To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the event of the result of the Scottish referendum in 2014 being in favour of independence, whether they expect Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies to be eligible to stand for election in the 2015 General Election; and, if so, what will happen on the date of Scottish independence in 2016.

My Lords, in the event that a majority of people in Scotland vote for independence in the referendum in September, Scotland would leave the United Kingdom and all its institutions, including the UK Parliament, after a process of negotiation. The timing for any changes would have to be settled in the event of a vote for independence.

My Lords, I am sure we all hope and expect that the Scottish vote will be in favour of the union but, surely, all eventualities need to be catered for. If Scotland votes for independence, it would be inappropriate for there to be Scottish MPs at Westminster thereafter. What precisely are the arrangements before implementation of Scottish independence, should it be voted for, in 2016?

My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, there would be a process of negotiation. Obviously, laws passed by this Parliament set out the arrangements for elections and it would be a matter for Parliament to change the arrangements if it so wished. I take the first point of my noble friend’s Question. I think I say for colleagues on all sides of the House that, while we support the integrity of the United Kingdom, we should be making every effort to ensure that the eventuality of a yes vote in the independence referendum simply does not arise.

My Lords, one issue that those Members of Parliament might have to address in that eventuality would be the position in relation to the currency. Does the noble and learned Lord welcome the very thoughtful and balanced contribution to the debate on the currency in Scotland made today by the Governor of the Bank of England? Will he join me in urging others who head up our great national institutions, whether in Scotland or throughout the UK, to contribute in a similar fashion to ensure that the complexities of the decisions that are required afterwards are fully understood and that the people in Scotland have all the information they need to make the right decision?

My Lords, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously said, the current arrangements of a full monetary, fiscal and political union bring benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom. I certainly have noted that the Governor of the Bank of England today has highlighted the principal difficulties of entering into a currency union—losing national sovereignty, the practical risks of financial instability and having to provide fiscal support to bail out a foreign country. That is why we have consistently said that, in the event of independence, a currency union is highly unlikely to be agreed so the Scottish Government need a plan B. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that people who, from experience, have an important contribution to make should make it. Indeed, this month, Better Together has published a very good pamphlet which quotes many people showing how untenable the position of the Scottish Government is on the issue of the currency.

My Lords, is it not vital that we all spend the time between now and the referendum in September working together and positively campaigning in favour of Scotland staying part of Great Britain and part of the United Kingdom? Speculating on the constitutional detail of what will happen if there is a yes vote in the referendum does not necessarily help in that united campaign.

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is vital that our focus is on ensuring that there is a substantial no vote in the referendum in September and that we set out the benefits. Ahead of the debate in your Lordships’ House tomorrow morning, I hope later this afternoon to send out to noble Lords the 20 positive reasons—there are many more—that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out earlier this month together with links to the 10 analysis papers published so far in Scotland, which make a very compelling case for the integrity of the United Kingdom and for Scotland remaining part of it.

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that even in the event of a no vote in Scotland, which I very much hope for, there are questions to be addressed about our variegated devolution settlements with parts of the United Kingdom? Does he not further agree that thought about that should take place now rather than in a rush after an unexpected and unhoped for yes vote?

The noble Baroness makes an important point. There are important issues about our current constitutional arrangements in all parts of the United Kingdom. The Government have shown by our implementation of the Calman report proposals, through the Scotland Act 2012 and the way that we are taking forward the proposals of the Silk commission in relation to Wales that we are alert to these. But I am certain that a no vote in September will not bring an end to these discussions. All parties and even people without parties have an important contribution to make to those discussions.

My Lords, if there is a yes vote, it is important to remember that the rest of the United Kingdom will be diminished as a result; by one-fifth of our land mass, 5 million of our population and 10% of our GDP. The big picture is that both national and international issues are involved. Therefore, the voices of the Scottish diaspora need to be mobilised, and also the voices of the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish who value an entity that is greater than the sum of its parts.

My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. It is important that people not only from the diaspora but from other parts of the United Kingdom speak up and say how valued Scotland is as part of a family of nations, which is one of the great success stories of modern history. Scotland is obviously better within the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom is also better with Scotland in it.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not agree that the answer of the Scottish Nationalists to my noble friend Lord Flight’s question is symptomatic of the fantasy politics that they are putting forward? When he asks what the position of Scottish MPs would be in the House of Commons if they were elected after a vote for independence, their official policy is that we should postpone the date of the general election until 2016.

My Lords, I did in fact notice that. I am not quite sure what it says about democracy—that people should be denied the chance to elect new Members of Parliament. I also bear in mind that the date that they set for this referendum was after this Parliament had agreed to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which had already set the date for the next general election.

My Lords, would there even be a United Kingdom if the vote was a positive one? After all, Northern Ireland is not a kingdom and never has been, and Wales is a Principality. “United Kingdom” refers to the fact that there are the two kingdoms of England and of Scotland. Will we have to change the name of this country in such an eventuality?

My Lords, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All I would say is that, having been part of a party which merged and spent a long time deciding its name, I do not want to start speculating about what might happen if we start breaking up.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps are being taken to address the reported increase in the number of children who contacted Childline in the last year complaining of racist and Islamophobic bullying.

My Lords, all schools must have a behaviour policy with measures to prevent all forms of bullying. Ofsted specifically considers how well schools tackle bullying and discrimination and we have strengthened teachers’ powers to discipline pupils for poor behaviour including bullying. We are also providing £4 million to four anti-bullying organisations to tackle bullying in schools. The new curriculum also offers opportunities to address some of the underlying causes of bullying, including racist bullying, through developing greater understanding and tolerance.

I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that ChildLine reported a 69% increase in this form of bullying in the past year alone, where students were forced to go to ChildLine rather than go to their school to have this matter addressed? Is he aware that ChildLine further said that it links this specifically to the intemperate language being used around immigration and with Muslim children being called “bombers” and “terrorists”? Will this be specifically taken up and systems put in place so that teachers can deal with it at source rather than children having to go to ChildLine?

My Lords, every school must have a policy and systems in place and bullying in school at any time is completely unacceptable. The Government are funding Show Racism the Red Card until the end of March to deliver workshops to 10,000 young people in schools. Of course I entirely agree with my noble friend that all of us in public life have a duty to behave responsibly and set positive examples.

My Lords, I was the first substantive chief executive of ChildLine and while I was there we produced a booklet in which children talked about racism. That was 15 years ago and it was one of our most in-demand booklets. It was especially in demand among schools which used it as a base for discussions among young people. Could Ofsted also look at how peer groups are developed? The other thing that ChildLine found was that it was far more progressive when young people worked together with other young people and talked about these issues, rather than direct teaching.

The noble Baroness is extremely experienced in these matters. Ofsted does look specifically at all types of bullying—cyberbullying and race and religion-related bullying—and in its inspectors’ handbook it says that they will look at the,

“types, rates and patterns of bullying”,

and at the school’s effectiveness in dealing with them. The noble Baroness raises a very good point on peer groups which I will undertake to discuss with Ofsted.

My Lords, I was a victim of racial abuse so I personally know the distress and trauma it can cause. Some children react very violently when they are racially abused at school and find themselves excluded, which is even more traumatic—they have long-term complications and implications because of it. Can my noble friend tell the House what sort of counselling and support victims of racial abuse receive from their schools?

I am very sorry to hear of the distress that my noble friend suffered when she was at school. School staff should support all pupils and the nature of that support will depend on the circumstances. It may well be that the staff can support the victim adequately but otherwise the school can involve a specialist charity or organisation which can provide counselling or mentoring, such as Kidscape or Beat Bullying, which my department funds, or Place2Be, a very good counselling charity.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, mentioned the bullying of Muslim children and their being called “bombers”, linked to the media. The Government have a clear strategy—the Prevent strategy. Can the Minister tell me how his department links into the Prevent strategy and what it is doing to support teachers in that respect?

My department pays significant attention to this area and has a particular group of people who carry out due diligence for it. It is also looking at concerns or issues about extremism in schools. We are heavily focused on this.

My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what guidance and support trainee teachers get in methods of dealing with this sort of abuse and bullying and how that is built on in their continuing development programmes?

We recently reduced the length of the guidance to schools on bullying from 481 pages, which of course nobody can absorb, to 11. There is a view that we may have gone slightly too far, and we are looking again at whether we should improve certain aspects. Of course, all teachers should receive behaviour management training in ITT. We are also substantially improving the amount of in-school training with the expansion of teaching schools. We have a high number of SMEs and NLEs that are especially focused in this area.

My Lords, are the Government aware that the everyday otherisation of children in terms of their creed and colour results in their feeling that they do not belong in this society? It is hardly surprising that they grow up radicalised. Surely we have long since passed the time when you were defined by your creed or colour. What are the Government doing to eradicate from common-day parlance—in Parliament, in the papers and elsewhere—the definition of people by their religion?

My Lords, our society is now multiethnic. The only way we will succeed in making it truly civilised is if we eliminate all forms of racism and all celebrate the diversity of our country—I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. We expect all schools to teach tolerance and understanding of others in PSHE. We are heavily focused on this. The new national curriculum, which will come into force in September, will offer varied opportunities for pupils to learn about different cultures and religions. The citizenship programme is heavily focused on this, and the history curriculum should also celebrate the contribution of different races and ethnic groups to the history of our country.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the underoccupancy charge on tenants.

Both an impact and a quality impact assessment have already been published, although it remains too early to say how people are reacting to this change. We have commissioned a consortium to undertake a two-year monitoring of the effects of the policy. The research will include looking at the effects of the measures on supply issues, the impact on rural areas and the effects on financial circumstances and vulnerable individuals.

My Lords, I thank the Minister. Social security sanctions claimants and cuts their benefits if they break the rules, say on JSA, in order to change their behaviour. But the 660,000 families affected, whose existing housing benefit is being cut by the bedroom tax, cannot change their behaviour because there is nowhere smaller for most of them to go. Two-thirds of them are, in any case, disabled, and may need the extra space. Discretionary housing payments, on which the Minister properly relies, can help only a minority even of disabled people. Does the Minister really think it fair to sanction existing tenants for misbehaviour when they have not misbehaved and when they cannot change their behaviour? Are we not punishing people who have done no wrong but who, as they face eviction, are having wrong done to them? Is that now social security’s definition of social security?

My Lords, I must make clear that the removal of the spare-room subsidy is not a sanction. The numbers are down from 660,000 to 523,000, which may indicate some behaviour trip-change, as people move to smaller places where they can. The self-declared proportion of disabled people is two-thirds, but when you look at the DLA figures it is 17% of the total. We have raised the amount of DHPs to help with the transition; we have £180 million. The signs at the moment are that there will not be a demand for all of it.

My Lords, it is bound to be the case that when tenants vacate a flat or a house, some of the properties will remain empty in parts of the United Kingdom. Will he make sure that records are kept of the cost of their upkeep, and also protect them from vandalism?

My Lords, we are having an intensive review of what is happening. Clearly, there are a large number of people—1.8 million—on the waiting list who would welcome a place to live when it is vacated. We can also look to move some of the people who are living in overcrowded social accommodation; that is a large figure that I discussed with the House yesterday. That will give them some relief.

Will the Minister confirm that discretionary housing payments can cover only a fraction of the losses involved for households as a result of this measure? Research shows that it is of the order of only 6%.

My Lords, clearly people will respond in different ways, which is one of the things that this policy is intended to bring about. The area with which the noble Baroness is closely associated, Gateshead, spent roughly 69% of DHP in the first half-year and put in an application for further DHP that we were pleased to match with another £130,000. This meant that it could spend roughly the same amount in the second half of the year as in the first. That contrasts with the area that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is very closely associated with. It has spent 58% of its DHP. I have not seen its application for further DHP. There is a bidding fund of £20 million that I would like to get spent. Norwich has until Monday to put in that bid, and I hope that the noble Baroness will use her very considerable energies to make sure that it does.

My Lords, with the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research showing that 42% of tenants in some parts of Wales, north-east England and north-west England think it unlikely that they will be able to pay their rent in full, what assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the implications of the introduction of the charge? In particular, what contingency plans do they have in case that research proves to be true?

My Lords, the way in which we are handling the transition is to make sure that there are adequate discretionary housing payments. That is why we raised that figure. We know that people are making adjustments, which will take time and need funding.

I am very pleased to see some of the innovative ways in which local authorities are responding to the challenge. Places such as Warrington and Salford are converting empty office space. They are purchasing and improving long-term empty two-bedroom homes. Derby has a home-release scheme that provides tenants with money to move—£500 for removal costs, for example. Many local authorities have revised their strategies to allow people with arrears to move, which was a block for some people. We are getting the kind of creative response from local authorities for which this policy asked.

My Lords, the party opposite says that it wishes to control welfare spending but believes that this policy should be scrapped. How does my noble friend think that equivalent savings could be made?

My Lords, I have noted that the party opposite has said that it will be tougher on welfare than we are. If it is going to take £500 million of savings and put them back, and then risk matching that and paying the equivalent amount in the private sector—adding up to £1 billion a year—I do wonder where it can get that money back out of the welfare system.

My Lords, almost a quarter of a million children are in households whose benefit has been reduced because of the bedroom tax—we will be debating this later today. What impact will this have on the Government’s child poverty strategy?

My Lords, we monitor child poverty very closely. I am pleased to say—and as the noble Baroness knows perfectly well—that we now have lower relative child poverty and poverty than we have seen for a very considerable time. We will go on monitoring that figure.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take to ensure that older people receive equal access to NHS cancer treatment.

In December, the national clinical director for cancer at NHS England launched a call for action on the treatment for older people. NHS England is now setting up an advisory group to identify where improvements in cancer services for older people can be made. It is also supporting an initiative to ensure that patients are better informed about the options available to them and that they are fully involved in decisions about their treatment.

I thank the Minister for that welcome Answer, but is he aware of the recently published Macmillan Cancer Support report, which shows that up to as 10,000 cancer patients die needlessly each year because of blatant ageism among doctors? For example, recommendations for chemotherapy diminish by as much as half if you are over 70. Since we are an ageing population and half of all new cancer diagnoses are in people over 70, does the Minister agree that it is of the utmost importance that we ensure that people are treated as individuals regardless of their age? How will he ensure that this view is held also among GPs and hospital consultants?

My Lords, I completely agree. The noble Baroness is right that a series of reports has shown that the NHS has too often failed to provide the best possible services to older people. We cannot save lives without tackling inequalities. The NHS has a statutory duty to reduce health inequalities and to improve the health of those with the poorest outcomes. A ban on age discrimination in the NHS services was introduced in 2012, meaning that NHS services need to do everything they can to ensure that they do not discriminate against older people. We will hold the NHS to account for that through the mandate and the NHS outcomes framework.

To what extent are these shocking figures due to lack of funding for cancer services? In that light, what is the Government’s plan for the cancer drugs fund?

My Lords, the noble Lord may recall that the Government pledged an additional £750 million to support the cancer strategy. We are doing that, and a range of actions are proceeding there. On the cancer drugs fund, we initially pledged a total of £600 million for the first three years of the fund and we recently pledged another £400 million, making £1 billion in all. I am pleased to say that the cancer drugs fund has so far helped more than 38,000 patients.

My Lords, some two weeks ago, the Minister agreed that, when NICE recommends that a particular form of treatment should be given to patients with cancer, rare cancers and other rare diseases, it is incumbent on clinical commissioning groups to see that those drugs are prescribed. Does the Minister agree that clinical criteria must be employed in reaching decisions as to which patients are to receive those drugs and that age alone must never be a barrier to the prescription of drugs in patients with cancers of that type?

My Lords, I agree. The noble Lord may recall that in December 2012 we worked on a project with Macmillan Cancer Support and Age UK to improve uptake of treatment in older people. That established some key principles for the delivery of age-friendly cancer services. In December 2013, NHS England published an analysis of chemotherapy uptake in older people, and that report reaffirmed those principles and set out some new recommendations around improving the uptake of chemotherapy.

My Lords, in the previous reply the Minister said he had looked at figures for chemotherapy for older people. Has he looked at the figures for radiotherapy for cancer patients of an age, in particular for intensity-modulated radiotherapy, which is not reaching its target but is considered a great improvement on the previous type of radiotherapy being used for cancer cases?

My Lords, the Government invested £23 million aimed at increasing the capacity of radiotherapy centres in England to deliver intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The latest analysis shows that the median average of IMRT activity in England is at 29%, with the vast majority of centres delivering at 24% or above. That 24% was the magic figure recommended a few years ago by the national radiotherapy implementation group. We continue to monitor progress and local action plans closely.

My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the all-party cancer group. Does the Minister agree that many older people develop cancer and, therefore, to stop treatment would ensure that many Members of your Lordships’ House would not get treatment? Will he therefore take this really very seriously?

My Lords, I am with the noble Baroness all the way in wishing to see your Lordships live a healthy and long life but, as regards the population generally, I hope that I have made clear the Government’s determination to see that all citizens of this country receive treatment according to their ability to benefit from it.

My Lords, I am sure we are all with the noble Baroness in those sentiments. Can I refer the noble Earl back to the research that my noble friend referred to? The report seems to show that survival rates for cancer patients over the age of 75 are very poor in this country compared with other European countries. The noble Earl has said that he will ensure that action is taken through the mandate to NHS England. Should he not give instructions to clinical commissioning groups to start commissioning cancer services with no age discrimination?

My Lords, commissioning is an important ingredient in this, but there is a range of actions that we can take and have taken. We know that low levels of awareness and late diagnosis are particular problems for older patients, so it is welcome news that Public Health England is to run a national campaign to raise awareness of breast cancer in women over the age of 70. We are also raising the screening age for breast cancer to include women aged 71 to 73, and the extension of the NHS bowel cancer screening programme to men and women aged 74 is now complete.

That Lord Finkelstein be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of the Earl of Shrewsbury, resigned.

My Lords, I apologise for being a bit presumptuous. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to raise an issue on which I am sure the whole House would like some guidance. Will the government Chief Whip clarify her intentions as to the minimum intervals to be applied to the European Union (Referendum) Bill? It is our assumption on these Benches that, should the Bill complete its Committee stage on Friday 31 January or 7 February, Report will take place on 28 February. Can the Chief Whip confirm that that is her intention?

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his courtesy in giving me advance notice that he was going to raise a question on the matter. He did not actually say what the question would be, but I got the rough idea of what it might refer to and I am genuinely grateful to him. He will be aware that I did not intend to be at Question Time today, not because I am uninterested—I listened to every word, as I always do—but because in the coalition Government I share attendance at Question Time with my coalition partner, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, which is why he was here today. That is why I was not in the House earlier.

The noble Lord asked a question about minimum intervals and, in the same breath, referred to Committee having not yet concluded. He also referred to Committee being scheduled for a later date than this coming Friday. I gently remind the House of a couple of things. First, there is a straightforward answer to all this. Matters concerning the intervals of Bills are not considered until one has secured Committee. This House has not concluded Committee, and matters to do with when Report or other stages might be follow at the end of Committee. That is the normal procedure.

Secondly, the noble Lord refers to different dates. I took the chance to check what I said last week—I thought that my memory was okay, but we like to be sure. Towards the end of Committee on Friday, I referred to the fact that we would continue Committee on the Bill next Friday, 31 January, at 10 am. It is at col. 957 of Hansard. I expressed my expectation that Committee stage would finish on that day, this Friday, and I believe it was a realistic assumption given the rate of progress of business last week. It is still my reasonable assumption that Committee will conclude this Friday, and it is at that stage that matters to do with other stages will be considered. That is the time to do it, not now.

My Lords, I find that easy to accept, but all I am asking is for the noble Baroness to confirm that she will advise the House to abide by the minimum intervals set out in the Companion. In the end, it is a yes or no question.

My Lords, this is a self-regulating House. The Companion has rules that set out the process in different circumstances. It is a matter that is considered at the end of Committee. That is not far away. I urge a little patience. I know that the House may soon become impatient because we have serious matters to address in the Children and Families Bill; I know that many noble Lords have attended the House for that.

