Japanese Knotweed
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the Government provided a very substantial settlement for operations and management, including vegetation management, to Network Rail for England and Wales. Last year, Network Rail met with the Property Care Association to discuss knotweed; the meeting was an opportunity to discuss current management, and to explore how Network Rail can give trackside neighbours the assurance they need, particularly to satisfy mortgage lenders, for instance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister think that if Lady Sharples were in her place, she would have been impressed by the progress that is being made?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friend is very understanding that sometimes psyllids do not work as well as we would like. I am pleased to have this opportunity to say there is continuing research, because this plant is very successful in this country, but is an invasive species. We should be very watchful and raise awareness about the issues of invasive species.
Health: Diesel Engine Pollution
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point, of course. The point is that the EU procedures for testing diesel engines did not deliver the health outcomes that were sought. That is why the Commission is looking at this again.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that the proposal to reduce the reporting requirements of local authorities will not lead to a reduction in the number of reporting stations. But he will have seen analysis that suggests that 600 of them will be closed down because there will be less of a requirement on local authorities to report the provisions. Why will the Government not look again at this?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, to go into a little more detail, the review is aiming, as I said, to reduce administrative burdens to free up local authorities’ time and resources so that they can focus on taking action to address air quality. The consultation was split into two parts. Part 1 proposes the removal of the requirement in regulations for local authorities to report on specific pollutants that have been well within limits for many years. Indeed, monitoring of these will be maintained at national level.
Air Quality
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness specifically. I will, if I may, write to her. I can confirm that in general terms we agree with her. Air pollution, particularly diesel emissions, as I have just mentioned, can be extremely harmful to health generally. It can aggravate existing heart and lung conditions, and better awareness of the health impacts from air pollution is important for the public so that we all know what we can do to protect ourselves.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned compliance with European standards, but can he confirm that the UK is currently not compliant with the targets set by Europe? Can he also inform the House what penalties are likely to come from Europe because of our current position?
Lord De Mauley
Yes, my Lords. First, for particulate matter the United Kingdom meets both the daily and annual limit values. A number of member states face infraction proceedings by the Commission for failing to meet their limit values. The United Kingdom, like many other member states, faces significant challenges in meeting the air quality limit values, specifically for nitrogen dioxide, as I think I mentioned earlier. Significant transport and other measures have been put in place over many years to reduce the emissions of air pollutants. Twenty-two out of 27 member states reported that they exceeded the limits in 2010, and most are unlikely to achieve full compliance by 2015. The United Kingdom has secured time extensions for nine zones, with compliance in London not expected until 2025. This is similar to other major cities, including Paris.
Coastal Access in England
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, after that extensive debate on the noble Lord’s Question, it is my great pleasure to speak briefly in the gap. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, because, in the many months that we spent debating this Act, he was an assiduous attendee and mover of amendments, for which we were all grateful. My only regret was that for part of the time the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was involved with a local government Bill in Grand Committee and was not, alas, able to join us. However, when he did he certainly made his presence felt and I thought he made a very persuasive argument today about the benefits of that legislation. He did so in a supporting vein, encouraging the Government to get on with it a little more than they have done previously.
I also recall fondly the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on the then opposition Front Benches. We always liked to see him on the opposition Front Benches and look forward to that again in the near future. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made an extremely important contribution to our debates and, if I recollect rightly, he was always suggesting that the Government were not getting a move on and were not making as much progress as possible. I am glad that he is now able to account for his own stewardship in that regard.
I also pay tribute to the support given by the officials at Defra and to the agencies that come under it. I remember the extraordinary experience of having an introductory meeting with the stakeholders in that glorious conference room at Defra. About 70 people turned up and I realised that I was in for a very considerable challenge. I do not think I have ever come across a piece of legislation where so many stakeholders had taken so much interest and worked together to cause considerable challenge to the Government. At the end of the day, I believe that collectively a very good piece of legislation was produced. What is happening in Weymouth is great news, and I hope that my noble friend will give us a little more information.
