—that is, getting the communications right. I am glad that the myth-busting document has been helpful. A host of communications has been prepared and is in train as we go towards the July 2010 deadline. However, we recognise that it is important to make sure that parliamentarians are properly informed as well. We produced detailed guidance about the scheme in October 2009, and, as I said, full guidance was released last week. We have been publishing information about the scheme in various media, as one would expect, and have just finished a large-scale and, I am advised, well supported sequence of roadshows, which are about going out and talking to those who will be using the scheme.

We are advised that the feedback that we have had from the roadshows and surveys that we have conducted indicates that there is general support for the approach that we are adopting with the scheme. We should feel encouraged and reassured by that. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked for more detail on overseas workers, but I will write to her with the latest update on that.

I declare an interest as a provider in social care. The difficulty, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, picked up very strongly, is that these sectors already have great difficulties in recruitment. If CRBs are not transportable, the sector suffers and those people who desperately need the jobs are left very much in a world of limbo. CRB checks need to be transportable, as they once were, rather than different CRB checks being needed for different organisations. It is duplication, yet again.

We need to remember that the beauty of ISA registration is that once you become registered, your registration is monitored and you can take it with you wherever you go. If you work in a regulated activity and change jobs a lot or have several different jobs, your ISA registration will work. All you have to do is give your employer or the charity for which you are volunteering your registration. That employer, with your permission, can then check your ISA registration and see that you are not barred from working with children or vulnerable adults. That has to be the ultimate in portability. What we have to do through the consultation that we are launching now is look at what that means for CRB checks. We in government have to tread gently in looking at this. Many employers value the entitlement to have a CRB check. We want to get the balance right. We do not want to create turbulence in the system at a time of change. I value very much the points that the noble Baroness made about that. I see portability being one of the most important aspects of this whole scheme. I would hope that in a few years’ time, the noble Baroness would see the benefits of the scheme going forward in that way.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Verma, talked about the importance of a proportionate approach. Before coming in here today, I was thinking that it needs to be proportionate, fair and consistent. But we do have to make it proportionate, which is why we asked Sir Roger Singleton to undertake his check. Drawing the Line is a good name for his report; we needed to look at whether we were drawing a line in the right place, and Sir Roger’s report helped us to do that. It is safe to say that public opinion has moved on significantly since all of us were here for the debates around the Act following on from the Bichard report. His recommendations, which we have accepted in full, are widely supported, and most people accept that activity once a week should be covered by the scheme, as he recommended. Our aim throughout has been to develop an approach that is proportionate, balanced and effective, with the scheme operating in a way that is neither burdensome, bureaucratic or off-putting to potential volunteers, which meets the concerns of parents and families.

As for the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about physical punishment, I am advised that the report will be published very shortly and that we will respond to it as quickly as we possibly can. With regard to whether there is time to act on the recommendations, I am looking forward to having many more months to take forward anything that I may learn from a new report that Sir Roger Singleton might do for us. I am not unduly worried about the timescale.

I close by saying that I commend the orders to the Committee. They are very practical and, in some cases, quite minor, but they adhere to the principles of the primary legislation that we adopted some time ago.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2010.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Regulated Activity, Devolution and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2010.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2010.

Relevant document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2010. I confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am very pleased to introduce here two sets of regulations on behalf of the Government, both of which increase payments made to people suffering or bereaved as a result of terrible industrial illnesses.

The first regulations are being made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979. Their purpose is to increase the lump sum amounts paid under the Act by 1.5 per cent. The other regulations are being made under Part 4 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. Their purpose is to increase the amount of compensation paid under the 2008 mesothelioma scheme, so that payments are made at the same level as those paid to mesothelioma sufferers or their dependants under the more generous 1979 Act. In addition, both sets of regulations provide for the majority of dependants who receive awards under the 1979 Act or the 2008 scheme to receive a further increase of up to £5,000. These new amounts will be paid to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1 April 2010.

Noble Lords will be aware of the background to the 1979 Act, but it may help if I briefly recap. A person who is injured or contracts an industrial disease as a result of working for a negligent employer may sue the employer for damages. However, some diseases, especially those which are dust-related—for example, mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos—can take a long time to develop and may not be diagnosed until many years after exposure to the agent that caused the illness. By that time, the employer responsible may no longer exist, resulting in people experiencing great difficulty in obtaining compensation for their illness.