I am not in a position to go further than I would in any other case. This is not a time for consideration of how the Bill will proceed after Committee has been concluded. It has not yet been concluded; my expectation is that it will on Friday.

My Lords, I would not intervene on this were it not for the fact that the government Chief Whip has been kind enough to quote me in relation to the Bill both at Second Reading, when she said that she was following my previous judgment about timings on Second Readings of Bills, and, as I have since discovered, although I did not have the pleasure of coming along to the House on Friday, in Committee, when she again cited previous Labour Chief Whips as the reason for her behaviour and making judgments in the way that she is.

If it ever was the case that she was following our precedent, she has now clearly decided to depart from precedents. That is something that she must make a decision about in the following respect. It is crystal clear that the normal gap between Committee and Report is 14 days. Although this is the normal gap, it would be particularly so in the case of a Bill with considerable constitutional implications. It seems that even if Committee were completed this Friday—when I, sadly, have to report to the House that I am again unable to attend, which is why I make no apologies for making this point now—14 days could not mean that the Committee stage was considered the following Friday, or on the two Fridays after that because they are in the Recess. The earliest I can see that it could be, in keeping with the normal conventions of this House, would be 28 February. If I have made my calculations incorrectly, given that they are precisely the calculations I would have made had I been in the Chief Whip’s position now, perhaps she will be good enough to correct me.

Oh!

I need to say this if the House does not mind. Your Lordships will be able to find that I am frequently prayed in aid. It seems now that I am not being prayed in aid and I wish to establish the distinction. The Chief Whip can possibly do two things. First, can we please have all the precedents in the Library of the House and, secondly, can she confirm now to the House that she is speaking on behalf of the Government, with the full assent of the government Deputy Chief Whip?

My Lords, my answer remains straightforward because I like to be a straightforward kind of person. I am giving the answer that any government Chief Whip would give at this stage. Matters of further stages are not considered until the end of Committee, which should conclude on Friday. I believe that that is a reasonable expectation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will give an undertaking that it is his expectation as well. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, refers to my praying him in aid. I do so with genuine respect, because I respect him as a government Chief Whip. I particularly recall that when he was government Chief Whip, he frequently called in the other Chief Whips, the Convenor and Members of the Cross Benches, to ensure that his guidance that at least three groups an hour should be considered in Committee was maintained.

I give a straightforward answer. Nothing further should be said by a government Chief Whip at this stage because it would be pre-empting any decision that may be made and making assumptions about Friday that it would be wrong to make. My expectation is that Committee will finish and I think the House has wearied of going around the same route. Again, there is only one answer, to which I will adhere because it is the right answer.

My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness what I hope is a fairly simple question. The Companion is quite clear in what it says. If it is for the convenience of the House, the intervals that are set out in the Companion can clearly be varied. One accepts that. It happens quite often with government Bills. You get a Motion down on the Order Paper to say that the intervals should be compressed.

Does the noble Baroness accept that in relation to this Bill, in order for the intervals to be compressed, there will have to be a Motion of this House, which will have to be passed?

My Lords, matters of procedure with regard to usual intervals are a matter to be discussed once one completes Committee. The Companion is absolutely clear. I can certainly see that the Clerk of the Parliaments is able to give firm advice, which may not be that which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, wishes to hear. I have given the only answer any government Chief Whip should and can give at this time. That is where it rests.

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

That it be an instruction to the Committee that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 2 to 4, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 5, Schedule 5, Clauses 6 to 37, Schedule 6, Clauses 38 to 44, Schedule 7, Clauses 45 to 48, Schedule 8, Clauses 49 to 74, Schedule 9, Clause 75, Schedule 10, Clauses 76 and 77, Schedule 11, Clauses 78 to 80, Schedule 12, Clause 81.

That the draft order laid before the House on 16 December 2013 be approved.

Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 28 January.

My Lords, I am very pleased to have tabled government amendments that introduce regulation-making powers to enable the Government to bring in standardised tobacco packaging, if such a decision is made.

I would like to acknowledge the support and positive responses that we have had to the Government’s action on tobacco and its packaging. We have seen support in both your Lordships’ House and in the other place. I have also had discussions with a number of noble Lords. I was pleased as well to see the welcoming comments from the public health community. I wrote to all noble Lords on 17 December explaining the key elements of this new clause. I will summarise the main provisions.

Amendment 57B will provide the Secretary of State for Health with the power to make regulations to standardise packaging of tobacco products, should such a decision be taken by the Government. The regulation-making powers would enable Ministers to regulate internal and external packaging and any other associated materials included with a tobacco product. This would include, for example, not just the outside and the inside of a cigarette pack but also the cellophane or other outer wrapper of a pack.

Ministers may also specify requirements for the products themselves, for example to regulate the appearance of, or branding on, individual cigarettes. The powers will extend to other forms of tobacco, such as hand-rolling tobacco. If standardised packaging is brought into place, we will think carefully about the type of tobacco to which the requirements should apply.

The amendment is clear that before deciding whether to introduce regulations, Ministers must consider that regulations may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to those under 18 or promote their health or welfare. This includes harms that do not appear until later in life because, as we know, the harm to the health of a smoker may not be immediate but may manifest after several years of addiction. Ministers may also consider whether regulations may contribute to reducing the risk of harm to those aged 18 or over, so we could also take into account whether standardised tobacco packaging might help adults who want to quit.

The amendment sets out the elements of the tobacco packaging that could be regulated—for example, the use of colour, branding or logos, the materials used and the texture, size and shape of the packaging. It also sets out the aspects of the tobacco product itself that could be regulated. The Government would not necessarily use all these powers, and if we proceed we will need to decide which aspects to include in any regulations. However, it is prudent to take a comprehensive approach now so that we are prepared for possible future developments and do not inadvertently create loopholes that could be exploited.

The requirements would apply only to the retail packaging of tobacco products, which means the packaging that will or is intended to be used when the product is sold to the public. Manufacturers, distributors and retailers would still be able to use branding such as logos and colours on packaging, provided that they were used only within the tobacco trade—for example, on boxes used for stock management in a warehouse that were not seen by the public.

These provisions will apply on a UK-wide basis, provided that legislative consent Motions are passed by the Parliament or Assemblies of the devolved Administrations. The Governments in Wales and Scotland have already obtained the necessary Motions, and Ministers in Northern Ireland are progressing this.

The Government have also tabled two technical amendments, one making the regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedures and the other extending the provisions to the whole of the United Kingdom. If regulations are made, they will be enforced by local authority trading standards as safety regulations under the Consumer Protection Act. In reviewing the detail of the amendment, we have identified a small gap that we wish to address. As it is currently drafted, Ministers would not be able to take enforcement action if none was taken by a local authority. As a precaution, and in line with other tobacco control legislation, we think it sensible for Ministers to be able to do this and so intend to make a technical amendment to the new clause at Third Reading to allow for this.

I wrote to noble Lords on 27 January about the Government’s intention to table amendments at Third Reading on the proxy purchasing of tobacco and the sale of nicotine products, primarily e-cigarettes, to children. I hope that both measures will be welcomed by your Lordships. I recognise that these amendments come at a late stage in the Bill’s passage, and I apologise for this. I want to be able to give noble Lords as much information as possible, so have invited all Peers to a meeting to discuss the amendments on 3 February and would be happy to meet on an individual basis as well, so that there is time to consider them before the debate at Third Reading.

I shall summarise these amendments. We intend to create a new offence of the proxy purchase of tobacco, which is buying tobacco on behalf of someone underage. Nicotine is highly addictive and it is wrong in principle for adults to be buying cigarettes on behalf of children. We need to close common routes of supply to children. We know that proxy purchasing is a common problem and we need to take clear action to tackle it. There was considerable support for tackling proxy purchasing when it was debated in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We have also listened carefully to the views of retailers and their representative organisations on this issue.

In addition, we have decided to table an amendment to enable us to make regulations to prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to people aged under 18. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine, a highly addictive substance, albeit in a safer way than smoked tobacco. We know that some young people in England are using these products and there is nothing stopping their sale to people under 18. Some in the public health community are very concerned that e-cigarettes could act as a gateway into smoking tobacco, and that their use and promotion can undermine our efforts to reshape the social norms around tobacco use. The revised European tobacco products directive, which achieved political agreement in December last year, covers e-cigarettes but does not include an age of sale restriction. We therefore want to do this domestically through the Bill.

The amendments will apply to England but we are in discussions with the Welsh Government regarding the possibility of extending the provisions to Wales, subject to the necessary legislative consent Motion being secured.

My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 61 and 57BB. I very much welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s change of heart as far as standardised packaging is concerned, and I certainly welcome the appointment of Sir Cyril Chantler to review the evidence. Sir Cyril is known to many of your Lordships and has made a significant contribution to the NHS. We can have complete confidence in his work.

My two amendments are designed to press the noble Earl on the comments he made in his final remarks and to encourage him to give the House an absolute assurance that should Sir Cyril Chantler conclude that the evidence is clear that standardised packaging is effective in reducing the risk of harm to children, the Government will speedily move to lay the regulations specified in his Amendment 57B. The noble Earl will know that at the moment line 3 of his amendment merely says,

“The Secretary of State may make regulations”.

I would have preferred to see the word “must”. To an extent, the noble Earl has already explained why it is to be “may”, but are there any circumstances where, on the assumption that Sir Cyril has concluded positively, the Government would not proceed to legislate?

Amendment 57BB concerns the proposal that it be an offence for any person who drives a vehicle to fail to prevent smoking in the vehicle where a child or children are present. I do this on the basis that the past 15 years have seen an impressive reduction in the amount of smoking in this country. Indeed, since the previous Government’s 1998 Smoking Kills action plan, smoking rates among children, who are, of course, the focus of this Bill, have fallen by more than half following a period of little progress lasting 20 years. I have little doubt that the ban on advertising was pivotal, but the fall was also due to a series of other concerned measures which included an increase in the age of sale, picture warnings on packs and an above-inflation increase in tobacco duty to reduce affordability.

I believe that we should continue the momentum and protect future generations from the dangers of smoking. That is why I welcome the Government’s agreement to legislate on standardised packages and the proposals that the Minister has outlined today in relation to proxy purchasing and the restriction of the sale of e-cigarettes to under 18 year-olds. However, the Government could do more by accepting my amendments and support the principle of a ban on the use of cigarettes when children are present in cars.

Children’s lungs are smaller and they have faster breathing rates, which makes them particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke, especially within the close confines of a car. Members of the public are protected by smoke-free legislation when in public transport and work vehicles. However, large numbers of children remain exposed to high concentrations of second-hand smoke when confined in family cars. Indeed, around one child in five reports being regularly exposed to second-hand smoke in cars, with catastrophic health consequences. Figures released by the British Lung Foundation show that around 185,000 children between the ages of 11 and 15 in England are exposed to potentially toxic concentrations of second-hand smoke in their family car every day or on most days.

We know that children exposed to second-hand smoke have a raised risk of lower respiratory infections, wheeze, asthma, middle ear infections and meningitis. Every year, exposure to second-hand smoke leads to an estimated 165,000 additional cases of these conditions among children. Many of those cases are serious, leading to an estimated 8,500 hospital admissions.

I was very surprised by research identified by the British Lung Foundation, which shows that a single cigarette smoked in a moving car with the window half open exposes a child in the centre of the back seat to around two-thirds as much second-hand smoke as in an average smoke-filled pub of days gone by. Levels increase to 11 times those of a smoky pub when the cigarette is smoked in a stationary car with the windows closed.

Some noble Lords will argue—as I heard the FOREST spokesman arguing this morning—that a car is a private space and that we should not legislate for what happens in such a space. However, there are more important principles than that, one of which is the need for child protection. Unlike most adults, children lack the freedom to decide when and how to travel, and they lack the authority most adults have to ask people not to smoke in their company. In those circumstances it is right for Parliament to step in to protect children.

I know that the Government argue that the most effective way to reduce smoking in cars carrying children is not through legislation. In his letter to us the noble Earl talked of two successful campaigns aimed at encouraging people to change their behaviour, and said that the evaluations are encouraging. From what I see—and they do not appear to be very robust evaluations—I am not aware that the scientific evidence of behavioural change has been published. Can he give an assurance that the evaluations spanned several months and not just immediately after the campaign? Can he also confirm that they took into account what was reported by children and not just adults? There is sometimes a discrepancy between what adults say they do and their behaviour as reported by children. Can he also confirm that the research includes actual measurement of behavioural change? I do not believe that marketing measures such as website visits effectively demonstrate behaviour change. Can the noble Earl also say why, if the Government are so keen on evaluation, Ministers forced NICE to abandon a project to give public health guidance for commissioners and providers on the development and implementation of policies on smoke-free homes, private cars and other vehicles?

The noble Earl will argue that this is best done through education. I understand that argument and I certainly accept that education programmes can achieve much. However, my contention is that we are now close to—

I have listened to the noble Lord very carefully and I cannot understand—perhaps he can explain it to me—why on earth he has joined the question of plain packaging with smoking in cars. They are two completely different issues. Is it expected that those of us who are concerned with both amendments now have to speak in one debate rather than two, on two particularly difficult and important matters?

My Lords, a number of amendments have been grouped together. Some deal with standardised packaging, others with the issue of smoking in cars. My answer to the noble Lord is that we will deal with both issues in one debate. The House always has to trade off having separate debates on individual amendments or pulling them together. I, for one, think it is better that we have a wider debate; but of course the noble Lord is entitled to speak on both issues. I hope that he will do so because he always has interesting insights—although I do not always agree with him on this particular one.

In finishing, I want to come back—and anticipating the noble Earl’s response—to the issues around awareness campaigns. As I said, of course they can achieve much, but sometimes legislation also needs to be brought into the picture.

The noble Lord said earlier in his speech that the principle of not legislating into private space and private family activity was one that should be breached on certain occasions. Could he explain why he is stopping at cars and not at living rooms in small flats, for example?

My Lords, they are two different issues. I certainly do not propose that we legislate in relation to people’s homes. The differences lie, first, in the scale of the health issue. As I have already indicated, the amount of second-hand smoke that a young person is likely to inhale in a car generally will be very much higher than in a person’s home. Secondly, by and large there are usually rooms in a person’s home that are not used for smoking, so there is more of an element of choice. I accept that this is a continuum, but I assure the noble Lord that it is not my intention to propose a ban on smoking in people’s homes. There are specific circumstances that make the banning of smoking in cars while children are present a particular health issue.

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Surely, my noble friend Lord Forsyth highlighted a very important point. He talked about small flats; there are small flats where there may be several children and only one living room. What is the logic of the noble Lord’s argument in that case? Personally, I do not think we should invade private space; that is my position and I may seek to defend it later. There is no logical difference between a single child in a car and four children in the living room of a small flat.

My Lords, I do not accept that. Clearly, in relation to a child travelling in a car we are going to debate where the balance lies: whether a car should be regarded as a private entity in which the state ought not to intervene, or whether noble Lords consider that a child’s health becomes the paramount concern.

A private car is rather different from a home; the health damage to a young person inhaling smoke in a car generally will be much greater than in a person’s home. I do not want to repeat the point that I have already made to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, although I may be tempting him to intervene again. However, within a home there are likely to be opportunities for young people to avoid the smoke-filled parts of that home.

I do not want to prolong the noble Lord’s speech; I am not making a debating point, but am genuinely interested in his logic. A child in a car—which I accept is a very confined space—will probably be in a car for a short journey. If children are in a living room, they are there all evening. Perhaps I should declare an interest; my late mother used to smoke 60 cigarettes a day. That is one of the reasons why I would never touch a cigarette. Surely, if a child is in a small living room in which continuous smoking is going on, that seems to me, without any evidence, to be as great a health hazard as being in a car. I am not advocating invading private space, but where is the evidence that supports what the noble Lord is saying—namely, that it is a much worse hazard being in a car, probably on a short journey, than being in a living room where smoking goes on all day?

My Lords, I do not have evidence on the length of the average car journey, though clearly short and long distances may be travelled during which smoking may take place. I suspect that we can argue that until the cows come home. However, I come back to the core argument that in a confined space, such as a car, a child is likely to be more damaged through inhaling second-hand smoke than they are in a person’s home. That is the reason for making a distinction between legislation affecting an individual vehicle and legislation affecting a person’s home.

I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. Does “private vehicle” in the amendment include a motor boat? One drives a motor boat.

No, my Lords, I do not think that that is covered in my amendment—although, of course, it is open to the noble and learned Lord to propose an amendment to increase the scope of the measure. I would give such an amendment all due consideration.

I refer noble Lords to an inquiry into smoking in private vehicles by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, carried out in 2011, which concluded that the evidence from smoke-free public places was that legislation would be necessary to reduce exposure to cigarette smoke in cars. That is the basic case I am making. At this stage, I am asking noble Lords to support the principle of a ban. If my amendment were accepted, I would be very happy to work on a cross-party basis to consult on the type of offence that should be put in place. I have not gone as far as the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, and his colleagues in terms of specifying the offence because I think that needs further consideration and discussion.

We would not be alone in legislating to protect children from the damage of smoking in cars. Seven other countries already do so, including four US states, 10 of the 13 Canadian provinces and all but one jurisdiction in Australia. As far as the public are concerned, a YouGov poll in 2011 found that 78% of adults in Great Britain agree that smoking should be banned in cars carrying children younger than 18 years of age. Just as significantly, perhaps, a British Lung Foundation survey in 2011 found that 86% of children want action to be taken to protect them from cigarette smoke in cars. I think that we should listen to the voice of children in this respect. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment that I shall propose later.

In concluding, I should have pointed out to noble Lords my health interests in the register, including being chairman of a foundation trust, a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections and president of GS1.

My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is compelling but fails to acknowledge the impact of second-hand smoke on children in confined spaces or in the home, as we heard in an earlier debate. For this to happen, the public, particularly parents, have to be educated about the harm that second-hand smoke can do to young children’s lungs. The noble Lord identified some of those problems. That is why I believe that education and behavioural change are important.

As a doctor, I recognise the damage that second-hand smoke can cause, and in particular the long-lasting effect it can have on the lungs of young children. Just this Sunday, I was present at the birth of my first grandson out of six grandchildren.

Hear, hear.

I greeted that event with jubilation. I would not want that grandson to go through life having his young lungs damaged by cigarette smoke. I am concerned about that. Cigarette smoke contains a cocktail of carcinogens: arsenic, cadmium, formaldehyde, benzene and in particular the fine particulate matter that comes out of cigarettes when they are smoked. This can cause long-term damage and illnesses.

My Amendment 62, which mimics the Private Member’s Bill that I took through this House in 2012, serves to make parents and the public aware of the risks and to provide educational programmes to rehabilitate them through smoke-free driving awareness courses. I believe strongly in education and behavioural change, rather than the imposition of punitive measures. It is about providing incentives to change behaviour, not dissimilar from the police driving course which noble Lords may have been offered if they have ever been unfortunate enough to have been caught speeding. There may be some in this Chamber who can endorse the benefits of that.

In that sense, my amendment is exploratory, seeking to obtain answers from the Government on two specific issues. The first is education to change behaviour, as I explained. Here, I applaud the Government for their successful advertising campaign launched last year, with its graphic films of children assaulted by smoke in the back of cars while parents in the front are oblivious to the damage being done behind them, probably because the driver has a window open and therefore assumes that all the smoke is going outside. I should like assurances from my noble friend that the Government will repeat that successful campaign and undertake an extensive evaluation of its effects. We must know that behavioural change is happening.

I am sure that the Government have taken note of the Welsh Government’s Fresh Start Wales campaign. I made reference to this at Second Reading and asked whether the Government would again consider mirroring what the Welsh Government were doing. That Government are due to report in the spring on the result of their campaign, following which they reserve the right to introduce legislation if no improvement in behaviour is apparent.