I wanted to ask three questions of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. He will know that there is some disappointment. First, we are glad that progress is being made, but my understanding is that there has been some delay in the original timetable for the completion of a coastal path around England. Can the noble Lord now give us an indication of when they think the whole of the English coastal path will be completed? Perhaps he will take from this debate encouragement for the Government to look at that timetable and make sure that it is completed as quickly as possible.
Secondly, can the noble Lord tell me whether the economic benefit of the new pathways, as they are opened, is going to be monitored and recorded, because that would give great encouragement in terms of the economic value of the pathway?
Thirdly, I should like to come back to an issue that we discussed extensively in relation to public transport access. We all had in mind the Cornish pathway and its brilliance, as well as, certainly in the summer months, access to a bus service that meant that people could walk along the pathway, catch a bus back to where they were staying, and then resume their walk later on. Clearly, there is a big issue about public transport in rural areas. It would be very helpful if the noble Lord said a little more about what the Government are going to do to encourage rural public transport to work in conjunction with the pathway.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, earlier in our debate noble Lords paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his conduct of the Bill, which I would certainly echo. He has brought forward some welcome amendments, which have strengthened the effective scrutiny of the Bill. I urge him to go one step further and respond positively to my amendments in this group. There is no doubt that, with Clauses 8 and 16 and the strengthening of Clause 10 on “Consultation”, there have been welcome additions. Will the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, agree to strengthen the Bill a little more as regards Clause 10? Essentially, what I would like to see is that, when a Minister proposes to make an order under Clauses 1 to 6, under Amendment 65, the public must always be consulted. Under Amendment 66, in relation to Clause 10(1)(a), I am suggesting that the body or the holder of the office to which the proposal relates ought to include staff and trade unions. In this Bill—despite the modifications that the noble Lord has brought, including one or two that we have voted upon—considerable powers still rest with Ministers to deal with the bodies contained in Schedules 1 to 6. In view of that, it is right that there should always be formal public consultation when an order is used under this Bill.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate that has built on the progress that we have made since the Government started tabling amendments in Committee, way back in November when consultation was first discussed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for moving Amendment 65 to set up the debate and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his amendment on local government.
In speaking to Amendment 65, I will also try to deal with the other amendments in this group, Amendments 66 to 68. Amendment 65 would insert a requirement that the public are consulted on all proposals before an order is brought forward under the powers in the Bill. The Government support the principle behind this amendment, which is to ensure that the public are given an opportunity to make their views heard on the reform of public bodies. In many instances it will be entirely appropriate and desirable for the public to be consulted on the reforms that we are delivering using the powers in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will know from first-hand experience, the Government publish guidance for departments on best practice in consultation, the current code having been issued under the previous Administration, of which he was a part.
The one-size-fits-all approach in Amendment 65 would not result in a better deal for the public. Where a full public consultation is appropriate, the Government will undertake one. Clause 10 does not preclude public consultation, which will be undertaken where the Government consider it appropriate, followed of course by the extensive parliamentary scrutiny required under new Clause 11. The evidence on whether the Government will act in a responsible and proportionate way is already there for your Lordships’ House to see. Take, for example, the consultation document on reforming the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This has been published in full on the Government Equalities Office website, has been laid in Parliament and will stay open for responses for three months. This is very clearly a reform that affects the public at large, which is why the Minister for Equalities and the Home Secretary decided to run a full public consultation.
However, the noble Lord cannot in all seriousness claim that it would be appropriate or proportionate for a full public consultation to be undertaken on the announcement and detailed implementation of the proposal to abolish Food From Britain, with all the associated costs of ensuring that such a consultation was accessible, widely distributed and adequately publicised, in line with best practice. That is why the Government believe that there should be adequate discretion in Clause 10 for the Minister to be able to carry out a consultation that is proportionate for a particular reform. I am not advocating complete discretion, and the Government have made it clear repeatedly in Committee and on Report that the powers of the Bill should be offset by clear and meaningful standards. Clause 10 plainly sets out these safeguards by defining a statutory minimum that the body or office-holder, and where appropriate the devolved Administrations, and the Lord Chief Justice must all be consulted.
My noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart rightly emphasised the importance of this consultative process. The Minister must comply with the Clause 10 requirements, and the details of the consultation must be included in the explanatory document that accompanies the draft order and proposal for Parliament to scrutinise. This is the point that my noble friend Lord Eccles made when he acknowledged his debt to the late Viscount Colville in the scrutiny of statutory instruments in the Merits Committee. It is not absolute discretion but, importantly, it builds in sufficient flexibility to ensure that on defunct bodies the Government are not compelled to run meaningless public consultations that incur unnecessary costs when we can least afford it.
Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, runs into two similar issues in that it would put into statute something that in many cases is unnecessary. First, there are cases in which consulting staff would not be appropriate, such as where the proposal is a change to constitutional arrangements that would alter the name or method of appointment of the chair. In this case, Amendment 66 would add an additional burden without producing a meaningful improvement in the consultation process.
Secondly, the noble Baroness’s amendment cuts across existing requirements to consult and inform in specific circumstances. This includes TUPE and redundancy—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to the discussions that we have had on these—where there is already a requirement to consult trade unions, which was designed to build in a statutory guarantee for the situations in which such a requirement is appropriate. The problem with the amendment is that it would go beyond already well established requirements and codes of practice without considering whether such an additional burden was appropriate. I seek to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the Government are mindful of our obligation to consult trade unions where it fits the requirements of the Bill and to account for that in the explanatory document that we produce with the statutory instrument.
It is a similar story with Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. There would be clear cases in which the groups and organisations captured by his amendment should and would be consulted. However, that does not mean that putting such a provision into the Bill would change the instances in which such groups or organisations are consulted in practice.
Amendment 68 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lord Greaves—neither the noble Lord, Lord Judd, nor my noble friend are here, and I continue to wish my noble friend a speedy recovery—would require a Minister to publish the proposed reform on their department’s website, in the event that a full public consultation was not required.
I do not believe that such a requirement is necessary in the Bill. There are a number of ways of seeking input from interested parties that may or not include publication on a departmental website. It would obviously be a very effective way in a major consultation, but it would be likely to vary over time. It is therefore not possible or appropriate to place these as a statutory duty in the Bill. The code of practice—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is very familiar with it—encourages departments instead to,
“be clear about the reasons why the methods being used have been chosen”,
and further guidance supporting the code provides useful information on alternative forms of engagement that extend beyond simple publication on a website and that may be seen as a soft option when active engagement with stakeholders is preferable.
Consultation is an important issue and one about which the Government feel strongly. We believe that the amendments tabled and adopted in Committee, and which now make up Clause 10, represent a sensible and proportionate way to manage the diverse array of reforms that are being facilitated by the Bill. The amendments in this group, each in their own way, reduce the flexibility of the way in which consultations can be run, in many cases without substantively improving the quality or breadth of consultations.
Amendment 65 specifically requires that all consultations are full public consultations, regardless of whether such a consultation is necessary. It would therefore guarantee that all consultations incurred substantial costs without providing any meaningful improvement to the legislative scrutiny process. Clause 10, as drafted, provides a proportionate obligation to consult on the proposals to reform public bodies. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it also provides that Ministers are accountable for that consultation process in the Explanatory Memorandum that they lay with any statutory instrument. Unless the noble Lord feels that the public need to be consulted, for example on the abolition of the already defunct Food From Britain, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. My noble friend Lord Whitty made some very important points about staff and trade unions, as did my noble friend Lord Kennedy about local government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to the Merits Committee. As the first chairman of the Merits Committee I echo his remarks and the tribute he paid to the late Viscount. I recall that looking at the consultative process undertaken by departments was a very important part of that scrutiny. I certainly take his point that any order that a Minister wished to make under this Bill, when it becomes law, would go through scrutiny by committees of your Lordships’ House. His argument would have more power were the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to intimate that he is prepared to accept my later amendment on the use of the super-affirmative procedure, but, alas, I do not see the noble Lord quite ready to intervene on that point.