The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 was introduced to help such people by paying lump-sum compensation to sufferers of certain dust-related diseases, or to their dependants, if they are unable to pursue civil action because their former employers have ceased to carry on business. The 1979 Act covers a number of respiratory diseases, most of which are directly related to asbestos exposure, including mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis, asbestosis, diffuse pleural thickening and primary carcinoma of the lung. The non-asbestos-related diseases covered include coalworkers’ pneumoconiosis, caused by exposure to coal dust; byssinosis, caused by exposure to cotton dust; and silicosis, caused by exposure to silica, among slate miners for example. Noble Lords will need no reminding that all of these are terrible diseases and a heavy legacy of our industrial past.

Following the transfer of responsibilities for the 1979 Act to the DWP, we made a commitment to uprate the levels of payment under the Act annually. Traditionally, we have done so in line with increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit payments. Noble Lords will be aware that receipt of IIDB is one of the eligibility criteria for 1979 Act payments. Like other non-income-based social security benefits, IIDB is usually uprated in line with the September retail prices index. As a result of the recent global downturn, however, RPI moved into negative territory for the first time in around 50 years, standing in September 2009 at minus 1.4 per cent.

That negative inflation would have meant no increases in those social security benefits uprated by RPI, with those relying on them seeing their benefits frozen in cash terms from this April. As such, my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced in last year’s Pre-Budget Report an increase for key carer and disability benefits of 1.5 per cent from April, providing help to people now, when they need it most. This includes an increase in IIDB. We are passing the same increases on to the 1979 Act payments.

From April 2010, the maximum amount payable to a person under the 1979 Act will increase to £75,176 for a person aged 37 or under at diagnosis. The actual amount of money paid as a lump sum under the scheme will of course vary for different people, based on the age at which they are diagnosed and their level of disability. The highest amounts are paid for those diagnosed at an early age and for those with higher levels of disability. That compensates for the poor prognosis associated with terrible diseases like mesothelioma and for those who are younger at the point of diagnosis, who will therefore die at a younger age.

As I said a moment ago, one of the key diseases that the 1979 Act was designed to compensate for is mesothelioma. It is a particularly unpleasant and fatal disease, caused almost exclusively by exposure to asbestos. Those with mesothelioma often have a short life expectancy and experience complex, debilitating symptoms. I am afraid that the number of deaths from mesothelioma in Great Britain has risen substantially during the past 30 years and continues to rise, with the peak not expected until sometime between 2010 and 2015. In 1968, 153 people died from mesothelioma. By contrast, in 2005, there were more than 2,000 deaths. Between 2006 and 2020, we expect that up to 30,000 people in the UK will die of the disease. Put another way, estimates indicate that one out of every 100 men born between 1940 and 1950 will die from the disease.

Although people who develop mesothelioma through their employment have access to lump-sum payments through the 1979 Act, there was previously no provision for people who developed mesothelioma but not as a consequence of their employment. We recognised that this was a weakness in the provision of compensation and, to remedy the situation, we introduced in 2008 the new mesothelioma scheme. The scheme provides for the first time lump-sum payments for mesothelioma sufferers who have been exposed to asbestos but not in the workplace. They may, for example, have been exposed to asbestos through a relative who worked with asbestos, or by living near to an asbestos-producing factory, or from self-employment. Prior to the commencement of the 2008 mesothelioma scheme, those people, whose suffering is as great as those who develop this dreadful disease as a consequence of their employment, may have had no other means of redress.

Up to the end of February 2010, 743 mesothelioma sufferers and 74 dependants had received help from the scheme. The amounts payable to sufferers ranged from a minimum of £8,197 to a maximum of £52,772, with an average amount of around £16,000 being paid.

The cost of the 2008 mesothelioma scheme is met by compensation recovery; that is, compensation recovered from individuals who are successful in a civil damages claim but who have already received a payment under the 1979 Act or the 2008 scheme. When we started the scheme in 2008, we set awards at a level consistent with the amount of recoveries we expected to make. This meant that payments through the 2008 scheme were lower than amounts payable to mesothelioma sufferers under the 1979 Act.