My second question to the Government relates to a national consultation, which should involve the public, the profession and the retailers, to decide whether legislation or non-legislative measures are required to protect children from smoking in confined spaces. I am pleased that my noble friend has asked Sir Cyril Chantler to undertake an independent review of the public health evidence on standardised tobacco packaging and its effects on public health. Might he perhaps also consider asking Sir Cyril, at the conclusion of this review in March, to undertake a similar review of the effects of second-hand smoke on children travelling in cars? There is plenty of evidence out there but what is now needed is the clinical evidence that shows that smoke causes long-term damage. We know that the long-term sequelae from smoking in adults are quite severe. If we can demonstrate that they start at a very early age, that will be very good evidence for taking action now rather than later.

My amendment provides the Government with measures to change behaviour. They may have started with good intentions—and I am sure that they have. Standardised tobacco packaging will reduce the risk of smoking and its damaging effects on children. I hope that the Government will take the view that legislation, although difficult, may need to be considered. However, for legislation to work, I understand that it must be proportionate and enforceable. In this respect, my amendment is probably defective, as it will be difficult to police and to enforce, much in the same way, I suppose, as is the case with the mobile phone offence, which is legislated for but is difficult to police.

I hope that my noble friend will provide me with some of the concessions that I seek. I do not think that they are small ones but they will help to ensure that over the next year, and certainly over the next three months when we hear the results of the Welsh review and Sir Cyril Chantler’s review—and it is to be hoped that he will extend that further—we will have more information on which to make a decision as to whether we should introduce legislation or non-legislative measures.

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 60 and 62. I will first address Amendment 60 on standardised packaging and move on to the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, has spoken so eloquently. I hope to avoid covering the ground that has already been covered. In terms of standardised packaging, those of us who contributed in Committee to a very powerful and widely supported debate across the House are grateful to the Government for having done exactly what they said they would; namely, take the proposal away and look at it. They have returned with an elegant amendment. Before finally legislating, it seems wise to have an independent review by Sir Cyril Chantler.

This is definitely a public health and a child protection measure. I should like to address that briefly but not repeat what was said previously. The Minister has already said how many children start smoking before the age of 18. That figure is particularly high in looked-after children, where about one-third report that they are current smokers. However, when looking at children in residential care, the figure rises to more than two-thirds. There is a real problem with very vulnerable children.

In 1999, the tobacco industry’s magazine, World Tobacco, said that,

“if your brand can no longer shout from billboards … it can at least court smokers from wherever it is placed by those already wedded to it”.

The problem is that we know that tobacco is a highly addictive substance, and that the products of tobacco damage health and do not have any positive benefit. Recently, a study published in the European Journal of Public Health has shown that,

“the removal of brand imagery from tobacco packaging reduces the appeal of tobacco products, including perceptions of brand attractiveness and smooth taste and perceptions of lower tar or lower health risk”.

Those perceptions are an illusion. The study was in the UK, and I am sure that it will be considered in the evidence review and that Sir Cyril will be an independent reviewer in every sense.

It is worrying that it has taken us so long to get to this point. Like other noble Lords who have put their name to this amendment, I sincerely believe that the day will come when we will see standardised packaging. That day is not far off, because research study after research study reports are reinforcing that standardised packaging is making cigarette packs less attractive to young people.

I have had discussions with Her Majesty’s Customs as regards illicit trade. It pointed out that it is not that difficult to detect counterfeit standardised packaging, just as it is not difficult to detect other counterfeit packaging. Indeed, the cover marks, number codes and security marks are the clue, rather than the bald, external appearance of the pack. It also is well aware that tobacco firms have been producing and exporting cigarettes far in excess of any known demand in a stated target market abroad, knowing that this excess production will be smuggled back into the UK. The tobacco companies appear to have been complicit with what has been termed the illicit trade. It seems logical that this move and the government amendment are because of child protection issues and the importance of preventing children from starting to smoke.

On tobacco and smoking in cars, the British Lung Foundation study, which was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, included another set of figures which I hope the House will consider. One has to remember that the children responding in the study were of an age at which they could answer competently. When asked about being a passenger in a car, 31% said that they had asked someone to stop smoking but 34% said that they had not dared to ask because they were too frightened or too embarrassed. The child in the back seat, belted in, is effectively imprisoned in the vehicle for their own safety while travelling. They are stuck there. They have no control over what the adults do, and it is worth remembering that they do not feel able to do anything about it either. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, if they are in a house, they can move to another room or another area and the volume of space is much greater than in a car.

Would this amendment apply to open-topped cars such as sports cars where children would presumably not be at risk?

It is worth pointing out that the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, has already indicated that he will not press his amendment, which is quite specific, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, simply addresses the ability to bring forward regulation but does not specify what those regulations should be. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that his question is an important one for us to have at a later stage, in the event that the House decides to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

My last point relates to my home country of Wales, where I am delighted that the problem of tobacco consumption has been taken seriously. The results of the Welsh campaign will be published fairly soon. But it is with regret that I have to note that at the end of the first year of the campaign, 22% of smokers still pointed out that smoking was allowed in their car at any time. There is a perception that if it is allowed it is okay. I am concerned over the results that will come forward from the education campaign, although I fully support the campaign itself.

I remind the House that we had a parallel debate over seat belts in cars. Yet the seat-belt wearing rate increased in the UK from 25% before legislation to 91% after legislation. That was introduced alongside awareness campaigns. We cannot have legislation without a large education and awareness-raising campaign. The efficacy relates to the education and awareness-raising campaign rather than to any kind of punitive measures that go alongside it.

I added my name to Amendments 57BB, 60 and 62 and will speak briefly to those, but I start by congratulating the noble Earl on bringing forward his Amendment 57B and for overseeing a significant change in government policy on the subject of standard packaging. Like many of your Lordships, I was heartened when I heard the then Public Health Minister, Anna Soubry, around a year ago saying that the Government were minded to go down the standard packs route and then bitterly disappointed last summer when the plans were suddenly dropped. Various conspiracy theories were propounded at the time and I will not go into those now, but it looked as if the issue was dead, at least for the foreseeable future.

At that point, it seemed sensible to look at whether there was any possibility of adding a standard packaging amendment to another Bill, which might not immediately present itself as the most appropriate, in order to be able to give the House the opportunity to debate the issue and come to a view on it. With the help of staff in the Public Bill Office—about whom I cannot speak highly enough, as their help was invaluable in framing our original amendment in Committee and the subsequent amendment that we tabled for today—we were able to bring the issue to the Committee and approach the issue in an entirely cross-party and non-party way. The amendment that we put together was signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and myself.

Amendment 60 is an improved version of what we had in Committee, but the Government’s amendment today is a great improvement on that as well. I congratulate them on picking up a number of the points that were defective in ours and coming forward with one that, I think, is very effective. Tobacco control should not be a party-political matter; it should be the common concern of everyone who cares about the health and the well-being of the public. As we have heard from the Minister, smoking-related disease still kills more than 100,000 people across the UK and is by far the most common form of preventable death—it accounts for more premature deaths than the next six most common causes put together.

As most smokers start as teenagers, the teenage market is the one which the tobacco companies are anxious to promote, which it is the responsibility of all of us to try to prevent. Two-thirds of existing smokers report that they started before their 18th birthday, and around two in five before they were 16. The younger the age at which they start, the greater the harm is likely to be, because the early uptake of the habit is associated with subsequent heavier smoking—of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, experienced with his mother and her 60-a-day habit—high levels of dependency, a lower chance of quitting and a higher chance of death from smoking-related disease.

For the tobacco industry to keep its market, it is necessary for it to recruit new smokers every year. That is because older smokers die or quit—or indeed lose their lives prematurely as a result of their habit. Since most smokers start when they are young, it follows that, for the industry, young people are the most important target group of potential new consumers.

We know what the tobacco industry would do in this country to promote its products if the law and the authorities allowed. Indeed, we probably know more about the commercial strategies of the tobacco industry than about any other major industry in the world, in large part because so many previously confidential documents were made public as a result of the US master settlement agreement with the industry in 1998.

Given the restrictive legislation around marketing and advertising tobacco in the UK, the industry is left with few options to promote its products. Of these, the most important is now packaging. Packs can be used to market and advertise, to create brand identities and to help present an image of smoking that may indeed seem “cool” to a curious teenager. There are many diversionary arguments advanced by the tobacco industry and the front groups it funds so lavishly about why we should not proceed with standardised packaging. So we hear tobacco industry claims that the UK is being flooded with illicit tobacco and that standard packs will make the problem worse. But the level of illicit trade has fallen sharply since it peaked back in 2000, and the security features on existing packs will also be present on standard ones. Both our amendment and the Government’s would allow the Secretary of State to specify packaging requirements that would enhance and not reduce product security, and make smuggling and counterfeiting more difficult.

However, the tobacco industry’s real, core argument is quite simple. It is advancing the proposition that its claimed so-called “intellectual property rights” trump the requirements of public health—or to put it more sharply, that its right to design products designed to get children addicted is more important than the children’s right to be protected from that addiction and the health damage that it causes. I believe that the overwhelming majority of your Lordships, and indeed Members of the other place, reject the tobacco industry’s arguments and want to make cigarettes as unattractive to children and young people as possible. So, as I said at the beginning, I warmly welcome the Government’s amendment. I congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward and on his announcement regarding proxy purchasing of tobacco products by adults for young people, and the regulation of e-cigarettes, about which we shall hear more at Third Reading.

I am not going to speak about smoking in cars because the speeches on that subject by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro—with whom I agree, and whom I congratulate on his perseverance in taking a Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House on this subject—and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have covered the main points. However, I strongly commend the points that my noble friend Lord Hunt made about the desirability of moving towards a smoke-free atmosphere in cars where children are trapped and subject to appalling levels of second-hand smoke.

I am very happy indeed to support the government amendment. We shall not be pressing our own amendment on standard packaging, but I shall be supporting my noble friend.

My Lords, my name is also attached to Amendments 60 and 62. I will speak briefly to them and try not to repeat some of the arguments we have already heard. I will also say how much I welcome government Amendment 57B. In Grand Committee, the strength of feeling across your Lordships’ House on the issue of standardised packaging of cigarettes was crystal clear, and the Government are to be strongly applauded for responding with their own amendment, which is very well founded and very persuasive. I, too, look forward to Third Reading, when the Government will introduce additional measures around proxy purchasing and e-cigarettes.

At the beginning of these debates, some noble Lords raised questions about the logic of including an amendment on the packaging of cigarettes in a Bill whose stated remit is children and families. To my mind, the relevance is unequivocal—this is the very nub of the issue, which is why we are discussing it today. Preventing the uptake of smoking among the young is primarily an issue of child protection. As we have already heard today, each year around 200,000 under-16s take up smoking. For some, it is the start of a lifetime of addiction which will result in debilitating health conditions and, for some in turn, premature mortality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, many of those children will come from particularly deprived backgrounds. We have already heard about children in care and I would draw your Lordships’ attention to teenage mothers, who, according to an ONS survey, are six times more likely than the average mother to smoke throughout their pregnancy, to the detriment of both their own and their baby’s health.

Standardised packaging, bearing clear anti-smoking messages, is the first key step to reducing the attractiveness of this lethal habit to children and young people. As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, we should be absolutely clear that tobacco packaging and branding is not innocuous. It is undoubtedly, at the moment, targeted at the young—the industry documents released in the USA about this were very telling indeed, although I do not intend to repeat the details of that. Equally critically, the weight of evidence is mounting that standardised packaging does work to reduce the incidence of smoking. I was very persuaded by the Department of Health’s systematic literature review, which found that, compared to current cigarette packs, standardised packs are less attractive to young people, improve the effectiveness of health warnings and reduce the mistaken belief that some brands are safer than others. I eagerly look forward to the outcome of the review by Sir Cyril Chantler, who will look at all of this in the round. I will be very surprised if he does not come out supporting the various literature reviews that we have already seen.

Very recently, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I had the privilege of meeting with Nicola Roxon, the former Australian Minister for Health who was instrumental in the implementation of standardised packaging there. I was very impressed as she explained to us the impact that standardised packaging was having as part of—this is absolutely critical—a wider anti-smoking strategy in no longer portraying smoking as cool and glamorous or cigarettes as a “must have” accessory, but instead portraying a much less desirable, and far more truthful, image.

It is revealing that hard data are already coming from Australia—something that I am sure Sir Cyril will want to look at. A study in Victoria, Australia, published in the British Medical Journal, concluded that when consuming cigarettes from the new packs, smokers are 66% more likely to think their cigarettes were of poorer quality, 70% more likely to say they found them less satisfying and 81% more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day. Why is that? Because standardised packs carry powerful health messages that expose the reality of smoking. Frankly, having seen some of the images, it would take a very strong stomach or tightly closed eyes to be unaffected by them.

My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate. Before I start, I shall not miss this opportunity to chide both Front Benches. I have spoken about this in the past and tabled many amendments on different health Bills. The last time that I tried was with the Labour Government. The Minister taking the legislation through was not the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I did not succeed on that day in getting my amendment through. Obviously, the government Benches were not going to support me, but I did have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who is not in her place and who was the Front Bench health spokesman of the Liberal Democrats. I did not have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at the time—hence I did not succeed.

However, I am delighted to congratulate the Government on having, in a step-wise fashion—and as a result of efforts made by many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—reached a place where they can bring forward an amendment to address the public health evidence that plain packaging will make a difference to the uptake of smoking of cigarettes, in particular by children. I am particularly delighted that the government amendment includes not just external packaging but internal packaging. I remember my days as a young medical student, when one would rush out and buy Sobranie Black Russians because the cigarettes were wrapped in nice black paper with gold tips. At the same time, we would also buy a packet of Sobranie Cocktails to impress the ladies we were taking to dances because they came in multicoloured wrappers—so packaging makes a difference, even to a young medical student.

I am therefore delighted to see the Government’s amendment. I have no doubt whatever that Sir Cyril Chantler, whom I know well as a friend, will be absolutely meticulous in looking at the evidence. I am convinced by the evidence and I hope that he will be, too.

Let me turn to the issue of smoking in cars when children are present. I have taken the trouble to look at all the evidence about second-hand smoke in confined spaces. I have looked at the public health evidence from the Surgeon General of the United States, from Australia, from New Zealand and from Great Britain—both epidemiological and observational studies. The findings are quite interesting: undoubtedly, second-hand smoking is harmful. It is harmful to children—more so because their metabolic rate is higher, so any injurious substances that they inhale are bound to have a greater effect. It is harmful also to adults, particularly older people who have respiratory conditions or cardiac disease. It is harmful also to pregnant mothers who do not smoke, among whom there is a higher rate of still-births and infant deaths because of the epigenetic effects of the inhalation of injurious substances during their pregnancy. It is worse if they smoke during their pregnancy, but even if they do not, the effect of second-hand smoke is harmful to them.

There is further evidence, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, that some of the injurious substances in tobacco smoke persist on certain surfaces for a very long time. So this issue is not just about smoking when there are children in a car; it is also about making that car harmful to children because injurious substances persist. That also applies to any confined space. So the question is: what legislation will have the greatest public health effect? Will it be legislation that stops smoking in cars when children are present? Will it be legislation that bans smoking completely? Of course, it will be the latter, but that will not be possible—such legislation is too draconian. Could it be a good educational programme that teaches people that if you smoke in front of children, whether in a confined space or in an open space, or if children just see you smoking, that is wrong and harmful?

I was accused by my wife of smoking 20 to 40 cigarettes a day. All young doctors smoked in those days; it was the thing to do. Not all doctors smoke these days. When I saw my daughter, who was 11 months old, watch me lighting a cigarette, it was the day that I stopped smoking. She might object to me giving her age, but she is past 40—just, and she is a cancer doctor, so she understands these things. I felt that her observing me lighting a cigarette would be as harmful to her as her taking up smoking. The issue that we should therefore debate is what would have the greatest public health gain, whether for children—more importantly for children—or for young adults, older people and pregnant mothers.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, seeks more targeted education and some consultation to find the evidence. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, seeks to have on the statute that a regulation must be brought in. I was talking about regulations pertaining only to cars. The evidence that I have looked at would suggest that we should ban smoking in cars completely, because that way there would be no possibility of anybody smoking in cars and leaving injurious substances behind that may harm children. That may or may not be a better deal than that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but my plea is, “Let us look at what would be the best public health gain”.

My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Howe on his amendment. I wholly support what he said about packaging and about appointing Sir Cyril Chantler. I have the good fortune of knowing Sir Cyril. Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who spoke a moment ago, I believe that he is a man of impeccable integrity and great knowledge and I am sure my noble friend could not have chosen anyone better. I do not want to dilate on that subject.

I have smoked two cigarettes in my life. I was 15 years old; they were Woodbines and it was behind the bike shed. They were thoroughly disgusting—I have never smoked since and I never want to smoke. I am afraid I cannot say the same for my wife, although I think she has cut down a bit; she certainly does not smoke in my presence, either in the car or at home.

It is beyond doubt that we can and should accept everything that has been said about the dangers of smoking by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend—my friend in every way—Lord Ribeiro. We should do everything possible to deter people from smoking. I am sure I speak on behalf of everyone in congratulating my noble friend Lord Ribeiro on the birth of his grandson. I would be entirely in favour of the parents of the grandson of the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, being sent a note about the dangers of smoking. I would be entirely in favour of the parents of every newborn child being specifically warned about the dangers to children of passive smoking. I would be entirely in favour of increasing the taxes on cigarettes. I would be in favour of extra insurance premiums for people who smoke. I would not object to there being a column about smoking on car insurance forms, and, if you tick the smoking box, there being an extra premium that goes directly to the battle against smoking. I would be entirely in favour of all those things or permutations of them. There are many that we could all think of.

However, when it comes to the question of smoking in motor vehicles, my noble friend Lord Ribeiro introduced his amendment skilfully, tactfully and undogmatically. I have no argument with that, but I believe that his essential premise is wrong. To advocate any law that is going to be exceptionally difficult to police and enforce, and moreover brings the state into the private space of individuals, is to be deplored.

My Lords, can I just ask the noble Lord about the whole of the child protection law as it stands at the moment, which is in every private space to protect children from neglect, emotional harm and, indeed, abuse within their own homes.

I believe that this is actual harm. It is extraordinarily difficult to police every home, as we know from what happens to social workers and social services every time something occurs in a local authority because the policing has been so difficult. That does not stop us having legislation to ensure that in private space, the child is protected from harm. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just how harmful it is. Were it left to me, I would legislate in the private space of the home. Having been brought up in a two-bedroom house on a working class estate, I think that my lungs have suffered. I am just pointing out that we legislate for private space, because that point has been raised on a number of occasions.

My Lords, that was really a speech rather than an intervention. There is all the difference in the world between the physical or sexual exploitation of a child and smoking. Smoking is not an illegal activity. Some of us may wish that it were, but it is not. It would be wholly impractical, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, made plain in his remarks, for us to outlaw smoking. That is a road down which we cannot go. Therefore, to invade the private space of individuals who are committing a perfectly legal act seems to me a step too far. That is why we should look at other means. I have mentioned taxation and increased insurance premiums; there are many routes down which we could go to make it more and more difficult for adults to smoke in the presence of children.

Most importantly, it is up to experienced people such as the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Ribeiro to ensure that there is a well informed education campaign so that no one is in any doubt that smoking is a harmful activity and that inhaling passive smoke is dangerous and injurious to health. I am with the noble Baroness and my noble friend on that all the way, but the invasion of personal space—prosecuting people for what is a legal activity—seems a step too far. That is why, while I welcome and applaud the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lord Howe—if there were a Division, although I am sure that there will not be, I would enthusiastically go into the Lobby to support him—I cannot support something that I believe is a step too far in the invasion of personal space, which would also be monumentally difficult to enforce. We have to bear in mind the responsibilities of the police, whose job it would be to stop the cars and ask the questions.

Does not the noble Lord accept that, although there may be difficulties of enforcement, the very fact of passing a law combined with the kind of educational programme that he supports is likely to have a positive effect?

No, frankly, I do not. I respect the noble Lord—he knows that—and we agree on many issues, but we will have to disagree on this one. I think it would make the job of the police even more difficult than it is at the moment and endanger what popularity they have with many law-abiding citizens. It is a burden that we should not place on them.