The noble Viscount is certainly right about Clause 10(1)(g). It allows a Minister to consult “such other persons”, but should that be left to ministerial discretion? As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the powers contained in the Bill are considerable. As a result, there need to be safeguards. I believe that automatic public consultation is one of those safeguards.
The Minister said that he supported the principle behind my amendment and that in many instances it is entirely appropriate and consistent with best practice, but he also said that there may be circumstances in which public consultation is not appropriate, and he instanced an organisation that may have been in abeyance. Surely the response to that comes from the Minister’s friend, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who say that consultation in those circumstances can be proportionate. Therefore, there could be a very modest public consultation in those circumstances.
“( ) Where the responsible Minister considers that the changes proposed do not warrant a full public consultation under subsection (1), the Minister must publish a copy of the proposal on the website of the relevant government department or make it otherwise publicly accessible.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, in the light of the debate, given that this is a very modest amendment, would the Minister consider accepting Amendment 68? I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
I support the noble Lord’s observation. The Minister, in his response to the previous amendment, agreed that a full public consultation would be highly desirable in many, if not most, circumstances, but in some cases it would not be appropriate to have a full public consultation, and it seems to me that Amendment 68 deals precisely with that point.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am under instructions to resist—I think that is usually the phrase that is used. However, I understand the arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords to have a requirement, where public consultation does not take place, that at least the proposal is put on the website. I think that the Government are in a position to consider this and, if necessary, will bring forward an amendment at a later stage.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is very handsome of the Minister and we look forward to coming back to this on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we come to a very important group of amendments that is concerned with the procedure-making processes in Parliament when it comes to an order. As we have already debated, it is very important, when a Minister seeks to make an order, that it enjoys stringent parliamentary scrutiny. We welcomed the Minister’s amendments to introduce greater scrutiny than was envisaged when the Bill was first drafted. There is no doubt that what he describes as extensive parliamentary scrutiny is an advance. However, I want to encourage him to go a little further.
The Minister will, of course, be aware of the advice that your Lordships’ House has received from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which reported to the House on four occasions. I refer noble Lords to the committee’s report of 7 March that reminded the House of the key differences between the noble Lord’s amendment that has been made to the Bill and my amendment. The report said that there are two key differences between the Government’s enhanced procedure and the provision in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 that introduced the super-affirmative procedure on which my amendment is based.
The committee said that under the 2006 Act,
“if a committee of either House recommends that no further proceedings be taken on a draft order, then any further proceedings are automatically stopped unless and until the recommendation is rejected by that House itself”.
The committee also reminded us in March that under the 2006 Act,
“a Minister wishing to proceed with an order unaltered after having been required to have regard to representations must lay a statement before Parliament giving details of any representations received”.
The committee pointed out that this matter would also enjoy enhanced scrutiny.
When we discussed this matter in Committee, at col. 1723, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, essentially said that because Schedule 7 had been removed, the scope of the Bill had been significantly narrowed and a more restrictive scrutiny procedure was therefore required than that in the regulatory reform Act. I understand where the Minister is coming from, but I do not agree with his conclusions. Even with the safeguards that the Minister has introduced and the removal of Schedule 7, the Bill still gives considerable powers to Ministers. When one looks through the Bill, the powers to abolish, to make changes to the financial arrangements, and to change the governance arrangements are considerable. The use of the super-affirmative procedure is, therefore, entirely appropriate.
I know that the noble Lord’s department has said that it believes that the super-affirmative procedure that I propose would risk derailing the Government’s reform programme, but I want to make it absolutely clear that I support the regular review of these public bodies. I have never had any difficulty whatever with the principle of the Bill. No public body should believe that it is entitled to exist for all time. It is right that public bodies should be reviewed. I have no problem at all with that principle in the Bill. However, we come back to the point of ministerial powers. I remember being reminded, when I was sitting or standing where the noble Lord is sitting at the moment, that ministerial powers need to be fettered. Under the Bill, many organisations doing public work can be affected by the use of ministerial power. Parliament needs and deserves the most stringent scrutiny powers possible. The super-affirmative procedure is not new. It is used within the confines of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act.