When we introduced the 2008 scheme, we made a commitment to increase the level of payments to match amounts payable to people with mesothelioma under the 1979 Act at the earliest opportunity and as levels of compensation recovery allowed. We expected to be able to do so in the scheme’s third year of operation, in 2011. I am very pleased that we are now able to deliver that commitment from April, only 18 months after the scheme started.

From April 2010, therefore, lump-sum payments from the 2008 scheme will increase by around 40 per cent to the same level as those paid under the 1979 Act, taking into account the 1.5 per cent increase to 1979 Act payments. The minimum payment to sufferers therefore increases from £8,197 to £11,678, and the maximum from £52,772 to £75,176. This is the first increase in the amounts payable under the 2008 mesothelioma scheme since its commencement on 1 October 2008. It is our intention in future years to maintain parity in the rates payable under both schemes.

The third element of this package of regulations is an increase in the level of payments made to dependants under both schemes. Currently, payments made to dependants under both schemes are at a much lower rate than those made to sufferers during life. We recognise the terrible effects that these diseases can have on families, who have to cope with the effect of the disease on their loved ones, witnessing their pain, suffering and, ultimately, their death. While we acknowledge this by making payments to the families of people who die from these diseases, payments have been at a much lower rate than those made to sufferers during life.

That differential in payments puts pressure on sufferers during already extremely difficult times. For example, many feel that they need to rush through a quick claim to the department in order to maximise compensation for their families. Some are too sick to make a claim before dying and therefore their families are able to claim only the lesser amount after the claimant’s death. In addition, because mesothelioma is difficult to diagnose and the disease onset is rapid, some sufferers are not diagnosed until after death.

We have listened to the argument put forward by stakeholders and parliamentarians that the difference in payment is unfair and unhelpful. To help families to cope during these extremely difficult times, dependants will now receive an increase of up to £5,000 above the current pay scales. This brings the rate of payment between sufferers and dependants closer together and goes some way towards our commitment to bridge that gap. Dependants who already receive close to the amount paid to the sufferer will receive a proportionate amount, bringing their award up to the level of that paid to the sufferer in life.

I am very pleased that these schemes are now performing an important role, providing substantial financial support at very difficult times. However, I am aware that this success is a sad reflection of the rising number of people being affected by asbestos-related diseases. Noble Lords will, I am sure, agree that, while no amount of money will ever compensate individuals and families for the suffering and loss caused by mesothelioma, those who are suffering rightly deserve some form of monetary compensation, and it is essential that sufferers receive compensation before it is too late.

These regulations increase the levels of support through the government compensation schemes; they help to ensure that mesothelioma sufferers are able to receive the same amount of compensation from the Government, regardless of whether the disease is a consequence of their employment; and they go a long way towards improving the amount of compensation that a dependant can expect to receive where the sufferer has been unable to claim in their lifetime. The regulations will make a real difference to people in extremely difficult circumstances and I commend them to the Committee.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I welcome. Although I do not think that I need to declare an interest, I mention that my father died of mesothelioma a few years ago, albeit before the 2008 scheme was introduced. However, I can attest to the speed and severity with which these lung diseases attack and kill those who have been exposed. I welcome the proposals both to have higher rates for people with mesothelioma and for that payment to go to dependants as well to get rid of the anomaly and extra time pressure that the differentiation created.

I am also pleased that statutory payments for pneumoconiosis are being uprated in line with the industrial injuries disablement benefit, which is increasing rather faster than inflation. It is proving to take quite a long time to process payments, and this uprating at least provides some compensation for the delays.

When debating, on 5 March, the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, my noble friend Lord Henley probed the Minister a little about the establishment of a working group to speed up the payments to sufferers and their dependants. I was hoping that we might be able to hear a little more about that group today. Can the Minister give us some more details?

My Lords, I too, thank the Minister for explaining the detail of these important regulations and giving much of the background, particularly the numbers of those affected under the schemes. I am also grateful to the department, particularly Susan Parker, who explained how the compensation scheme worked—in particular the fact that sufferers do not face a long wait before receiving a pay-out. From these Benches, we fully support the regulations which increase the rates of payments made under both the 1979 Act and the 2008 scheme.