I repeat: let us do everything we can to educate; let us do everything we can to deter; let us have the plain packaging; let us listen very carefully to what Sir Cyril says in his report; but let us not take the ultimate step that the noble Lord advocates.

My Lords, I shall be brief. I congratulate the Government on having listened about packaging of tobacco. I also support the amendments to protect children from people smoking in vehicles. Apart from damaging children’s health, smoke gets in their eyes and is very unpleasant. There are also small babies and pregnant mothers whose unborn children need protecting. I hope that the noble Earl can give the House some assurance that there will be regulations that will protect these vulnerable babies and children. I would add that people with asthma, and all chest problems, should also be protected because this is really dangerous for their health.

My Lords, I ask noble Lords to consider the following points as we debate these amendments. More than 800 children visit their doctors every day due to the serious effect of second-hand smoke exposure, according to research published by the Royal College of Physicians. The survey also highlights that 65% of parents who smoke admit to doing so in the car with their children and other people’s children present, and that 75% of smoking parents were shocked to hear that second-hand smoke affects the health of so many children. If they had not been asked that question they would not have been aware of this, so they really need to be educated.

Asthma UK has stated quite clearly that second-hand smoke is a major trigger for asthma attacks, making the symptoms even worse. It believes that if we take action to reduce second-hand smoke, we will be a step closer to a world where asthma begins to be no longer a daily struggle, or where no one dies from that condition. The children’s charity Sparks—I declare an interest as one of its trustees—spends millions of pounds on research to eradicate asthma among children, a condition which is growing daily. Sparks dearly believes that if we take action to protect children from second-hand smoke, that will be helpful to children. So let us give careful consideration to what action we should take to protect children from the result of second-hand smoking and act robustly in the best interests of the child.

My Lords, I very much support the aims behind Amendment 62, and indeed an awful lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about doing something really firm to prevent smoking in cars when children are present. This amendment certainly seems a sensible and straightforward way to ensure that all children have a healthy start in life, without the harmful influence of tobacco smoke in their young and still developing bodies.

We have heard that opponents of the proposed ban on smoking in cars have argued that legislation on activity in private vehicles would constitute an invasion of people’s private space. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, even said in Committee on this amendment that although smoke-free public spaces legislation has proven to be extremely successful in reducing people’s exposure to second-hand smoke,

“it does not automatically follow from that that it is right to extend the scope of legislation to cover private cars”.—[Official Report, 20/11/13; col. GC 412.]

However, in the case of child protection, this may not be such a stretch of the imagination. My noble friend Lady Howarth absolutely spelt out that the issue of child protection is a perfect example of this distinction playing a secondary consideration to the well-being and health of the child. Children are protected by the law from abuse and neglect wherever they are.

I have heard about the impact that tobacco smoke has on the health of children. We have all heard about it. Their bodies are still developing and they are much more likely to be affected by smoke-related illnesses than their adult counterparts. A Royal College of Physicians report estimated that smoking around children causes more than 20,000 cases of lower respiratory tract infection; 120,00 cases of middle-ear disease; at least 22,000 new cases of wheeze and asthma; 200 cases of bacterial meningitis; and 40 sudden infant deaths—one in five of all SIDs.

We know that only a proportion of people continue to smoke around children, so the level of illness in children due to second-hand smoke is staggering. It would be difficult to impose such a law on the home—we have heard this already—but we can do something about children's exposure to smoke in cars. We also know that tobacco smoke pollution levels in vehicles can be 23 times greater than in a house. I am talking, of course, about a car with a roof on it. Moreover, when a child is strapped into the car, they do not have a choice about leaving the room—a choice possible, at least for some children, in their home—when adults are smoking.

More needs to be done to protect children from avoidable harm, whether this harm takes place in private vehicles or in public spaces. Moreover, there is also a precedent for banning smoking in vehicles. Cars are already recognised as potentially dangerous spaces for second-hand smoke exposure due to their confined spaces. This is why smoking has already been banned in all vehicles used for the purpose of work in the UK since July 2007. It is surely astounding that we cannot do something effective to protect children as well. There are no restrictions on smoking in private vehicles with children present. I believe fully that this needs to change.

My Lords, the greater majority of people live in smoke-free homes, not because of the law, but because it is no longer acceptable to smoke in the home of a non-smoker. Equally, most smokers no longer allow smoking in their cars when children are present.

It is absolutely correct to protect children from second-hand smoke, but it is wrong to think that it is children who are most at risk from its catastrophic consequences. While it is estimated that there are 1 million children with asthma, adults with asthma outnumber them by four to one—and I am one of them. While open windows in cars have been mentioned by a couple of noble Lords, I would have an asthma attack on the motorway with my windows closed if there was someone smoking a cigar at some time somewhere ahead. Also, the greatest risk from second-hand smoke is to those with a pre-existing heart condition.

The objective of Amendment 57BB, therefore, must not be simply to protect children but rather to further change public attitudes and behaviour so that people no longer smoke in cars carrying any passenger. Just as the law focused on workplaces had a great effect on smoking at home, it is hoped that this amendment will reduce the harm caused to non-smokers of all ages.

As it is the noble Earl’s birthday today, I hope he will accept this amendment.

My Lords, I want to make it clear that I have no interest to declare on this Bill. I have never smoked and I have no investments in any tobacco company. However, it remains a fact that 20% of our nation smokes. That 20% expects someone at least to speak up for the implications for it of any legislation that we in Parliament propose.

Perhaps surprisingly, the first dimension of the amendment that I draw to the House’s attention is a constitutional one. I think many noble Lords will know that in another place I was Chairman of Ways and Means, and there one had to be very careful about constitutional innovations—I shall put it like that. This amendment is a constitutional innovation. Leaving aside the detail about the standard packaging for a moment, the broad framework of the amendment defines what the regulation is to be and says that the Secretary of State, not Parliament down at the other end, may make those regulations. We need to be quite clear about this. The amendment goes on to say, in new subsection (12):

“The Secretary of State must”—

not “may”—

“obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers … the consent of the Welsh Ministers”,

and,

“the consent of the Office of the First Minister … in Northern Ireland”.

What it does not say is that the regulation needs to receive the consent of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may be very comfortable with that in relation to standard packaging, but I wonder whether they would be equally comfortable if it directly involved other packaged goods industries. One has in mind the sugar industry, the alcohol industry and the fizzy drinks industry, and there must be myriad others that interest groups outside would lobby to have contained or indeed restricted. I just put that on the record because it is a novel dimension to our constitution that I would like to have studied in a little more detail rather than have it sneaked in, if I may put it that way, in this Bill.

Does the noble Lord realise that if the Secretary of State makes regulations, they will have to be done by statutory instrument? Statutory instruments are either affirmative or negative. In the case of a negative instrument we can pray against it, and in the case of an affirmative one we can debate it. Both Houses will have the opportunity to consider them.

While it is true that there is an opportunity to debate a statutory instrument after the Statutory Instruments Committee has looked at it and decided that it wishes to do so, nevertheless—

My Lords—

Let me just finish. Your Lordships know full well that there is absolutely no way that we may amend any statutory instrument; we either take it as it comes or we reject it. I am just pointing out that this is a change to the procedures of this House that we have had hereto. The noble Countess may disagree with me—it happens quite often in law that people disagree—but I have had advice. Perhaps she also had advice on her intervention. I leave that aspect; it is on the record now.

I turn specifically to the amendment and its contents. There are three aspects of it that I draw to the House’s attention. First is the matter of intellectual property rights. Such rights are a key dimension to any industry, particularly in the packaged goods world, where I had the privilege to work for some 20 years. Those rights are something that most of those industries have had for centuries. They distinguish between one product and another from a competitor; importantly, they produce a quality assurance for those who buy the product; and they provide for the businesses to have valuable assets that they can produce innovations from and so create competition. Those are assets to those companies that should not lightly be cast aside. There may be particular reasons why some of them should be confined at certain times in certain circumstances, but personally I think that society needs to tread very carefully.

In relation to this amendment, there is the legal situation. I am not a lawyer, but I have had a look and sought advice on the exact legal situation as matters stand at the moment. As I understand it, there are four constraints on Her Majesty’s Government. When my noble friend winds up, I hope he will be able to reassure me that all these issues have been dealt with. Otherwise, the Government will have to deal with them before this part of the Bill becomes law.

The constraints are: first, Article 34 of TFEU covering the free movement of tobacco products; secondly, Article 13(1) of the tobacco products directive which affects the free movement of goods; thirdly, it would produce a disproportionate and unjustified interference with a company’s property rights, which are specifically protected in the UK by, surprisingly, the Human Rights Act 1998 and in the EU by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and would cut across the UK’s obligations made under international law, several World Trade Organisation agreements, particularly the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, and other agreements. Finally, I understand that fewer than five countries are taking action against the EU in relation to what this amendment addresses. My first question to my noble friend is, am I right in what I have been advised is the situation? If I am right, what action are the Government taking successfully to overcome what I see as considerable hurdles ahead?

I am not going to go through the whole of standardised packaging because this is not the appropriate time to do that but, in the round, as far as I see it as a marketing man looking at the evidence, there is as yet no real hard evidence. There are lots of assumptions and attitudes from surveys, but there is no hard evidence that consumption of cigarettes will fall if we have standardised packaging. Consumption is already falling without standardised packaging, and I am sure it will continue to fall in future, but I do not see any hard evidence that that will come.

What I do see is that it will be very bad for CTNs—confectionary, tobacco and newspaper shops—of which there are well over 100,000 in the United Kingdom. About 20% to 25% of their business is dependent on tobacco products. It is exceedingly bad news for them. It is pretty bad news for the 60,000-odd people employed in the industry. It is exceedingly good news for the counterfeiters, and we see increasing evidence of the number of counterfeit products. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head—these are facts. We have facts on the importation of counterfeit products.

The figures on counterfeiting reached a peak in 2000 and have been steadily falling year by year. If the noble Lord had listened to my remarks earlier, he would have heard that I said that there is no reason why standard packaging should not be at least as secure as existing branded packs.

My Lords, I would like to ask a short question.

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are on Report. Noble Lords have one opportunity to speak. They can intervene to ask a question to seek elucidation from somebody who is speaking. Providing that is what noble Lords do, those interventions are all right. They must seek clarification from, or ask a question of, the person who is speaking.

I reassure the House that I do not intend to speak for very much longer. I respond to the noble Lord opposite by pointing out that the latest figures for Australia indicate an increase of 13% following the introduction of standardised packaging for counterfeit and illegal cigarettes. Therefore the most current evidence—perhaps he can get up to date—is a little more relevant. To finish on standardised packaging, if 20% of our nation smokes legitimately, and we have a legitimate industry, do people not have a right to choose between one pack which they like the look of as opposed to another pack?

I will finish with Australia. I, too, welcome Sir Cyril Chantler as chairman. I also know him quite well and have known him for a very long time. He will already be able to see two results. One is that standardised packaging has done absolutely nothing to the prevalence of smoking in Australia, and the other, as I have just mentioned as evidence to the noble Lord opposite, is the worrying fact that the illegal market has increased by 13%, up to an all-time high in Australia of 13% of all consumption.

I draw the House’s attention to a book in the Library which refers to the situation in the United Kingdom during the war. It is called Black Market Britain, 1939-55, by Mark Roodhouse, and it features, among other evidence, what happened to the cigarette market during the time of the black market. I refer to that book because if we go down the route of standardised packaging, a black market will undoubtedly emerge.

I wish Sir Cyril well; we await his report with interest, and I am sure that it will be balanced and thorough. However, whatever that report produces, I ask that first, the Government will give adequate time to this House to have a short debate on it, and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, that the industry will have a reasonable amount of time—and by that I mean some weeks and not days—to look at the evidence that is provided by Sir Cyril and to put its view to the Secretary of State on its interpretation.

Finally, I will wind up on a couple of other questions, specifically on proposed subsection (4)(d) of Amendment 57B on,

“reducing the appeal or attractiveness of tobacco products”.

I submit that that has little to do with the packaging. Proposed subsection (8)(d), which refers to,

“the shape of such products”—

as opposed to the package—does not have anything to do with the packaging, and proposed subsection (8)(e) would even more insidiously apply to,

“the flavour of such products”.

Given that by nature all cigarettes are different, as tobacco is a vegetable product and they all taste different, I do not see how on earth the Secretary of State can intervene regarding the flavour of tobacco. I have already mentioned the contrast between the consent of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and our own home Parliament.

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for intervening earlier. I wanted to ask a short and straightforward question of the Minister. Should the noble Earl’s amendment be accepted—I hope it is because I greet it hugely; noble Lords will know how much it means to me—can he tell us in his summing up what the timetable is likely to be as regards when the research would take place and how long it might take? If, when that was completed, the outcome was positive—I recognise that because it is research it could go either way—when would the Government be likely to bring in the legislation? I recognise that we are moving towards an election and I hope that the Minister would want to get this on the statute book before he might or might not leave office. We already have legislation on not displaying cigarettes, but I still go in to my local tobacconist and see displays of cigarettes, so I wonder what is happening about that.

My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 57B and 62. First, on Amendment 57B, the Government are to be congratulated. The package that they propose—if I dare to use the term “package”—of proxy purchase, e-cigarettes and looking at the whole question of standardised packaging of cigarettes and tobacco products is to be welcomed. I think it will result in thousands of people being saved from getting respiratory and lung diseases; it will save literally thousands of lives. I congratulate the Minister and the Government. I want also to thank those cross-party noble Lords who put down the original amendment, because they initiated this debate.

On Amendment 62, I said in Committee and say again: some noble Lords have mentioned their grandchildren. Can you imagine carrying your grandson or granddaughter in a carry-cot, putting that child into a metal box—a car—and allowing somebody to pump cigarette fumes into that metal box? You would not do that at all; you would not allow that to happen. Whatever our concerns are about personal space or civil liberties or whatever it is, this is about the rights of a child; the rights of a baby. A baby cannot say, “Well, actually, I don’t mind”; a child cannot say, “Actually, I don’t mind”. In fact, research—certainly from talking to children—shows that they do mind. As we have heard, we can see when we look at the figures that children are particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke. Why? Because they have small lungs, because they have faster breathing, and because they have a less developed immune system. That makes them more susceptible to respiratory problems: asthma, bronchitis and lung malfunction. Knowing that, and that passive smoking results in more than 165,000 new episodes of all sorts of diseases associated with lungs and respiration—and I am talking about children here—are we serious about allowing children and babies to be strapped in a car where that happens? Surely not; all the other arguments pale into insignificance.

We seem to cite lots of surveys here. Interestingly, in 2010 a survey that directly asked 11 year-olds and 15 year-olds found that one in five reported being exposed to second-hand smoke in cars.

A number of people have said, “How are we going to make this happen? The police are very busy; can we really make it happen?”. I have two answers to that. Do noble Lords remember when seat-belt legislation was suggested? People got up and said, “Oh no, this is an attack on my civil liberties; oh no, we will solve the problem by advertising”. It was the “clunk click” advertisement, was it not? Oh—perhaps we had better move on from that. With the “clunk click” advertisements, in fact, something like 24% of people started to belt up in cars. Legislation was then brought in and we found that 97% of people then put on a seat belt. We do that automatically; we do not think about it, or sit in our cars saying, “This is an infringement of our liberties; we shouldn’t be doing this”; we do it. Why do we do it? Because it saves lives: it saves our lives and the lives of other people who are travelling in the car.

Interestingly, a study conducted in Scotland—we talk about Scotland a lot in this Chamber, thank goodness—suggested that air quality inside a smoker’s car was comparable to industrial smog in cities such as Beijing or Moscow, even when the driver has the window open. Are we seriously suggesting that children and young people should be subjected to air quality which is akin to that in Beijing or Moscow? Of course, we are not. Research by Aberdeen University found that 7% of 11 year-olds experience smoking in cars. That is why I am pleased that one of my colleagues in Scotland, the Liberal Democrat MSP, Jim Hume, is introducing a Private Member’s Bill looking at safeguarding children by banning smoking in cars. That is now going out to public consultation.

I end by making two further brief points. It is easy to find all sorts of reasons why you cannot do something. We could ask, “What about cars that are convertible? What about yachts? What about this? What about that?”. However, if you believe in something and think that it is right, you get on and do it. My only regret regarding the amendment is that it was initially an all-party amendment. When I listen to the news, I hear that it is a Labour initiative. I am sorry that it has been politicised and has become a party-political issue; I hoped that it would not be.

The noble Lord has made an impassioned speech. My understanding was that the original cross-party amendment had been degrouped and would be taken only late at night. I therefore brought forward this amendment to enable the House to make a decision. I agree with him about the cross-party nature of the debate.

I respect what the noble Lord says and thank him for it.

The Minister is a listening Minister. I hope that he will reflect on what has been said and accept the amendment because it is important to take the whole House with him on issues such as this. I hope that he will look again at continuing the advertising campaign but, perhaps more importantly, that he will consider a review of this issue so that we can go forward on it together.

My Lords, I wish to add a word on the amendment about smoking in cars when children are present. I do not wish to say anything about standardised packaging because I thoroughly support the amendment on that. However, so far as smoking is concerned, the support for the relevant amendment is focused on smoking in motor cars. However, that is not what the amendment says. It refers to “a private vehicle”. Motor cars are a very common—perhaps the most common—species of private vehicle, but there are all sorts of other private vehicles that one must take into account as well. The word “drives”, commonly used in relation to motor vehicles, comes from the driving of carriages and ponies and traps. Suppose that somebody has a pony and trap, and has a child in the trap, why on earth should he or she not smoke? If this amendment were confined simply to motor cars, I would have no objection to it at all; indeed, I think that I would support it. However, in relation to all private vehicles, it simply goes too far. I do not believe that was intended and I think the wording should be modified accordingly.

My Lords, I think the score is about 10 or 11 to one in favour of the amendments. I will be the second noble Lord to speak against both amendments. I shall take a little while to do so.

Oh!

If we consider this in terms of the time given to the “fors” and the “againsts”, as I have already said, it is about 11 to one, and it is going to be about 11 to two. I intend to make the points that I intended to make before this debate started.

First, I declare my interest. I am an associate member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers’ Club. I am an associate member because I do not smoke, but I believe that users of a legal product should be allowed to enjoy it without continuous harassment by government and an army of lobbyists such as ASH, which is subsidised, and the BMA. Smokers, unfortunately, are treated as social lepers, although let us not forget that they contribute some £10.5 billion per annum to the Treasury. If they are such lepers, perhaps we should not accept their money.

In my view, the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is perhaps one of the most extreme Henry VIII pieces of legislation that I have ever seen, and I am sorry to see that it is in his name. I want to take the House back in history to 4 February 2009. Let us hear what the noble Earl said then, when we were discussing the ban on tobacco displays:

“The Bill’s proposals to outlaw point-of-sale displays of tobacco products are unjustified and repressive. The evidence to back them up is flimsy, and the data has been hyped. In 2002, when tobacco advertising was banned, the Government said that they had no plans to interfere with the right of retailers to display a perfectly legal product in shops. We must be absolutely sure of our ground before removing that right”.—[Official Report, 4/2/09; col. 749.]

I believe that the noble Earl was right then and is wrong today because he is going further than the previous Government dared to do. Not only have we banned the display of cigarette packets and what have you but now plain packaging will be banned as well, and that seems quite an absurdity.

The new clause proposed in Amendment 57B is so detailed as to be almost incomprehensible. The Government are now proposing to intervene in the nooks and crannies of design and, indeed, even in the fabric of cigarette and other tobacco packets. There are 19 ways in which the Government are going to intervene and tell the tobacco manufacturers how they can display their products. That, I believe, is going much too far. In passing, I suppose that I ought to note that the display legislation is not yet fully operative—small retailers will not be banned from displaying these products until 2015. So here we are, before the ban even comes into force, going even further than the previous Government did, which at the time the noble Earl, Lord Howe, opposed.

We have heard a lot in the past few days about cutting regulation but the Government are also increasing regulation, of which this amendment is the nastiest example. I do not have time to go into the complete detail, although I should go through the whole amendment but I will not.