The noble Lord says that if we were to pass such an amendment, it would have an impact on the other place and its procedures. My argument is: let us see. Let this House pass the amendment, agree to the super-affirmative order and see how the other place responds. We are not at the last point of this Bill’s journey through Parliament and it would not be unreasonable for noble Lords to express the view that orders under the Bill should be considered under the super-affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will forgive me if I do not go down the path of discussing his amendment in detail, as I am the chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. However, I will say that this group of amendments gives us the chance to discuss the wider issue of parliamentary scrutiny arrangements of orders made under the Bill.
The House should not try to pin down the Minister today on exactly how scrutiny under the Bill should be conducted, particularly as the other place has yet to consider the Bill. However, it is important to set out a few questions that should be asked at this stage. Under the Bill, every draft order has a 40-day period during which a committee of either House looks at it. This committee must report on the order within 30 days. Under the revised Bill, the committee can require an order to undergo a full, enhanced scrutiny procedure. At present, the Lords committee charged with looking at all orders coming before the House is the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, which has been spoken about a lot this afternoon. It may draw orders to the attention of the House either because they may be of interest or because they may imperfectly achieve the policy objective. The committee is already busy and meets nearly every week. The first question might be whether this is the right committee to look at orders made under the Bill, whether under the enhanced scrutiny procedure or not.
In the Delegated Powers Committee’s fifth, sixth and 11th reports, the enhanced scrutiny procedure on orders under the Bill was compared, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, to the super-affirmative procedure in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. As this is the nearest procedure to the one we are discussing, it may be worth restating that legislative reform orders come before the Delegated Powers Committee, but are significantly different in character from orders under the Bill. The two main differences are that the LRO procedure is not used for highly controversial matters, and that if a committee of either House recommends that no further proceedings are taken on a draft order, then proceedings are automatically stopped unless the House decides otherwise. The committee has looked at only 12 LROs since the 2006 Act.
However, the Bill is likely to generate a lot of work—and, at some point, an entirely new procedure. Therefore, it must be decided quite soon which committee should undertake the enhanced affirmative procedure if it is required. Although this will, of course, be a matter for the Procedure Committee and ultimately for the House, I believe it is worth thinking about now.
There are some fundamental questions to be asked about how a committee should carry out its work before either House decides on a suitable committee structure. Should it simply review the evidence taken during the consultation? Should it take evidence itself? That could be an expensive process. The only purpose in the Bill is, as we heard this afternoon, to improve the exercise of public functions, although it must have regard to the objectives of achieving increased efficiency, effectiveness and economy—the Minister’s triplet—and securing appropriate accountability to Ministers. Suppose the committee decides that the broad purpose of improving the exercise of public functions is not met, will the Minister think again? After all, he only has to have regard to a committee’s recommendations. Obviously the order will have to be passed by both Houses and there is always the possibility of it being voted down. That this House is reluctant to do this should not be taken for granted.
Turning very briefly to the procedure in the other place, the two Houses have different ways of looking at statutory instruments and different committee structures from each other. The only joint committee in this area is the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which just looks at the vires of an instrument with the parent Act. Although a superficially attractive idea, a joint committee is very difficult to establish. I understand that this is too early for any hard-and-fast decisions on how orders made under this Bill are to be scrutinised by Parliament, but it is not too early for Parliament to be thinking hard about the implications of the proper scrutiny of the delegated powers in this Bill.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I can confirm that every statutory instrument will have to be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum. That is very important if a statutory instrument is proceeding under this Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sorry, too, but would like this to be clarified. At the moment, the clause says:
“If after consultation under section 10 the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under sections 1 to 6”.
The Minister has already decided, in the light of consultation, that he is going to proceed with the order. That is not now in doubt because he,
“considers it appropriate to proceed”.