The diseases we are talking about are, as we have heard, very serious respiratory diseases brought on by people working with asbestos, living near an asbestos-producing factory, or perhaps even living with someone who worked with asbestos. As the Minister said, these diseases do not always manifest themselves until 20, 30 or 40 years later, and when the most serious—mesothelioma—is diagnosed, the prognosis is grim, as the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has testified. These diseases are not confined just to the industrial heartlands of the country, but are found across the UK—for example, in workers who many years ago produced brake linings in the car industry. The incidence of mesothelioma is expected to peak in about five years’ time, which was something of a surprise to me, since the dangers posed by asbestos itself have been known about for a long time now.

I pay tribute to the Health and Safety Executive, which has done a great deal to make sure that the working environment is now much safer than it was when these devastating diseases, caused by exposure to asbestos dust, were contracted. The HSE often gets an unwarranted bad press and we should pay tribute to its work in this as well as other areas. While on the subject of the use of asbestos, I do not know whether the Minister can confirm that, although its use has been banned in this country for some time, it is still being used in many countries in the developing world. I hope that information on the dangers to health is being shared, perhaps through embassies.

Legislation was introduced in 1979 to help those diagnosed as suffering from a dust-related industrial disease by a lump sum payment, in addition to any industrial injuries disablement benefit. This was, as we have heard, because many employers could not be sued since they were no longer in business, so compensation was very difficult to obtain. I gather that the DWP is at the moment consulting on improving support for people who need to trace employers’ liability insurance policies to obtain compensation for an accident or industrial disease. Although the Association of British Insurers and the Lloyd’s Market Association have committed since 1999 to a voluntary code of practice for tracing employers’ liability insurance policies, there are still believed to be more than 3,000 people who are left without help. I believe the Government now propose to establish both an employers’ liability tracing office and an employers’ liability insurance bureau to oversee this process. Perhaps the Minister would confirm this. Could the Minister also tell me whether retired members of the Armed Forces, who contracted mesothelioma while serving, are covered by these regulations?

The 2008 mesothelioma scheme, which, as we have heard, pays out a lump sum to those ineligible for the original 1979 scheme because they contracted the disease through environmental exposure, is wholly funded from compensation recovery. It is good news that the level of civil damages received is higher than expected at this point and that, therefore, all payments are being increased to the 1979 level from 15 April so that the amounts are equalised to all sufferers, however they contracted the disease. It is also good news that awards to dependants will be increased by up to £5,000 by way of a lump sum.

It is worth making it clear that the 1.5 per cent uprating we are talking about in relation to the regulations under the pneumoconiosis Act is a draw-down from next year’s uprating, and is not an uprating in its own right, so to speak. It will therefore not be consolidated into the base level for future upratings. I do not envy the job of whoever is the Minister in having to explain next year’s uprating. In closing, I reiterate that we fully support these important orders and send our sympathy to all those suffering from these terrible diseases and their dependants.

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for participating in this discussion and their support for these regulations. It is a great sadness to hear of the personal experience of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and his understanding of the impact of mesothelioma on individuals and their families.

The noble Lord asked about the working group on the processing and the time in which claims may be paid. With regard to the 1979 Act, claims are processed within six weeks, and claims under the 2008 scheme within nine days on average. Previous debates have recognised that.

As for the working group on process to which the noble Lord referred, that refers to the processing of civil claims, which was mentioned in Jack Straw’s pleural plaque Statement. It says:

“We will therefore establish a working group composed of claimant solicitors, trade unions, insurers, the judiciary, and civil servants to examine litigation practices and procedures for compensation claims relating to mesothelioma, and identify options for streamlining them in order to reduce the time taken to conclude cases. In particular the working group will consider … the operation of the Practice Direction for court proceedings introduced in April 2008 to ensure that it is working effectively … possible solutions to difficulties arising from delays in obtaining medical reports because of the shortage of medical experts in this area … why more claims don’t settle, and whether any provisions in relation to pre-action behaviour would be helpful in reducing the time taken to establish liability without the need for court proceedings … We also intend to consider changes to the substantive law to … resolve difficulties experienced by mesothelioma sufferers as a result of differences in the value of claims which are settled before or after the death of the person concerned and to clarify the limitation period for bringing a claim … clarify that the limitation period for bringing a claim runs from the date that the claimant becomes aware that he or she has mesothelioma rather than from the date they became aware of the original exposure to asbestos” [Official Report, Commons, Col. 81WS].