My Lords, different views have been expressed by a number of noble Lords and I shall speak very briefly. The accumulated evidence relating to plain packaging of cigarettes that has arisen over the past few years is incontrovertible, and for that reason the Government’s amendment is extremely welcome.

So far as smoking in cars is concerned, there is no doubt whatever that passive smoking is extremely dangerous. The concentration of the effects of passive smoking within an enclosed space such as a motor car is particularly dangerous for children. Again, the medical evidence on this is incontrovertible. The point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Scott, on the issue of people smoking in a pony and trap, is an interesting one but could readily be dealt with by regulations under the amendment to restrict the provisions to enclosed motor cars and so forth.

I listened exceptionally carefully to the very erudite and persuasive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, whose views I normally fully support and accept. Unlike him, who was disgusted by smoking two Woodbines behind the bike sheds, I first smoked a Woodbine in a mining village in County Durham at the age of 10 and I enjoyed it. By the time I was a teenager, I was a regular smoker. When I was in the Army in the late 1940s as second in command of a hospital ship, I could get a can of 50 Senior Service for one shilling and eight pence, which lasted me two days, so I was a heavy smoker. It took me a long time to get over it.

The question I would put to the noble Lord and the noble Earl is this: the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, took a great deal of time to talk about the difficulty of policing this amendment if it were carried into law. But is it any more difficult for the police to recognise someone smoking in a vehicle containing children than it is to recognise someone who is not wearing a seatbelt or using a mobile phone illegally? I do not believe that it is. For that reason, I support the amendment.

My Lords, this has been an important but very long debate. However, my name is attached to three of the amendments in the group and I beg the indulgence of the House to make a few comments in, I hope, concluding the debate before the Minister responds. I want to thank the Minister in particular for his role in responding to the widespread support for standardised packaging within and beyond the House. The crucial role that he personally played in the Government conceding on this measure is recognised across the House. I am also grateful for his commitment on the record today that it is the Government’s clear intention to implement these measures as soon as possible, subject to the outcome of the evidential review. I hope that he can further confirm that the action will follow very swiftly in response to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, about the timetable.

The Government’s intention to bring forward at Third Reading measures to ban proxy purchasing of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, taken together with this amendment on standardised packaging, will make a significant difference to the exposure to and take-up of cigarettes by young people. However, there is one other distinct and significant health hazard to children from smoking that we should include in this package of measures, and that is in relation to smoking in private vehicles and enclosed vehicles.

Our Amendment 57BB would simply enable the Government to bring forward regulations to make it an offence to expose children to tobacco smoke in cars, once the Government, with others, had reviewed the detailed implications and practicalities that such a measure would entail. That process of review and developing regulations would take account of all the questions raised across the House today about what if, would it mean this and would it mean that. It is an enabling amendment.

When it was first proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in Grand Committee, I was profoundly struck by the power of her argument about the particular vulnerability of children in this very enclosed situation and the impact on their health and development at their immature stage. It is obvious. I have heard no dissent in the House today about why passive smoking by children in cars is a very bad thing and ideally should not happen. I will not rehearse those arguments, which have been very well made again today by Members across the House.

However, I want to focus briefly on concerns that have been expressed about the amendment and the arguments against it. There have been three main arguments. One is the basic libertarian argument that people should be free to do what they like in their cars because they are private spaces and should not be fettered. But when we are considering freedoms, as we have done in our history, there is always a balance. Freedom for some is often at the expense of freedom for other people. The balance we are considering here is between the freedom for adults to smoke in cars when they like and the freedom for children not to breathe in that smoke in a situation from which they, by definition, as several noble Lords pointed out, cannot escape.

When responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for whom I have great respect, as he knows, said that there is a difference between smoking, which is a legal activity, and other things that we have prohibited in the home in relation to children. But the things that we were talking about then, such as neglect of children and the beating of children, have not always been illegal in the home. They were made illegal because they are particularly harmful to the well-being of children. We take it for granted now that such things are illegal but they were not always. We invaded that private space because of the need to protect children. The same argument applies. Because of the degree of damage that we know smoking in cars causes, we should apply the same argument here.

I have been thinking a lot during this debate. Is not the answer to make it obligatory for all new cars to have a smoke alarm fitted?

That particular measure would not deal with the issue of prohibition, so I cannot see how it would necessarily help. The alarm may go off, but if it is still legal for adults to smoke with children in the car, there would be no consequence to its going off. There are precedents, because this is a child protection issue, for our proceeding along this route.

The second argument was: if cars, why not private homes? There have been contributions today that have made it clear, citing research by the British Lung Foundation and other bodies, that there are real and qualitatively different levels of risk to children from the smoke in a confined space, from which they cannot escape, compared to that in homes. Yes, children will be harmed in some homes where space is limited. That is undoubtedly true. But the potential for children to escape those spaces is clearly there in a home situation. They can go outside as well. In a car, the toxicity levels and the fact that the child is trapped make that a distinctly different situation, of which we should take account with this amendment.

The third argument has concerned the difficulty of enforcement.

I know that people want to make progress, but just on this point about private space—where the noble Baroness is making the distinction between a motorcar where the children cannot escape and, say, a room in a small flat where there are smokers—what about a baby in a carry-cot? They cannot move to another room.

No, that is true. I know that the noble Lord is very exercised by these issues, and I respect his point of view. A baby of itself could not move to another room. However—we have these arguments in many ways—the fact that we cannot remove the harm to all children in all situations presented by passive smoking is not an argument in itself for not taking the action that we could take to reduce the harm to the majority of children in the most dangerous situations. That is the argument in support of this amendment.

The third argument we heard was about enforcement. Again, we had some helpful contributions which I was going to make myself, but I shall just mention them. This is primarily not about enforcement, and we have precedence here with the ban on using mobile phones in cars, the mandatory use of seat belts and the ban on smoking in public places. All of those were hotly contested before legislation came in. I particularly remember the ban on smoking in public places because I was involved in it. That measure not only established smoke-free common areas for people but, equally importantly—and it is true of the other two measures—precipitated the biggest reduction in smoking we have seen: a significant and beneficial change in behaviour on a massive scale. That is the issue here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, pointed out. I have no doubt that this would precipitate a very significant change in behaviour in relation to smoking in cars with children. Particularly when we see so much public support for the measure, I think that we could anticipate that.

I say again that Amendment 57BB is enabling. It would entail further discussion about the practicalities and the detail of the regulation. We fully accept the need for that and welcome it. However, it is an important measure for children and I hope that the House will support it.

My Lords, this has been a fascinating and very helpful debate and I am very pleased with the support that I have heard for the government amendments on standardised packaging. I would like, if I may, to commend noble Lords for their continued work in supporting tobacco control. We all want to drive down rates of smoking in this country and, in particular, to stop young people from taking up smoking in the first place. Let me address the points on standardised packaging first.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lord McColl tabled a revised amendment following discussion in Grand Committee, and I see that they reflected the comments that I made in redrafting it. I particularly welcome their support for the Government’s amendments and can reassure them that our amendments would achieve all of the things that they seek to do.

My noble friend Lord Naseby raised a number of legal issues. I would like to reassure him that we have given very careful consideration to the legal situation. We believe that the government amendment gives us sufficient room to proceed with the regulations, should we choose to do so, and introduce standardised packaging, if that is what is decided. He queried the fact that the amendment is drafted in such a way that the devolved Administrations and Assemblies have to give consent, but it is the Secretary of State and not Parliament who gives consent in England. We do of course want Parliament to have a say, which is why we have introduced Amendment 63B to make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—whose robust state of health I very much welcome—indicated that there has been no proper consultation on standardised packaging. In fact, in 2012 the Government ran a full public consultation and received almost 2,500 substantive responses and well over half a million postcard and petition responses. The consultation asked 15 specific questions and invited comments on the consultation stage impact assessment, which was also published. So it was a very thorough exercise.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested that this was the thin end of the wedge, if I can put it that way, and might herald similar measures in relation to junk food. I think we need to remember that tobacco is a uniquely harmful consumer good. Tobacco kills one in two long-term smokers. There is no safe level of smoking. That is why we have a range of specific legislation and an international treaty around tobacco control.

My noble friend Lord Naseby referred to illicit tobacco. We received a wide range of responses to the question in the consultation on illicit tobacco. They are summarised in the consultation report. In 2000, around 21% of the UK cigarette market was illicit. The latest estimate from HMRC, for 2012-13, is that this has dropped to around 9%. It is too high, I concede, but we are heading in a positive direction.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, asked about the timetable for the regulations. I emphasise here that I do not want to pre-empt any decision that the Government may make on whether to proceed with standardised tobacco packaging, and I know that the noble Baroness understands that; but equally for that reason, it would be premature to set out a detailed timetable. What I can confirm is that the regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure to ensure an appropriate opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses. She may like to be aware that before being laid in Parliament, any draft regulation that seeks to regulate tobacco packaging would need to be notified to the European Commission and member states. There is a process that goes with that, which would mean that we would not be able to lay regulations instantly after taking a positive decision. I am happy, however, to reiterate the Government’s commitment to make a decision quickly when we receive Sir Cyril Chantler’s independent report. Tabling these amendments is, I hope, evidence of our commitment to act without delay if we decide to go ahead. But the Government, as I am sure she appreciates, must rightly consider the wider issues raised by this policy, and I can assure her that we will do so.

I can understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in tabling both of his amendments, Amendments 57BA and 61, which seek to compel Ministers to introduce standardised packaging. However, I am sure that he will not be surprised to hear me say that we cannot accept provisions that tie our hands in this way. One of the amendments imposes an arbitrary timetable for government action, and both pre-empt Ministers’ proper and careful decision-making, involving consideration of all the relevant issues. Litigation by the tobacco industry is always a risk when introducing tobacco control legislation. Indeed, the World Health Organisation says that one of the six main forms of tobacco industry interference in public health is the intimidation of Governments with litigation or the threat of litigation. Government must have time and space to give proper consideration to the wider issues raised by standardised packaging of tobacco, and demonstrate that it has done so. Doing so will also reduce the risk of successful litigation. I do appreciate the desire to go faster but we must follow the proper decision-making process to enable us to arrive at the right policy decision. It is right that we should wait for Sir Cyril’s report. Once we do, I say again, we will make a decision quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me to put on the record that we will definitely introduce the regulations should the case be made and should we be persuaded of the case that Sir Cyril presents. I hope that I have been clear about that. I will repeat the comments made by my honourable friend the Minister for Public Health when she announced the review:

“The Government will introduce standardised tobacco packaging if, following the review and consideration of the wider issues raised by this policy, we are satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed, including public health benefit”.—[Official Report, 28/11/13; col. WS 96.]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lord McColl for having made clear their intention not to press their amendment on standardised packaging. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will do the same with theirs.

I turn to smoking in cars. Since we considered the issue at the previous stage of the Bill, I have met a number of noble Lords who support the idea of legislating to stop smoking in cars with children present. I have also listened very carefully to the debate as it has proceeded this afternoon. One thing is clear from those meetings and the debate—we all want to eradicate smoking in cars carrying children. None of us wants to see children continuing to be exposed to harmful second-hand smoke, whether in the home or the family car. However, although we agree on the destination, I have to acknowledge that there are differing views on the most effective route. As your Lordships will know, the Government believe that encouraging positive and lasting behaviour change by making smokers aware of the significant health risks of second-hand smoke will be more effective than resorting to the use of legislation—which is of course a blunt instrument—to tackle the problem. I believe very clearly that we should consider resorting to the use of legislation only if our work to promote positive changes in behaviour is shown not to have had the desired effect.

When we debated this issue in Grand Committee, a good deal of time was spent considering the practicalities of enforcing an offence of smoking in cars carrying children. I do not propose to rehearse those arguments in detail again today. Nevertheless, I want to encourage your Lordships to reflect on just how difficult it would be to enforce such a provision. My noble friend Lord Cormack referred to this. In my view, there would be substantial challenges in enforcing any such legislation, particularly with respect to vehicles travelling at speed. Currently, local authorities enforce smoke-free legislation, but they do not have the powers or the means to require moving vehicles to pull over. We would need therefore to set up a complex and probably resource-intensive enforcement regime, which would need to involve the police. These remaining questions of how to achieve effective enforcement undermine the credibility of the measures that have been proposed. If it were known that there was little chance of enforcement action, I have to ask whether individuals would comply with the law.

I am most grateful to the noble Earl. Would he accept that my amendment has been drafted in a way that allows your Lordships to vote on the principle but then allows for work to be done, hopefully cross-party, and for the Government to bring in regulations, during which some of these matters could be talked out thoroughly?

I have noted the way the noble Lord’s amendment has been drafted. However, we need to be very careful before accepting it, for the reasons that I am explaining now. One of the points made about enforcement was that we could make a useful comparison with seat-belt legislation. I understand why that comparison has been made but it needs to be borne in mind that we are not comparing like with like. Seat-belt legislation is a road safety measure which is properly enforced by the police; smoking in cars is a public health matter and the police have no public health role or functions. That is part of the reason that the issue is so complex. Before launching into the kind of amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, invites us to accept, we need to take stock of these questions. There is no point in putting something on the statute book if it is impractical to implement.

Can I just ask the noble Earl whether the police have a duty in respect of alcohol abuse and violence in the streets?

My Lords, the police obviously have public order responsibilities, which they can enforce—but not public health responsibilities, which is rather a different issue.

With the growing number of jurisdictions now adopting measures of the sort that are proposed in the amendment, will the Minister at least give an assurance that the department will look at the experience in countries where smoking in cars when children are present has been banned and look particularly at the way in which it is being enforced there, and by whom?

I am coming in a minute to talk about consultation, which is one of the questions that my noble friend Lord Ribeiro asked, and I hope I can at least utter some words of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, as regards his question.

I will focus for a moment on why the Government prefer to achieve behaviour change without recourse to imposing the law. We believe that our approach is making a distinct impact, both in terms of raising awareness and, more importantly, changing behaviour. There is a very simple point to be made here, which was made by my noble friend Lady Tyler. I cannot believe that any parent would want, knowingly, to expose their child or children to harm. I am convinced that smoking in family cars and the home is much more likely to be due to a simple lack of understanding among smokers about how damaging to health second-hand smoke can be. Our social marketing campaigns remind us that more than 80% of cigarette smoke is invisible. Our campaigns have used the strap-line:

“If you could see what’s really there you wouldn’t smoke”.

That is why we are focusing our efforts on raising awareness of the harm caused and on encouraging smokers to modify their smoking behaviour.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to pregnant women and whether we would regulate to protect them. I understand of course how vulnerable the child is when still in the womb, and the noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of how harmful second-hand smoke can be, especially for people with respiratory conditions such as asthma.

Does the Minister not agree that the impact of the legislation prohibiting smoking in public places, to protect the public and people working in common areas, had a much greater and more immediate impact than all the public awareness work that was done before then?

I am the first to say that legislation passed by the previous Administration has had a marked and profound effect and has been widely welcomed. However, we are now dealing with something that we know can be influenced by public marketing campaigns. I shall mention how effective those have been in a moment.

With regard to pregnant women, there is a need to encourage everybody to be aware of the risks to health from second-hand smoke. We are achieving high levels of awareness as well as changing attitudes and behaviours. Almost three-quarters of those surveyed said that our campaigns had made them realise that smoking out of an open door or window was not enough to protect children from second-hand smoke. More than a third of those who saw the adverts reported that they had taken action to reduce their children’s exposure to second-hand smoke after seeing them. Those results emerged from the evaluation of last year’s campaign and the campaign that we ran in 2012.

I have to say that I am slightly surprised to hear how strongly the Opposition feel about creating legislation to end smoking in cars, because that is at odds with the position that they took on this issue when in government. The 2010 tobacco control strategy included commitments on smoking in cars that align entirely with my Government’s current approach. That strategy said:

“By increasing the level of awareness of the harms of secondhand smoke, particularly to children, we will encourage people to voluntarily make their homes and private cars completely smokefree”.

That is the stance that the party opposite took when in government and, to pay a little tribute to them, we have followed their lead. Your Lordships will recognise that there is a long way to go. Achieving behaviour change in public health takes time but we are heading in the right direction and the key is maintaining the momentum we are generating.

That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government will run another smoke-free homes and cars campaign this year, as explained in my letter to noble Lords earlier this week. We are finalising the details with colleagues in Public Health England, but our intention is that the campaign will take place in the spring. In addition to a mix of TV and digital advertising, we will work with local and commercial partners to spread the message through their networks. The campaign will be designed to maximise the potential of social media in making our messages clear and accessible to as many people as possible. I hope that that serves to reassure your Lordships that the Government are working hard to make progress in this important area. Our approach is to change smoking behaviour in both the home and family car.

In addition to the campaign activity, we will look at what more we might do to speed up the pace of change. Some local authorities are taking forward excellent work with their local communities to promote not only smoke-free homes and cars but also smoke-free environments such as playgrounds. Working with Public Health England, we will encourage more of this good practice to denormalise smoking, particularly in settings where children are present. I have asked Public Health England to look at what more we can do to spread this good practice.

This year’s smoke-free homes and cars campaign will be the Government’s third successive one, as I mentioned. At its conclusion, we will undertake a complete analysis of the progress that we have made through the campaigns. At that point the Government will give careful consideration to whether our action has had a meaningful impact in reducing smoking in cars carrying children. If health Ministers are not satisfied with the progress made, we will give serious consideration to what more can be done. I can tell my noble friend Lord Ribeiro that we will, if need be, conduct a public consultation so that we can understand how others feel about this issue, and to enable us to consider further the practicality and likely effectiveness of other measures to tackle smoking in cars carrying children, including legislative measures. I do not rule out legislation if our current course does not deliver the desired effect.

The Government take this matter extremely seriously, particularly the issue of reducing the uptake of smoking by young people. We have tabled the amendment today on standardised packaging. We intend to make proxy purchasing of tobacco an offence and prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to people under 18. If the Government are not satisfied with progress after this year’s smoke-free homes and cars campaign, we will give serious consideration to what more could be done, including a public consultation. I hope that that indicates our seriousness of purpose.

On the amendments that have been tabled by the Opposition I repeat what I said in Grand Committee. If we cannot credibly enforce the law, the law loses credibility. I appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter. I can assure noble Lords that we will continue to work with all interested parties to protect children from second-hand smoke. I hope that in the light of the assurances that I have given that the noble Lord will not press his amendment on that topic.

My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, the amendment is about the impact of the bedroom tax on children. I refer noble Lords to my housing association interests recorded in the register.

This simple amendment would allow local authorities to put the welfare of the child first when assessing the appropriate occupancy level in a home. Many aspects of the bedroom tax are unfair and unjust, and we have raised them repeatedly in this House. This amendment picks on one simple theme which has quite rightly dominated our consideration of the Bill so far: that the interests and the welfare of the child should always come first. This issue has united us around the Chamber, and I hope that noble Lords will support the continuation of this principle, reflected in this amendment.

We already know that the bedroom tax hits families hard. The chief executive of the National Housing Federation has described the policy as,

“an unfair, ill-planned disaster that is hurting our poorest families”.

It has resulted in an estimated 150,000 families with children being hit so far, forced out of their homes or pushed deeper into poverty and debt. We know from consistent research that children who are forced to move home, away from settled communities and their schooling, suffer health problems and have poorer educational outcomes. Meanwhile, families who stay put suffer an average loss of income of £14 a week, with much higher losses for many, impacting on their ability to feed and clothe their children.

The bedroom tax also has a disproportionate impact on disabled adults and children. Housing association studies have shown that a significant proportion of those affected are either disabled themselves or care for someone who is disabled. Many of them live in homes with adaptations, making it difficult and expensive to move. Others use their spare room for bulky medical equipment or facilities for visiting carers.

There are other adverse welfare implications of the bedroom tax. Recently, there was publicity for the very sad case of the Hollow family, whose 11 year-old son, Caleb, died in a car crash. After a year, the family were told that they had to move to a smaller property, causing added distress to Caleb’s siblings, who were still grieving for their lost brother and who now face the further disruption of a house move or a slide into poverty.

There is also the ongoing issue of the impact on foster carers. When we debated it in Committee, we welcomed the Government’s concession to allow one additional room in their home as long as they had registered as a foster carer or fostered a child within the previous 12 months. However, the reforms still apply to foster carers who have two or three bedrooms for fostered children. Foster carers could be deterred from providing foster care for more than one child at a time, so that more children would be more likely to be separated from their siblings. Given that there is already a shortage of foster carers in the UK, these reforms are likely to mean fewer new recruits coming forward and children’s well-being suffering as a result.

The application of these policies has seen local authorities and housing associations being put in an impossible position, trying to minimise the impact of badly designed policies on local people. As we know, there is often a mismatch in accommodation so that there are simply not enough smaller units even if tenants wish to move.

Meanwhile, under this Government, housing completions are at their lowest peacetime level since the 1920s. Local authorities find themselves trapped trying to implement an unworkable policy with little flexibility. Quite often, their only solution for tenants who are unable to downsize is to move them into the private rented sector, with all the additional housing benefit costs and the poorer standards that this entails.

The Government’s main response so far to the increasing number of tales of poverty and distress has been to set up the discretionary fund to support the most vulnerable families. However, alarmingly, the Local Government Association has reported a dramatic increase in the number of people requesting emergency financial help, with 81% of councils experiencing a sharp increase in the number of applications to the discretionary housing payments scheme, most of which are being made to stop people losing their homes. This demand is so great that councils report it is outstripping the money made available by the DWP, forcing them to make cuts to services in other areas. Anyway, these funds are, by their very nature, temporary, require regular reapplications and provide no ongoing stability for the families concerned. The Government have also issued guidance to local authorities on the application of the rules concerning children’s disability but again they have no obligation in law and the Minister will know that children’s charities remain concerned about the provisions and continue to challenge them.

We believe that our amendment gives local authorities the flexibility they need, based on their local knowledge and their local circumstances, to operate the bedroom tax rules to put the welfare and the interests of the child first. We believe that this would be welcomed by all those trying to implement this unwieldy and unjust policy. It would allow them to make an informed judgment of the options available to individual families in their local area to avoid some of the perverse outcomes that arise from the rules and to guarantee that the interests of the child are safeguarded. We believe that this is a simple but important amendment, in keeping with the spirit of the remainder of the Bill, and I urge noble Lords to support it.

My Lords I support Amendment 57BC, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which I have added my name. She eloquently set out the case for the amendment and I will not repeat her comprehensive and cogent arguments. I have no doubt that the Government will regard the amendment as too wide-ranging. It provides for a determination setting aside the bedroom tax, potentially for a very large number of families. For a considerable number of families a move into new and smaller accommodation will be contrary to the interests and the welfare of the child. At the lower level of harms—if one can call them lower level—a house move may involve the children having to change school at the same time as they move home. Other children will move away from a grandparent or somebody else who looks after them when their parents are working. These sorts of changes could have very serious consequences for very sensitive children—not necessarily just disabled ones. At its most serious, a move may deprive a family of the basic space they need in order to continue managing a severely disabled child, or indeed an adult, in the family and therefore keeping the family intact. I want to focus on this to avoid duplication.

We know that families with a disabled child have been disproportionately disadvantaged by the bedroom tax, although the Government accept and have made changes to ensure that a disabled child should at least have a room of their own. That was certainly progress. The Minister always tells us that the discretionary housing payment is the answer to all possible problems. It will no doubt help many families with a short-term problem, if they are able to move into smaller accommodation—that is a big if—without serious consequences for a child or for the family as a whole, but where there is a short delay before the move can take place. I guess that would work pretty well. I accept that discretionary housing payments can be a helpful safety net for some people in the short term. That is how I think I see it working.

My Lords, obviously we should be supporting any family in the situation described by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Meacher. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, rightly pointed to the support that can be received from the discretionary housing subsidy. What I do not understand is why, for example, in my local council in Liverpool, last year £337,000 of government discretionary housing payments were left unspent and returned. The sad thing is that, in every year since 2001-02, a large sum of money has been returned.

I do not understand why the Local Government Association is telling the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that demand is outstripping provision when currently, after six months, Labour councils have spent only 29% of the allowance. In 2012-13, in England as a whole 37% of discretionary housing subsidy was left unspent. Should we not encourage those councils to use that money to do the same things that both noble Baronesses have suggested? If there is money available, it must be used for that. It is a disgrace, when children are in difficult situations—whether they need support because of physical handicap or whether they are in appalling conditions and need that support—to leave 37% of that money unspent across the whole of England.

My Lords, as of August 2013, there were more than 235,000 children—nearly a quarter of a million children—living in households whose benefits have been cut because of the bedroom tax. We do not know how many children have had to move, disrupting their schooling—a point that has already been made—their friendships and the social networks which enable their parents to get by with childcare and other things. When I asked the Minister earlier today about the implications of this for the Government’s child poverty strategy, I did not get a direct answer. Inevitably, these families are being pushed further into poverty; there are no two ways about it.

There have been a number of reports in newspapers about the struggles that many families face trying to get by. I will not read all of them but simply read from the initial comments from the UN special rapporteur on adequate housing, who put the case very well. She said:

“The right to housing is not about a roof anywhere, at any cost, without any social ties. It is not about reshuffling people according to a snapshot of the number of bedrooms at a given night. It is about enabling environments for people to maintain their family and community bonds, their local schools, work places and health services allowing them to exercise all other rights, like education, work, food or health”.

She continued:

“Of the many testimonies I have heard, let me say that I have been deeply touched by persons with physical and mental disabilities who have felt targeted instead of protected; of the grandmothers who are carers of their children and grandchildren but are now feeling they are forced to move away from their life-long homes due to a spare bedroom or to run the risk of facing arrears; of the single parents who will not have space for their children when they come to visit; of the many people who are increasingly having to choose between food and paying the penalty. Those who are impacted by this policy were not necessarily the most vulnerable a few months ago, but they were on the margins, facing fragility and housing stress, with little extra income to respond to this situation and already barely coping with their expenses”.

The amendment will not solve the problem, but it will go some way to alleviate the problems that those families face. Families are really struggling as a result of this measure, and I hope that we can support the amendment to do something for some of those very vulnerable children.

My Lords, briefly, I agree with everything that has been said. There is often criticism in my native city of Glasgow that the housing estates are too big, but those of us who know those housing estates know that there are excellent communities within them. In fact, those of us who have lived in big cities think of them not as a big city but as a collection of villages and communities. Many of the housing estates that I know of and are excellent were built just after the war, when the soldiers came home from the forces. The families were regarded as big. I came from a family of five living in a tenement, and in those days that was a small family—there were families of eight or nine.

Noble Lords are right to say that there can be a big impact on children if they have to move away from the communities that they enjoy. Most of us have happy memories of the childhood communities we lived in and the support of the extended families who were there. We could end up taking young children out of their school, as has already been stated, and away from their community facilities into a strange area.

I go back to where I was raised in the city of Glasgow. If a family is in an underoccupied house, that can mean that the house has a garden and a back and front door, which is regarded as significant for a family. To go to the proper size of house that the Government suggest could mean that they are forced to take a tenement flat. It has a big impact on a young person to go from a house with a garden to a tenement flat.

When I have spoken to the Minister, he has been very courteous to me and told me that he will give me a reply on this matter, but he has always mentioned the waiting lists and how long they are. The implication is that, if you have a long waiting list, you will fill the vacant accommodation. That is not necessarily the case. Anyone who has been a constituency MP or a councillor will know that people will come to you to say, “I’ve been on the waiting list for 10 or 12 years”, but when you say, “I can get you a house tomorrow”, they say, “Oh, but I’m not taking a house in this area or that area; I want this particular area”. Those who are on the waiting list exercise a great element of choice.

I personally have no housing problem either in London or in Glasgow, but I dare say that, legally, there would be nothing to stop me going to the local housing association in Westminster and saying, “I want to put my name on the waiting list”. By the same token, I could do that in Glasgow. Being on a waiting list does not mean that the person on the list is in need. I do not think that the waiting list is necessarily the best measure to use when saying that we can solve the problems caused by people being forced out of their so-called underoccupied houses.

My Lords, briefly, I think that the Minister has a choice when he responds to the amendment, which was so effectively moved by my noble friend. He can say either that children of a certain group—disabled children, children in poverty or whatever—are exempt from the application of the bedroom tax to the tenancy, or he can say, on the contrary, we will leave it to local authorities to exercise their discretion, so that the response you get is a lottery based on where you live, and you have all the problems associated with what is effectively means testing.

The advantage of the first path is that you can perfectly easily have ways of ensuring that certain families with children do not come into the category of the bedroom tax as such. You could say that children on disability living allowance, for example, would simply be exempt, but discretionary housing payments apply to other people, which may include disabled people and so on. If that is the way which the Minister wishes to go, that would be the clean and clear way to do it.

My Lords, as one would expect, this has been an interesting debate with some impassioned and important contributions, which I welcome. Let me start by reminding the House of the fiscal environment that led to this measure’s introduction. In the final year of the previous Government, borrowing had risen to £150 billion. In cash terms, over the previous 10 years, expenditure on housing benefit had nearly doubled to £24 billion. Left unreformed, annual expenditure on housing benefit would have exceeded £26 billion per year by the end of this Parliament. Nearly four years on, the range of economic indicators are showing that our policies are working and have led to the number of workless households, the number of lone-parent workless households and the number of children in workless households all being the lowest since comparable records began in 1996.

I will not spend a huge amount of time responding to the policy issues raised because we have already spent a lot of time in this House dealing with the policy as a whole. I want to deal with the issues raised by the nature and form of this particular amendment.

The Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2006 are secondary legislation, which contain detailed provisions that set out how local authorities should administer housing benefit. It is very unusual to seek to amend secondary legislation through primary legislation in this way. The amendment itself is imprecise and ambiguous, unlike the rest of Regulation B13. For example, under proposed new paragraph (5A) it is unclear what “restriction to one bedroom” or the concept of,

“in the interests of the welfare of a child”,

means in this context. Because of this, the amendment may have unintended consequences that go far beyond those desired by the noble Baroness.

The effect of the amendment is potentially to allow local authorities to determine that the removal of the spare room subsidy does not apply where the household contains children, as it is not in the interests of their welfare. So this amendment is likely to add around £160 million a year to the housing benefit bill, reducing the savings from the policy to around £330 million a year. It would extend only to the social sector and so reintroduce the inequity in treatment between housing benefit claimants that we have sought to remove with the implementation of this change. Applying the spirit of the amendment to the local housing allowance to re-establish fairness is likely to more than double the cost of making this amendment to around £460 million a year. This amendment does not deliver the intended outcome. If accepted, we do not intend to amend it and it will be sent to the other place in its current defective state.

It may be helpful if I remind noble Lords that we have already taken account of the interests and welfare of children in developing this policy. In March, we amended the regulations to allow an additional bedroom for foster and kinship carers. We have also made £5 million of discretionary housing payment funding available specifically for foster carers who require further additional rooms to allow them to foster two or more children, including groups of siblings. The discretionary housing payment data for the first six months indicate that foster carers are applying for and receiving payments, as intended. In March, we also issued guidance to local authorities indicating that they should allow an additional bedroom for disabled children who would ordinarily be expected to share a room but are unable to do so because of their disability. This was put into a regulatory framework in October. We have provided £180 million of discretionary housing payment funding for this year, and £165 million for next year, to enable local authorities to support the most vulnerable families affected by the reforms. This funding is already meeting the need that the noble Baroness seeks to address through this amendment.

Perhaps I might pick up on two of the vital points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the costs and benefits for children who go into residential care as a result of the removal of the spare room subsidy. We have not looked at this specifically. The independent evaluation of the policy will look at the effects on families. We are not currently aware of any evidence to support the assumption that this would be an outcome of the policy.

Picking up the example that the noble Baroness raised about Mary Jane and focusing on the uncertainty that that family had with that poor girl, I am aware that some local authorities, following the introduction of the policy, have understandably taken a very cautious approach to awarding discretionary housing payments, as they assess the level of need in their area. I have instructed my officials to amend the guidance to local authorities to encourage them to make longer-term awards where the circumstances are unlikely to change. The revised guidance is being prepared and will be shared with the local authority associations in draft before being issued for the start of the financial year.

At this stage, we have not seen anything to suggest that this policy is having a detrimental impact on the welfare of children living in affected households. We are closely monitoring the effects of the policy and have commissioned an independent two-year evaluation which—among other things—will look at the effects on families. The interim findings are due to be published in spring this year.

I hope I have been clear. I have already reflected on the noble Baronesses’ amendment. I cannot undertake to reflect further between now and Third Reading. If the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, she should do so now.

My Lords, I very much thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I also thank the Minister. I welcome him to this Bill for, I think, the first time. Some of us are long veterans of this Bill. We have been debating it since last June. Our focus has, perhaps, been very different from the values and priorities that the Minister has been enunciating this evening. We have been very much focused on the child welfare issues and have seen those as a priority in the progress of the Bill. We have reached quite a lot of cross-party and cross-Chamber consensus on all of that.

Once again the Minister put great emphasis on the discretionary housing payment scheme. The fact is, in ways that were never foreseen when the original bedroom tax was introduced, it has already had to be increased and increased. This very much demonstrates that the policy, as originally planned and thought out, was not working and is still not working. It is making the evaluation of the costs very difficult. Indeed, the savings that were originally envisaged are now not being met. The whole policy is being turned on its head.

In all the calculations that I have heard the Minister cite, he does not take into account some of the extra costs. Noble Lords around the Chamber have given us examples, including the whole issue of managing evictions, debt, arrears, the extra costs to local authorities of going back to people to try to collect those debts and arrears, and the more ill defined, but nevertheless very much present, extra social problems that arise from some of these issues.

I am very pleased to hear that there will be an evaluation but, in the mean time, we are trying to deal with some of the problems that exist now. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who said that some of the discretionary fund was not always being used, that, for that very reason, the discretionary fund is not always the answer to those families. It is quite traumatic to go through that means-testing process. There is also an administrative on-cost for the local authorities that are trying to administer it. This is a murky area. It is not surprising that money in and money out are not always working effectively with the administration of that scheme.

Meanwhile, we have to respect the fact that the Tory-led Local Government Association is saying that there is a problem here and that other budgets are having to be raided to cope with the surge of applications. It is not me who is saying that; it is the Local Government Association. The chair of the Local Government Association’s finance panel says:

“This will have a significant impact on local government budgets, which are already stretched to breaking point by the deepest cuts in the public sector”.

Again, those are not my words; they come from the chair of the LGA finance committee.

That this House regrets that the Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 restrict the availability of legal aid, advice and assistance in prison law cases (SI 2013/2790).

My Lords, another week, another set of legal aid regulations to regret. These regulations will severely limit the availability of legal aid advice and assistance in prison law. I shall mention four examples of issues for which legal aid advice and assistance will no longer be available by reason of these regulations. The first is Parole Board proceedings for indeterminate sentence prisoners—ISPs—where the Secretary of State refers the case before the expiry of the minimum term for advice on a move for the prisoner to open conditions, and also where an ISP is removed from open conditions and the Minister seeks advice from the Parole Board on a return to an open prison. This will no longer be covered. The Parole Board itself said in its written evidence to an inquiry on this subject by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that because most prisoners require a period in open conditions before the Parole Board can be satisfied that they are safe to release:

“There is in consequence, a great deal at stake for prisoners at these reviews”.

The need for high standards to be applied at such hearings, in the interests of the prisoner and in the public interest, is obvious, and because of the impossibility of prisoners representing themselves effectively at such hearings and problems such as how to manage a prisoner cross-examining a professional witness giving evidence about the prisoner’s conduct in prison, the Parole Board told the Joint Committee in its written evidence that it believed the proposal to remove legal aid,

“is very likely to impede our attempts to deal with cases fairly, promptly and effectively”.

It is very surprising that the Secretary of State should have proceeded with the changes despite the concerns expressed by the Parole Board.

The second example of decisions which will be excluded from legal aid is decisions to place or keep a prisoner in Category A—that is, prisoners assessed to be a high security risk—which of course affects prison conditions. A third excluded category is the allocation of places in mother and baby units. Vulnerable women will be denied access to legal advice on whether they should be separated from their babies. A fourth example is decisions on removal from association—that is, segregation decisions. One could give many more examples.

What are the justifications offered by the Secretary of State for denying legal advice and assistance in such important matters, even if all other eligibility criteria are satisfied? The main answer given by Mr Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice, in his oral evidence to the House of Commons Justice Select Committee on 3 July 2013 is that the difference between him and his critics was “ideological”—his word. Indeed, he used that word three times in as many minutes in response to questions on this matter. The report of the evidence is published as HC 91. Mr Grayling told the Justice Committee:

“I do not believe that prisoners in jail should have the right to access legal aid to debate which prison they are put in”.

He went on to say that they should not have the right to legal aid to raise other questions about their treatment, with limited exceptions.

This is to reverse 35 years of progress in the approach adopted by the legal system to the treatment of prisoners. The modern era of prison law began in 1978 when the Court of Appeal required fair disciplinary proceedings for those alleged to be involved in the Hull prison riots. Since that decision, our courts have repeatedly made it clear that administrative decisions in prison must comply with basic standards of legality, procedural fairness and rationality.

The application of legal standards to decision-making within prisons has immeasurably improved the quality of those decisions and ensured greater transparency and accountability. No one, with the possible exception of the Secretary of State for Justice, could doubt the public benefits in enabling prisoners to hold prison authorities to basic standards of legality and fairness or the indispensable contribution which has been made in this respect by legal aid. That a Secretary of State, and indeed a Secretary of State for Justice, should now, for so-called ideological reasons, wish to reverse such developments is very much a matter for regret.

Mr Grayling’s second point is that legal aid is not needed because the internal prison complaints system and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman will provide redress where appropriate. Without legal assistance a prisoner is simply not going to be able to make his or her points effectively and speedily by reference to the applicable legal requirements. Unhappily, many prisoners lack basic skills of literacy or suffer from other problems which impede their ability to present an effective grievance. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, Mr Nick Hardwick CBE, echoed these concerns in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as recorded in paragraph 174 of the Committee’s seventh report.

As the Law Society has pointed out in its helpful briefing on this Motion, at present many complaints are simply, effectively and speedily resolved by a solicitor’s letter setting out the legal position to the person taking the decision. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman can only make recommendations and provides a much slower method of seeking redress than a solicitor’s letter. The ombudsman, Mr Nigel Newcomen CBE, told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that he was concerned about the Government’s proposals, in particular because his office was unable to cope with the expected increase in workload.

These regulations will not even save public money. The cost of maintaining legal aid in ISP cases before the Parole Board, for example, is minimal, and the cost of ISPs remaining unjustifiably in closed conditions when they could safely be allowed to move to open conditions is high. The Howard League for Penal Reform has pointed out that the Ministry of Justice has put the cost of dealing with each complaint to the ombudsman at £830, which is more than three times the £220 fixed fee for a solicitor doing this work under the legal aid arrangements.

In the Supreme Court last April, in the case of Osborn v the Parole Board, reported in volume 3 of the 2013 Weekly Law Reports page 1020, paragraph 72, Lord Reed stated for the court that,

“procedures which involve an immediate cost but contribute to better decision-making are in reality less costly than they may appear”.

I suggest that the Minister conveys the suggestion to the Secretary of State for Justice that the words of wisdom of Lord Reed should be displayed on Mr Grayling’s desk in very large letters.

These regulations will do enormous damage to the rule of law in prisons and there is no justification for them. I beg to move.

My Lords, I echo everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I, too, regret that the Government are taking this course and regret profoundly what was said by the Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Grayling, in describing the differences between those who supported the maintenance of legal aid and those who were agin it. It is as though it is not enough to go to prison and lose your liberty, and experience the deprivations that we know imprisonment means, so we are looking for other ways to punish.

I will speak specifically about women. As we in this House all know, women in prison are very largely those who have experienced abuse or domestic violence. They are often in prison because of serious social problems, they have mental health problems, and often have problems of addiction. The panoply of problems that they have do not make them people who will be well able to represent themselves in trying to get their rights in prison.