That is a relatively new Statement. I hope that that puts the matter into context.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, gave her support to these regulations, and I am grateful for that. She made reference to the fact that the instance of mesothelioma has yet to peak. One challenge of this terrible condition is its long latency period. That raises all sorts of issues. The noble Baroness praised the HSE, which I was pleased to hear, as that does not happen often enough. It does lots of work at the moment trying to spot what might be the long-term latency issues of other modern practices—for example, nanotechnologies—and what that might mean in future.

The noble Baroness said that asbestos is banned in the UK but not in the developing world. I regret that asbestos is still commonly used in the third world; my understanding is that it is commonly used in India, both in processing and uncontrolled environments, such as ship-breaking. The HSE works closely with colleagues abroad, and I shall certainly ask them to continue to share their expert surveillance. The noble Baroness asked about Armed Forces personnel; they are not covered by these regulations, but they are covered by separate arrangements provided by the Ministry of Defence.

Could the Minister write to me with the arrangements for the Armed Forces, if members suffer from mesothelioma? That would be very helpful.

Indeed, I should be very happy for that information to go to the noble Baroness.

The noble Baroness asked, too, about proposals around employers’ liability insurance bureaus and the employers’ liability tracing office. We fully appreciate the difficult situation facing individuals who struggle to trace a relevant insurance policy. While the vast majority of individuals are able to find an employer or insurer to claim against, that does not in any way reduce the distress and difficulty faced by those who cannot. I also accept that those individuals are disproportionately likely to suffer from long-tail diseases such as mesothelioma and that on top of the terrible disease they face a lack of compensation. That is why we have the 1979 Act and the 2008 scheme.

In addition to providing government support to individuals, we want to ensure that people can access civil compensation. We have therefore been working to improve people’s ability to trace employers’ liability insurance policies. In 1999, in conjunction with the insurance industry, we launched a voluntary code of practice to help to trace these policies where other routes have failed. The code has led to some improvement, but there are still too many people who are left without help. The Government do not think that is acceptable and therefore believe that more must be done.

Therefore, on 10 February, we launched a consultation on two proposals to improve the situation. We agree that an essential first step is the creation of the employers’ liability tracing office to manage an electronic database of employers’ liability insurance policies and to operate a tracing service for insurers and individuals. We envisage that the database will initially be voluntary but will in time become mandatory to provide a complete record of all employers’ liability policies issued. A tracing office along these lines will be a significant benefit to many thousands of people who need to trace policies. The ABI is already driving forward work on this proposal, which will take into account consultation responses.

While a tracing office will ensure that in future more people can obtain civil damages for industrial disease, we know from experience that it will still be difficult to trace historic policies, especially for individuals suffering from long-tail diseases. We therefore also propose to establish an employers’ liability insurance bureau, as suggested by a number of stakeholders and parliamentarians. It will provide a fund of last resort in cases where all other efforts to trace an employer or insurer have failed. This will give peace of mind to many workers who know that they were exposed to asbestos but who do not now have symptoms. They will have confidence that if they later develop an asbestos-related disease, they will be able to claim the civil compensation to which they are entitled.

The consultation is examining issues such as what the bureau should cover, the impact on insurers and employers, how much should be paid by way of compensation and the limitations on claiming from the bureau. The Government will consider fully the responses to the consultation before determining the next steps towards the bureau’s introduction. We believe that the changes we are proposing will make a real difference to the lives of people who suffer from these terrible work-related diseases and to their families.

The noble Baroness asked about contributing to the consultation. The consultation document and guidance on how to respond were sent to key stakeholders and are published on our website. We are also holding a series of consultation roadshows in Leeds, London, Bristol, Manchester and Glasgow. We have invited stakeholders to give face-to-face feedback.

With the exception of one point, I think I have covered each of the points that have been raised. The noble Baroness is quite right about the 1.5 per cent increase. As we discussed on another occasion, we believe that it is important to give some people extra support now, but the 1.5 per cent will be deducted from the full uprating a year from now.

I am grateful to noble Lords for their support for these regulations.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2010.

Relevant document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.