I will mention the issue of mother and baby units. In the past I have been involved in such cases, where a woman seeks to prepare for an application to have her baby remain with her, and has to secure supportive evidence, expert reports, and so on. It is impossible for a woman to do that without the help of a solicitor. Representations have to be made in relation to any refusal to offer a woman a place in a mother and baby unit, and I can assure noble Lords that that is sometimes done—and not done—for the best of reasons.

Women sometimes make applications for temporary release when something disastrous is happening at home with other children; they seek a temporary licence so that they can spend time at home. Many female prisoners are their children’s primary carer. We know that 55% of women in prison have a child under 16 and wish to make use of that release on temporary licence when they have emergencies at home. I know from experience that the application of the release on temporary licence policy is frequently misapplied by prisons, and women who are eligible are incorrectly refused. Legal help is vital to them for making their application, making representations, drawing on supportive evidence, and so on, but it is no longer available.

Disabled prisoners often have real problems about the suitability of their accommodation or other services they need, and need legal help to acquire them. Mentally ill prisoners do not get legal help to deal with many of the attendant matters that go along with convincing the authorities of the seriousness of their problems, whether that is on the depressive scale or as regards behaviours that clearly show disturbance, but which often bring them into dispute with the authorities in the prison. There are often arguments about the capacity of such women. They present with difficult and challenging behaviour which is often met with a strong disciplinary response from the prison so that they are awarded extra days as punishments, when in fact mental health is the problem. As extended prisoners, women often have the date of release set further and further away because of their behaviour, but that behaviour is due to their mental ill health.

In those sorts of cases you need to have the representation of someone who is legally qualified to help take the appropriate course and find the appropriate expertise to support applications. The Government’s response is that prisoners should use the internal complaints procedures—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described the inadequacy of that. The process of appealing to the ombudsman is often slow and does not give the remedy that is sought. Add to all that the poor educational attainment of most women in prison and the situation is hopeless.

Before this debate a Member of this House said to me, “Are you speaking in the legal aid debate?”, to which I replied, “Yes”. He said, “You know it’s hopeless”. My response to that was that it may be hopeless, but I hope that by having this debate some members of the Government will feel shame. I am speaking of the most vulnerable today. I hope that a feeling of shame will enter into discussions among the Government and between the coalition partners about the impact of this on the lives of some of the most fragile people in our society.

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and both of us took part in the evidence session with the right honourable Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. That was just at the moment when the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who has the misfortune to have to reply to this debate, was no longer able to be with us because he had been told that he was about to become a Minister. Therefore tonight we will have an excellent example of the poacher who has now turned gamekeeper, as it were, for Her Majesty’s Government. I will make one point that I put to Mr Grayling, which I do not think he answered in a very satisfactory way.

If the Government stick to their regulations, as they will, the consequence will be that more cases will go to Strasbourg for want of effective domestic remedies in this country. That is not something we should want; it is much better that effective remedies are provided in this country. Why do I say that? I have the cases of Sidney Golder and Reuben Silver in mind. Sidney Golder, many years ago, was a prisoner who thought that he had been defamed by a member of the Prison Service, and he wanted to go to a solicitor to see whether he could sue for libel. The Home Office said, “Sorry—you can’t go to a solicitor while you’re a prisoner”, so Mr Golder had to go to Strasbourg. The Strasbourg court said, years and years ago, “There must be an effective domestic remedy. Access to justice is a fundamental right, and prisoners are entitled to that right”. Therefore Golder led to reform of the prison rules, or was meant to do so. I was working in the Home Office with Roy Jenkins on the subject, and I am sorry to say that Home Office officials did not do as they were instructed, so that led to the case of Mr Silver.

Reuben Silver was an Orthodox Jew, and he wanted to know whether the food he was receiving in prison was kosher. He wrote a letter to the editor of the Jewish Chronicle marked “not for publication”. It was stopped on the ground that you must not write to the press. He also wrote to the Chief Rabbi, but was prevented from sending that letter on the ground that he had not known the Chief Rabbi before he became a prisoner, under the rule that said that you had to know the person beforehand. Therefore Mr Silver was one of my seven prisoner clients who went to the Strasbourg court complaining of the absence of a domestic remedy. The Strasbourg court had no difficulty in finding that the prison ombudsman could not provide and had not provided an effective remedy, and the same would be true today.

Those cases are not just routine internal disciplinary matters. I lost another case called Boyle and Rice in which they complained about being moved from one place to another and not having artwork, and so on. That is the kind of case which Mr Grayling is perfectly right to say should be dealt with by the ombudsman system. However, there are other, grosser, cases where that is not so. When I put this to Mr Grayling in evidence his reply was, “Well, I’m sure that in that sort of case you can find barristers who do no-win, no-fee cases”. That is no answer; for a prisoner to have to find such a barrister and to negotiate with the clerk and all the rest of it is patently absurd. One overwhelming reason to regret what has happened is that it will lead inevitably to more cases going to Strasbourg, which is not in the interests of anybody.

My Lords, I suppose that one should be grateful for small mercies and welcome what is provided for in Regulation 4(2) and (3): advice and assistance for issues relating to the release by the Secretary of State or for consideration for release by the Parole Board, and for proceedings that involve the determination of a criminal charge. However, they are very small mercies: these provisions were, of course, unavoidable. They are essential to protect against the risk of challenge by prisoners whose basic rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the convention were being infringed.

The point is this: there are very real grounds for concern as to what is being left out, a list of which is set out in paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum. For reasons of time, I will not go over the details, but one is bound to ask how robust the system of complaints is on which there is so much emphasis and to draw attention—as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has done—to the effect of the absence of legal advice, which always focuses the issue more directly and saves money by directing attention to where the problem really lies.

The other major gap is that to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has drawn attention; namely, the position of the vulnerable, of whom there are so many, both male and female, in prisons and in young offender institutions too—for example, those with language or learning difficulties. I am struck by one of the provisions in paragraph 9.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which tells us that a note has been issued for distribution to prisoners to explain the changes to the system—but what provision is being made for those who cannot read or who do not speak English? Can we really be confident that steps are being taken to deal with their needs and give them the advice they need?

At the heart of this is something else, which, I suggest, is profoundly worrying: the increasing tendency to treat prisoners as some kind of an underclass. They are to be regarded as having surrendered their right, when they go into custody, to be treated like everyone else, except to the extent necessary to serve their sentence. We are all familiar with the debate about prisoner voting; but the effect of denying them the vote is really quite trivial when compared with what these changes will mean for many who are in a position that puts them at such an obvious disadvantage when compared with everyone else, having been locked up by the state.

Paragraph 7.4 of the memorandum states that the amendments aim to target limited public resources at the cases that really justify it. So far so good; but then there are the words,

“to ensure that the public can have confidence in the scheme”.

Those really are weasel words. What is the basis for that claim? Who are the public? What do they know about the effect of all these provisions on prison law? What about the prisoners, their wives, parents or children? What about the many organisations and individuals who really do care about the mistreatment of prisoners or their rehabilitation?

Some years ago Justice Breyer of the US Supreme Court observed in a lecture in London that it is not the job of judges to be popular. That is why we have judges who are not elected. If you want to be popular, you have to win votes: you must appeal to the majority. Of course, one way of doing that is to devalue the rights of the minority. When it comes to the use of resources, there is a temptation: they can be diminished or left to one side because the majority can be relied upon not to care about them and not to object. That is all about winning the confidence of the majority, which is what this sentence really refers to. It is not difficult to imagine what, in the wrong hands, this may eventually lead to. The line of thinking, therefore—the political philosophy that seems to underlie these proposals—is perhaps even more worrying than all the details which, in themselves, are so troubling. I join others in expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for bringing this Motion before the House.

My Lords, I, too, regret very much these legal aid regulations in relation to prisons. The amount concerned is apparently about £4 million. The cost of each lawyer to give advice or representation is a fixed fee of £220. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—who, in my view, has done the House a great favour by bringing this issue before noble Lords—has already said, that is achieved very often by a letter that resolves the problem.

I received a very interesting and useful e-mail from a committee member of the Young Legal Aid Lawyers, which is a group of students, lawyers and barristers committed to practising areas of law traditionally funded by legal aid, which includes prison law. They raised three points that I want to make to the House, which identify three vulnerable groups. They have been referred to already, so I hope that the House will forgive me for referring to them again.

One group of young people—they are children—have advocates from Barnardo’s, which is a step forward. As far as I know, however, they are not lawyers and do not provide that specialised help which, for instance, is needed in the resettlement of young people who come out of secure accommodation or youth prison. Those young lawyers are of course experts in dealing with these problems.

The second group is mothers and babies. The issue of mothers and babies has been raised already, but let me take a different point. As a former family judge, it is the baby that I worry about. There is no one to speak for the baby; he or she is removed from the mother, with all the emotional harm that is done to a baby in those circumstances, even if that mother and baby are reunited at a later stage. In that instance, a lawyer can help to organise it so that the mother and baby remain together.

The third group that has already been referred to is that of vulnerable adults. I will make two points. First, in our prisons there is a very high percentage of people with mental health problems. Some have single mental health problems; many have multiple problems. There is also no shortage of people without education and with learning disabilities. How on earth are they to cope with putting forward whatever is the issue that needs to be put forward if they do not have someone to help them? I doubt very much whether the internal arrangements or even the ombudsman will meet the specialised help which, for a very minor cost to the public, these lawyers can give. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggests, it is ideological, the money does not matter; but I suspect that for the rest of the Government money matters very much. It is not very much money and it saves a great deal. Therefore I urge not just the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, but the Government generally, to rethink the balance of saving money and the damage caused by taking away this facility and the lack of appropriate legal advice and representation that to me, as a former judge, is a denial of access to justice.

My Lords, I, too, rise to support this Motion and also, in part, to atone for my own part as Treasury Counsel 30 years or more ago, when I did all that I could to obstruct the recognition of prisoners’ rights—sometimes successfully in the short term, although generally not in the longer term. Preparing for the debate tonight has involved me in a wander down memory lane. In 1981, in a case called Payne against the then chairman of the Parole Board, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I succeeded in persuading the Court of Appeal under Lord Denning that it was quite unnecessary to give prisoners any reasons whatever as to why their parole applications had been refused. In 1984, in a case called King, I persuaded the Court of Appeal that prison governors’ disciplinary proceedings were wholly immune from judicial review, lest their authority be undermined.

My Lords, given the current clamour for repentance in some quarters, it is a real pleasure to follow a sinner who hath repented. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, makes an extremely powerful point in reminding us that these are cases in which the merits test has been passed. Therefore, the Government are deliberately excluding from access to litigation people who have been advised that they have merit in their case. That is a matter of real concern.

I, too, applaud the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for moving this Motion of Regret—the third Motion of Regret, or similar, in a run of these legal aid regulations. This fact, in my view, should cause Ministers and the Government Front Bench real concern. There is more or less united opposition to these regulations among the informed. I would have thought that that evidence was as good as one could wish for.

I also want to pick up a point on mental health made by the noble and learned Baroness, with all her experience of the judiciary. It is often a matter of pure chance whether a child or adult with a serious multiple mental health history ends up in prison or in hospital. It may depend on where they were standing when a florid episode took place, whether there was a sympathetic or an unsympathetic police officer present or whether or not their family was there to protect them. It is purely because of a small event that one person may now be in a hospital, with all the care that a hospital provides, and the capacity to obtain legal aid for important litigation that may establish the course of the rest of their lives, and another may be in prison, where, apparently, they are to be deprived of access to that litigation. That seems to me profoundly unjust.

The third and final point I will mention—trying not to take up too much of your Lordships’ time this evening—relates to children and young people and the work of the Howard League for Penal Reform, of which I was president but am no longer. On 13 December last, the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated that it was “disappointed” that the Government had pursued the removal of matters from legal aid relating to young people and, in particular, resettlement cases. The committee said:

“The issues concerning young people may involve matters of housing law, social care law and public law of such complexity that they require access to legal advice and assistance in order to investigate and formulate their case”.

There are, of course, some very good lawyers in this House, but there is not a lawyer in this House who would not be challenged by some of these cases. The Howard League has a legal team that has helped literally hundreds of children make fresh starts and secure long-term support on statutory funding. The result has often been to allow them to be released safely, having served the shortest appropriate time in prison. They have often been able to move on not just to lives which are free of crime but to lives which are positive in a much broader sense.

In turn, this has led not only to justice on their part but has saved the taxpayer a huge amount of money. It is extremely expensive keeping young people locked up. Therefore, I say to my noble friend the Minister that I doubt very much that any robust cost-benefit analysis has been done on removing legal aid from children in custody rather than allowing them the legal aid which the expert legal team at the Howard League—and, of course, elsewhere—has utilised to bring benefit to those children’s lives.

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the statements that have been made by so many of your Lordships universally condemning these regulations and identifying the specifics of why they are wrong in principle and wrong in fact.

I have not been someone who has objected to any legal aid cut. I have been concerned about some but, as a member of a Government who themselves had to look at legal aid issues, that was not the concern. However, what particularly concerns me about these regulations is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made early in his contribution when he referred to the reasons given by the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, for making this change—said to be ideological.

While there may be that ideology so far as the Lord Chancellor is concerned, noble and learned Lords have already made it plain why it is legally wrong: because prisoners have rights. Therefore, if the justification is that, ideologically, they should not have rights, he is saying that they should be in the same position as the people in the black holes of Guantanamo.

I am still shocked by the piece that the Lord Chancellor wrote in the Daily Mail on 11 September 2013, in which he described judicial review, not once but twice, as,

“a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners”.

That is completely untrue, of course. I do not think that the Daily Mail would be regarded as a left-wing campaigner, yet it used judicial review to challenge the Leveson inquiry. Much as I admire it, I do not think that the Countryside Alliance, when it brought a judicial review against hunting, would have regarded itself as a left-wing campaigner.

It is deeply worrying that that is the ideology that underlies these changes. It would be deeply worrying if it came from anybody, but coming from a Lord Chancellor—a Secretary of State for Justice—it is a matter of the gravest regret, which is why I am very happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is wrong for these reasons. It is wrong because legal aid is about justice, not about ideology. It should be about ensuring that people can vindicate their rights where properly those rights deserve to be vindicated. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor—the Secretary of State—is ideologically unsound and also legally wrong.

This measure is, I regret to say, shabby, and a political and populist move which does no credit at all to a Government. Equally, it does no good, as noble and learned Lords and noble Lords have pointed out, in terms of cutting the budget. I very much hope that the noble Lord—and I, for one, welcome him to his place on the ministerial Bench—will do his best to make sure that that point is driven home within the Ministry of Justice and that the Secretary of State recognises eventually that this sort of move, which he regards as ideological, is in fact utterly to be regretted.

My Lords, my memory of the gradual application of the rule of law in prisons also goes back a long way—as far back as that of my repentant noble and learned friend, whom I have the great honour to be sitting next to and of whom my opinion has warmed considerably as the years have gone by.

I recollect the days when prisoners were found guilty of disciplinary offences and sentenced to lose many days of remission without being heard or allowed to defend themselves. I remember a riot at Wormwood Scrubs prison in which 54 prisoners and 11 prison officers were injured. It was hushed up. The full facts emerged after two and a half years and no one was ever held to account. I am sure that there would be no support in 2014 for the rule of law not being maintained in prisons. The arrival of lawfulness improved immeasurably the working conditions of staff, the treatment of prisoners and the safety of the environment in which they both lived. My noble and learned friend Lord Woolf was right to say in his report on the Strangeways riot in 1991 that,

“the system of justice which has put a person in prison cannot end at the prison doors”.

Therefore, within this context, since this is a Motion of Regret, I regret very much that the framework of lawfulness in which prisons operate is to be reduced. I understand the argument about cost, but these measures will certainly save no money at all, and they will shrink one of the elements that keep prisons fairly safe and fairly manageable—that is, the provision of access to a remedy when a decision seems arbitrary and unjust.

Perhaps I may mention one specific situation so that it may be on the record. I refer to prisoners who are held in extreme conditions, such as in the case quoted by the Chief Inspector of Prisons when he gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It concerned a woman with severe mental health problems in Bronzefield prison who was held for five years in conditions that amounted, in his view, to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In future, such a woman seems very unlikely to be able to get legal aid to challenge her conditions and her placement. Women who have their babies taken away have already been mentioned, and I endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy.

I end by endorsing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the excellent work done by the Howard League and the Prisoners’ Advice Service. Neither of those specialist legal aid prison law firms will be able to continue under these arrangements, and that, too, is a matter for profound regret.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Pannick on bringing his regret Motion before this House. I do not dissent in any way from what he said. He has outlined why this House should regret the restrictions being imposed on legal aid, advice and assistance in prison law cases with his usual clarity and skill. I want to focus instead on the Government’s justification for those restrictions, which I believe to be deeply flawed. I have to admit to serious alarm when I saw that the justification was the internal prisons complaints system, about which, when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, I had frequent cause to complain. I was equally alarmed when I saw that the tough Mr Grayling had said in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights:

“I struggle personally to believe that it is sensible to have a system where we have prisoners able to access the courts, and access public funds, to argue that they should be detained in a different prison”,

to which the Joint Committee responded:

“What is strikingly strange about the Lord Chancellor’s comments about where legal aid will be allowed is that he has … ignored where common-law standards of fairness apply”.

It also said:

“We have not seen any evidence to suggest that legal aid is being abused to enable prisoners to complain about what prison they are put in”—

in other words, both drawing attention to his ignorance of the facts and suggesting that he was on a collision course with Winston Churchill’s conviction that the way in which it treats its crime and criminals is the true test of the civilisation of any country. Ideology appears to dictate his policy-making, rather than reality.

Mr Justice May, when recommending the reformation of the Inspectorate of Prisons after a break of 102 years, following widespread unease about the efficacy of the self-regulation that had been introduced by the first Prison Commissioner in 1877, recommended that the chief inspector be given statutory responsibility for the inspection of efficiency, propriety and the investigation of grievances. In the event, the investigation of grievances was denied. However, when the first prisons ombudsman was appointed in 1994 following similar unease about the internal prisons complaints system, he was not given statutory responsibility for the investigation of grievances—something for which he and his successors have fought, unsuccessfully, ever since, and a fight which I warmly support.

I was therefore interested to note that in his evidence to the Joint Committee, far from having the confidence in the complaints system held by the Lord Chancellor, my successor as chief inspector, Nick Hardwick, confirmed that,

“prisoner confidence in a complaints system was crucial to the safety of a prison”.

He added that,

“two-thirds of people who have had a complaint dealt with through the existing system do not think it has been dealt with fairly”,

and that,

“about one in 10 say they have been prevented in some way from accessing the complaints system”.

So much for advice and assistance that is equal to that being denied.

Like my noble and learned friends Lord Brown and Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, if there is one group of prisoners about whom I am particularly concerned in all this, it is young offenders. For a whole variety of reasons, including immaturity and lack of trust, they tend not to use the complaints system. When I was inspecting, what worried me was that prison staff tended to interpret this lack of use of the formal complaint system as meaning that all was well when the opposite was true.

My final word to the Minister is that, in reflecting on all that has been said by noble Lords in regretting the proposed restrictions, he and the Secretary of State should reflect that this is not a stand-alone measure. Their restrictions come on top of a whole host of other cuts and deliberately tough sanctions against prisoners, and are resulting in mounting unrest. Prisoners are deprived of their liberty for a period by the courts following conviction for an offence but, in the civilised society about which Winston Churchill spoke, they are not deprived of justice. My noble and learned friend Lord Woolf observed that justice was a crucial ingredient of safety in a prison, which confirms that there is no place for ideologically imposed injustice in a civilised prison system.

My Lords, I, too, bitterly regret the need for this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I feel enormous sympathy for him and bitterly regret that he will have the arduous burden of responding on behalf of the Government. To turn our minds back only a few years, if we had asked any lawyer worth their salt whether it would be likely that any Government, of whatever political complexion, would bring forward regulations such as these, I think that such a suggestion would have been met with incredulity.

I totally endorse what has been said by every Member of the House who has spoken already, particularly the comments made in relation to children, women and the vulnerable. I emphasise the comments made recently by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the need to remember the backcloth against which these additional cuts must now be seen.

I shall take a moment to concentrate on the plight of women. Noble Lords will know that legal aid in family matters has been removed almost in its entirety, except in cases of domestic violence. Even there we are hearing reports from solicitors all over the country that access to legal aid for those women and individuals who are victims has been severely constrained. Some solicitors say that the drop has been 96% in some areas and 94% in others, and that there has been a real diminution right across the board. We know that women in our prisons are overrepresented in terms of vulnerability. Certainly it was my experience when I was Minister of State with responsibility for the criminal justice system. I was told in 2004 by the governor of Holloway prison—I have no reason to believe that this has changed—that 89% of women in prison had a history of domestic violence or sexual abuse prior to having offended. We have a highly vulnerable group whose rights already are constrained outside the prison estate and are having them further constrained within it. Two-thirds of children in youth offending institutions come from those same domestic violence homes. We all know that those who graduated from the youth justice estate are overrepresented in the male estate. We are dealing with the most vulnerable in our community.

I add my voice to those who have expressed a degree of shock that the Secretary of State for Justice feels able to phrase these issues in terms of ideology. I commend the Damascene-like conversion of the erstwhile Treasury devil for his change of mind and invite the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to ask the Lord Chancellor to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, as an exemplar of what can be done when one really wishes to change, and to say that, from the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, all of us expect more. I cannot but agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, when he says that these provisions are mischievous and misguided.

My Lords, yet again this House appears united against the Government’s proposals for legal aid. Thanks are owed not just by those of us in the House but those outside, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for moving his regret Motion and doing so in so powerful a way. Those who followed him must rank as one of the most impressive lists of dramatis personae of legal luminaries it would be possible to bring together, and we have not heard from my noble friend Lord Beecham yet.

I want to make a couple of fairly short points. At paragraph 161 on page 50 of the JCHR report, there is reference to reforms to the system of prison law that were carried out in July 2010. They were really the work of the previous Government. Indeed, they were from a time when I was privileged to be the Minister with responsibility for legal aid. What we did then was to make comparatively minor changes that we believed were appropriate. We implemented them and, dare I say, they appeared to work fairly satisfactorily. But now, yet again, our successors go much, much too far and take so much out of scope that the balance shifts. Instead of having a system that maintains the essential proposition that prisoners should have reasonable and proportionate access to legal advice and representation, we are now faced with a sort of brave new world where any legal rights prisoners enjoy are granted out of sufferance—the very bare minimum.

The approach is not what is fair and consistent with our legal traditions but rather, “What can we as the Government, the state, get away with?”. There is almost a pride in not taking a balanced view based on judgment and legal reputation. In one of his examples, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke about categorisation. The Ministry of Justice has decided to remove funding for pre-tariff reviews. He explained much better than I can the value of pre-tariff reviews for prisoners.

Recently, I spoke to a recently retired Parole Board member and a retired High Court judge who told me that not only are these reviews immensely significant in the course of a prisoner’s life but that there are huge advantages for the Parole Board and, thus, presumably for society, in having the best possible information about a prisoner so that the right judgment can be made. Such information is gained by the Parole Board having had the advice and representation before it that has been given to the prisoner. Can anything be more ridiculous than the decision to take pre-tariff reviews out of scope? As the JCHR report so rightly said:

“Categorisation engages common law rights to liberty, as it can affect the likelihood of a prisoner being released. There are also clear cost implications of a prisoner remaining in too high a category, which may mean that the Lord Chancellor’s cost-saving rationale may not be satisfied. We recommend that the Government look again at these proposals, and give full consideration to the potential for increased costs, which may affect the justification for its policy”.

Two newly appointed Ministers in the Ministry of Justice were on that JCHR, at least for a large part of its hearing into this matter, and we hope that both those Ministers will follow that paragraph and talk to their Secretary of State in those terms.

My Lords, I am extremely honoured to be in this learned company and I will try not to take too much time because everything has been said.

We have been here before. I spoke in the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as did many other noble Lords. On that occasion, I mentioned the work of the CAB. But today, like others, I am much more concerned about the effect of these regulations on young people in difficulty, including asylum seekers in detention, unaccompanied minors and even young people released from prison and wishing to make a new life. These young people would normally benefit from professional legal advice at a critical stage in their lives when they are separated from their families or being made homeless at the moment of leaving prison. Specialised agencies such as the Howard League mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, have given hundreds of people not just hope but essential practical advice on restarting their lives. This kind of work, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, characterises fairness in our society. It is not charity.

I notice that the Minister has been a member of the Select Committee looking at mental capacity, so he will be more aware than most of the special problems of the mentally ill already mentioned. Many of those people are in prison through no fault of their own. I said in the legal aid debate that those with mental health problems were especially vulnerable. There were no exceptions for children nor for prisoners accepted to have a disability. A detained child unable to identify legal issues will not have the financial resources, let alone the intellectual resources, to pay for lawyers or even to frame their complaint to the prison authority, as is suggested. That is a serious point that the Minister has to answer. It would be a serious personal crisis for young people.

A case of a 12 year-old boy was mentioned to me by the Howard League. He was an unaccompanied minor who had been detained in a secure children’s home. He had behaved well, earned himself early release and had sought help with resettlement. The lawyer concerned approached social services but only then discovered through an interpreter that he had been wrongly detained in the first place and had to appeal against his sentence. None of this will happen if cases are not referred in the future and legal aid is unavailable.

Last September, there were 1,789 immigration detainees spread across the UK in removal centres and short-term holding facilities simply waiting to be removed. Many are moved from place to place and I doubt if the Minister or anyone else can keep count of how many of them are young people. I heard from a Member of Parliament last week that one young detainee, originally from his constituency, had been moved eight times. Mental health problems loom large in these situations because no one knows when they can leave or even when they can receive a hearing. Detainees depend heavily on outside advice. This may be a subject for the Immigration Bill next month, but it is surely highly relevant to the present regulations. Is it fair to exact cuts that will impinge on young people in these conditions and restrict their lives even more than at present?

It is true that the Joint Committee on Human Rights accepted that it was legitimate for the Government to introduce a residence test, as the Minister may mention, and to restrict the scope of prison law funding. But it strongly recommended that there should be more and broader exemptions from these proposals to make it less likely that they will lead to breaches of the fundamental right of effective access to justice.

What is especially unfortunate, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned, is that young people in prison had been receiving much better attention over a long period. For example, the Minister will know that in 2002 there was a court ruling that the welfare and child protection duties in the Children Act apply to children in prison just as they do to children in the community.

The amount and percentage of cuts has already been discussed. They are surely disproportionate. I shall lastly mention one piece of evidence given to the Select Committee last July. I was surprised to read that the Justice Secretary had changed his mind about equal shares in legal aid work. He told the committee he had been persuaded that competition among legal providers was more essential than advice shared equally. He said:

“That is something that the market has said to me: ‘Actually, the principle of choice is one that we regard as more important’”,

than equal shares. If the market is speaking in this way, many young people and their families are going to suffer from these regulations.

My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned the debate in this House last July. I looked back at that and reminded myself that the title of the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was “Effect of Cuts in Legal Aid Funding on the Justice System of England and Wales”. I think that that was a very well chosen title because the effect of the cuts is not just on individuals but on our system of justice.

I was not going to talk about whether this was a matter of ideology on the part of the Justice Secretary. I had a look at the transcript and am not sure that that was quite the exchange about ideological differences, but I am tempted to wonder whether that was an admission or a boast.

I want to say very clearly—though noble and learned Lords, and noble Lords who are not technically learned, have put it much better than I can—that for those who are convicted and sentenced by the courts, the punishment is imprisonment. The punishment should not extend to the loss of rights, whether convention rights or at common law.

A number of threads seem to run through the Government’s approach. The first is a reference to and reliance on judicial review. I do not need to comment on the paradox in that given the policy regarding judicial review. I was not aware of the Daily Mail article quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I do not think that I need to spend any time on saying how undesirable it is to rely on judicial review. But I will mention the skill that is needed, at what I shall describe as first instance, to ensure that the right points are raised and dealt with in order that there is a basis for an application for judicial review. I think that that is not a job for someone who is not trained.

Another theme which I picked up from the JCHR report is that the Justice Secretary thinks that the number of cases affected will be very small. If that is so, I do not understand why the Government do not give in gracefully. We know about the cost pressures on the MoJ. We know that the Government want to focus public resources on cases with sufficient priority to justify the use of public money and to get value for money for the taxpayer. But I know that I am not alone in this Chamber in setting justice high in my priorities as a taxpayer.

What seems to be a common theme in the responses to the Government from those who work in the sector is a mention of the “see-saw impact”—that is, cuts here meaning costs there. Concerns around mother and baby units and the cost of keeping a baby in care is one example, undermining the principles of rehabilitation and the costs associated with all that. We will all have seen and read particular cases. I shall mention one which I found very compelling—the story of a 17 year-old who was given a 36-month custodial sentence. He was studying for his A-levels at the time. With the work of solicitors, who engaged in both detailed representations and liaison with a clutch of agencies, he was granted release on temporary licence to attend college part-time and then home detention curfew, and so he lost only one year of education, not the further years which were in prospect.

Of course, there is also the cost of the loss of expertise among solicitors. I have seen, and heard about tonight, a large number of points relating to costs rather than savings. We really have not got any better, have we, at joining up and reading across budgets? I have actually been defeated—my level of energy depleted—in trying to understand the savings projected as against the knock-on costs. I hope that when the Minister—who has everyone’s sympathy in this—replies he will be able to unpack this for the House.

The third theme I picked up was the emphasis on the non-judicial complaints system. I do not see this as an either/or. There should be a good complaints system. That should then alleviate to some extent the necessity for lawyers to be involved. There should be an effective system that inspires confidence. However, there are limits to the system that we have—to the powers, to the remit, which does not extend to making recommendations to external agencies or investigating them. These concerns seem rightly to have been stressed.

We have heard, although not tonight, about ambulance chasing—if that is the right term—by some solicitors in prison, soliciting work and planting the idea in prisoners’ minds that they have real claims. However, that should not mean that proper advice, assistance and representation is not available.

I do not suppose that the MoJ has found much which it regarded as supportive or constructive in the responses to the proposed changes. The House has managed to cover quite a lot of ground, and I will end by citing a point made by the Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges, which noted, according to the Howard League, that:

“The practice of prison law is so unique; its impact on the most vulnerable within society so profound; and the potential savings suggested by these reforms so limited at best, and so obscure in any event, prison law should be removed altogether from the scope of the legal aid reforms”.

My Lords, it is once again necessary for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for putting down a Motion of Regret about a set of regulations on legal aid. I also express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully tonight about the regulations and the potential damage that they will do.

I begin by citing three examples of successful cases for which legal aid was, but will no longer be, available. I am indebted to the Howard League for supplying the relevant information. The first was a mother and baby case of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. A Spanish mother, who spoke no English, was informed after sentence that her baby would be removed and placed into care because it was not known whether she would be allowed to remain with the child when she returned to Spain. Her lawyers ascertained that she would, and the decision was reversed.

In the second case, a prisoner with severe learning disabilities could not do offending behaviour courses. Experts in the prison recommended he be transferred to hospital for treatment, but nothing happened until his lawyer commissioned an independent report and persuaded the authorities to transfer him to hospital. Such a sentence case will now be out of scope.

In the third case, a 17 year-old suffering from ADHD and learning difficulties underwent psychiatric therapy in a secure training centre, but the local authority refused to respond to a request for a needs assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act until legal intervention by the Howard League. Resettlement cases of this kind will also be out of scope. I remind your Lordships that the cost of keeping such an offender in custody could be as much as £200,000 a year.

Those are but a few sample cases. The regulations which are the subject of this regret Motion are merely the latest example of this Government’s repeated assaults on the legal aid system and access to justice, pushed through by a Lord Chancellor indifferent to their effects and unheeding of the warnings from the judiciary, practitioners, and charities and voluntary organisations. Time after time the criticisms of bodies such as the Justice Select Committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights are brushed aside. Impact analyses are vestigial in many cases, and imperfect in most.

Such is clearly the case with the proposals we are debating tonight. Not only are the measures deeply flawed but the process is tainted. Paragraph after paragraph of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report highlights these systemic failures. After their initial consultation, the Government abandoned proposals to exclude two areas from legal aid, namely where the Parole Board considers whether to order release and in relation to the calculation of sentence when the release date is in dispute. That is welcome, but as paragraph 154 of the report sets out, two new matters were excluded from legal aid—contrary to the express intention set out in the consultation that legal aid would continue to be available—namely, the areas of sentence planning and pre-tariff reviews. There was no subsequent consultation on these changes.

At paragraph 163, the committee dismissed the Lord Chancellor’s assertion that legal aid was being abused by prisoners complaining about what prison they were confined in, or about prison conditions, saying, damningly and accurately,

“legal aid is already unavailable for such claims”.

At paragraph 168, it pointed up the hollowness of the Government’s claim that judicial review would be available given the restrictions being imposed on the number of cases firms might bring and the limitations of the exceptional funding regime. At paragraph 169, it asked the Government to consider the combined effect of the residence test and the exceptional funding criteria and invited them to explain,

“how access to justice rights will be maintained where both policies are in operation”.

What is the Government’s response to that very significant question?

The Government airily dismissed the concerns on internal prison complaints but, as we have heard, the Chief Inspector of Prisons is quoted at paragraph 174 as finding the response “disappointing”. He emphasised the problems of prisoners with disabilities, especially mental health problems, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, warned that prisoner confidence in the complaints system was crucial to prison safety. As recent events have demonstrated, prison safety is a real concern. Similarly, at paragraph 174, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman voiced concerns, especially about his lack of statutory independence that the Lord Chancellor has promised to rectify. I must ask the Minister when the legislation, urgently pressed for by the committee at paragraph 177, will be enacted.

At paragraph 181 the committee identified the need for public funding,

“to prevent infringements of prisoners’ right of access to court arising in practice”.

From paragraphs 182 to 188, it identified serious issues for prisoners with mental health problems, the vast majority exemplified by the chief inspector’s remarks in the case mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, about segregation, in particular of women prisoners. In parenthesis, when I asked a question about women prisoners being held in segregation the reply that I received from the Ministry of Justice was that it was too costly to obtain the details of the numbers and length of time such women had been so confined. To his credit, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, agreed that the answer was ridiculous and procured the relevant information.

At paragraph 188, the Joint Committee noted that since 2010 the majority of treatment cases were mental health cases and it was not satisfied that these prisoners would be able to use the complaints procedure effectively. It recommended that the LAA retain the ability to grant funding for these cases where the implications for access to justice are clear. Noble Lords will not need reminding that the majority of prisoners suffer from mental health disorders: 70% of one or more mental health disorders for adults, 90% for young offenders. Again, what is the Government’s response to the case of prisoners suffering from these disorders? In relation to mother and baby cases, of which there are mercifully few, the committee called for an exemption in cases where legal representation would be desirable. Will the Government not accede to this request?

The concerns are echoed in relation to young offenders, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, where, as the committee pointed out at paragraph 205, such matters, including in particular resettlement cases, are being removed even before the Government respond to their consultation paper, Transforming Youth Custody. Trenchantly at paragraph 206 the committee disagreed that advocacy services and internal complaints systems would be effective and asserted that:

“This could leave young people vulnerable and deny them their rights”.

This would be not least in key areas such as,

“housing law, social care law and public law”.

Moreover, it dismissed the young offender’s right to judicial review, which was raised by the Government, since a young offender would require a litigation friend to pursue the action; it cannot be brought by a minor on his own initiative. It urged the retention of young offender cases within scope, specifically resettlement cases. Finally, at paragraphs 213 and 218, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Bach, it recommended reconsideration of the position in relation to Parole Board hearings and categorisation cases. This is a formidable catalogue of concerns about, and in many cases outright opposition to, what the Government are doing.

Once again, the Minister will shortly stand at the Dispatch Box, like Horatius on the bridge, with no troops behind him. There is not a single voice that has been raised in this Chamber tonight in support of the Government’s position. It would be unfair to suggest that the Minister, who was a member of the JCHR and presumably agreed with its report, has changed his mind now that he has taken if not the Queen’s shilling, then at least the Lord Chancellor’s shilling, if only because he is not being paid a shilling or indeed anything else for the job that he has undertaken. But I hope that he can prevail upon the Government to think again, and quickly, about the direction and extent of travel reflected in these regulations.

I commend to him in particular the response of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law to these issues. The centre does not,

“share the Government’s view that treatment cases will never be of sufficient priority to justify the use of public funds, or that sentencing matters such as categorisation and segregation are considered incapable of warranting legal aid”.

Importantly, it dismisses the so-called “adequate alternatives” to which the Government refer—for example, the complaints system and the ombudsman—as “first ports of call”, in the MoJ’s phrase, for four substantial reasons.

First, as per the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, whom I welcome back to the side of the angels after his digression over the issues of miscarriages of justice and compensation, the courts require alternative remedies to be exhausted before seeking judicial review, so legal aid would not be the first port of call. Secondly, under the regulations, the non-judicial remedies would be the only point of call. Thirdly,

“the rule of law requires the possibility, at least as a last resort, of recourse to independent courts”,

and, fourthly,

“rule-of-law imperative is particularly compelling in settings—of which prisons are a paradigm example—in which individuals are subject to the exercise of highly coercive public law powers”.

The centre concluded by affirming that,

“judicial review has exerted a profound and positive influence upon the prison system in recent decades … the nature of any state’s prison system … is a key barometer of the rule of law”.

Tellingly, it adds:

“It is inevitable that the proposals, if implemented, would substantially undermine the valuable role played by courts in this area. If one of public law’s core functions is to safeguard vulnerable individuals against misuses of state authority, then it is hard to think of a more fundamental assault upon the capacity of public law to perform such a role”—

and all the more so when the custodial services are contracted out to oligopolies such as G4S and Serco.

What answer does the Minister have to this critique? Does he agree with the words uttered by Winston Churchill—who has already been quoted here tonight—as Home Secretary in 1910, when he said:

“A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights … even of convicted criminals against the State … tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes … are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it”?—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/1910; col. 1354.]

Is the Minister, and are the Government, willing to disavow Churchill’s characteristically eloquent formulation of principle for the sake of a possible, but actually unlikely, saving of £4 million a year?

My Lords, I hope that I can rise to the challenge of the “calm and dispassionate” response to which the noble Lord referred in his closing remarks. This has been a wide-ranging debate, involving very distinguished speakers with great knowledge and awareness of many of the issues which these regulations raise. I hope that the House will forgive me if, in the course of this dinner-hour debate, I do not respond to all the many criticisms that have been made but try to focus on the effect of the regulations and on why the Government have seen fit to bring them into effect.

I will begin by saying something about the wider context of the instrument. It is worth noting that spending on criminal legal aid for prison law in England and Wales has increased markedly in recent years, from around £1 million in 2001-02 to around £22 million in 2012-13.

Legal aid is a vital part of our justice system. However, limited public resources need to be targeted at those who need them most. With departments across government being asked to reduce their expenditure, legal aid cannot be immune. The legal aid scheme is paid for by the taxpayer, and we have to demonstrate to the public and hard-working families that we have scrutinised every aspect of legal aid spending to ensure that it can be justified. Unless the legal aid scheme is targeted at the people and cases where funding is most needed, it will not command public confidence. It was with this aim in mind that the Government proposed a number of changes to legal aid in England and Wales in April 2013. Following public consultation and careful consideration of the responses, the decision was taken to restrict the scope of criminal legal aid for prison law, among other reforms.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but at paragraph 175 of its report the committee says specifically:

“the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman … told us about his concerns with the Government’s proposal, particularly in relation to his lack of statutory independence and his office’s ability to deal with any increased workload”.

How does the Minister square that with the assurance that he has just given?