Surely it should then say that the Minister “must” lay that before Parliament. I do not understand why it is not “must”.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I make my point quite simply: if he does not lay an order, he will not get it approved. It is as simple as that; that is the nub of the issue. In order to get the change he requires, he has to lay an order and “may” is the correct word to use, in parliamentary terms, as the noble Lord will know.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The next subsection uses “must”. I know that this is a very familiar argument, but it is quite clear that “must” is often used in legislation and I do not see why it is not used in this case.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am in more of a muddle now than I thought I was. Clause 11(1) proceeds on the basis that,
“the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under sections 1 to 6”.
That is the premise. If that is the premise, surely the Minister will have to lay a draft order and an explanatory document. If that is the position and there is no scope for discretion at that stage—because he or she has already made the determination that it is appropriate to proceed—I do not understand why it does not say “shall” or “must”. It says “must” elsewhere and it seems to me that it is a situation where it is a “must” and not a “may”. Maybe I have got it wrong.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his extensive response to this debate. I will make three short points. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, is right to raise the wider question of how secondary legislation is dealt with in your Lordships’ House. The Royal Commission on Lords Reform looked at this extensively. One of the outcomes was the development of the Merits Committee but I am sure we need to go further. I hope that when draft legislation on House of Lords reform finally reaches us, we will see that there has been some discussion of that matter. I do not believe you could elect a second Chamber, or make proposals to do so, without looking at the implications for secondary legislation.
On the question of “may” and “must”, I have looked again at the wording of Clause 11. This order falls to be made only after the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order. On that basis, the word should be “must”. On the question of Amendment 71 and the super-affirmative procedure, I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has tabled several welcome amendments to improve the Bill and allay many concerns. I just say to him that, none the less, this Bill gives Ministers considerable powers to amend primary legislation through what can be dramatic changes to a number of the public bodies listed in the Bill. On that basis, it is right that Parliament should assert to itself the ability for strong and robust scrutiny. My super-affirmative proposition allows that to happen. I very much hope the House will support me in that regard. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I wish to degroup Amendment 62 from this group. That will enable us to debate that amendment when we deal with Clause 8, which is where it more appropriately belongs. I regret that I have not had much time to do this; I told officials but it may not have got through to the Minister.
I welcome all of the changes made to the Bill but there remains a major absence of a fundamental element. That is the purpose of the bodies whose existence, structure, functions or funding are to be changed. This amendment is about adding to the matters to be considered when exercising any of the powers in the Bill that,
“the Minister must have regard to the aims, objectives or functions of the body where these are specified in legislation”.
Without such a requirement in the Bill, Ministers will have to consider only either accountability to Ministers or efficiency, effectiveness and economy. These are laudable aims but they miss the fundamental point that these bodies were set up by primary legislation and have statutory duties or powers. As the Bill stands at the moment, as long as consultation takes place, the Minister can do what he will, without having regard to the original purpose and objectives for which the body was created.
I do not maintain that all functions laid down in law, or all bodies, have to continue unchanged for all time. However, I do maintain that if this legislation is to be used as proposed—to alter what has been laid down in law—the Minister should have regard to the functions, duties and powers of each body where statute has defined these. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether the Government will be willing to accept this amendment now or when we come to Clause 8. I am absolutely confident that the intention was never to undermine the purpose of any of these organisations, but solely to make them work better for the ends that Parliament has determined. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very glad to support my noble friend in her endeavours in this regard. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested, the Opposition have always made clear that we have no objection to the principal aim of this Bill. It is right that public bodies should be reviewed from time to time. The concern has always been about the draconian powers that were given to Ministers, particularly in the draft of the Bill that we debated in Committee. We are very pleased about the removal of Schedule 7 from the Bill, and about the acceptance of the amendment that was moved in Committee on the restriction of ministerial powers in Clause 16. That is a very welcome addition to the safeguards that are contained in the Bill.
We could, however, go a little further, as my noble friend suggests. She makes the very important point that the bodies that we are dealing with, and the responsibilities that they have been given, were determined by Parliament in primary legislation. In using the Bill as is intended—to abolish in some cases and merge in others—it seems right that, as my noble friend’s amendment suggests, Ministers should,
“have regard to the aims, objectives or functions of the body where these are specified in legislation”.
The powers that are given to Ministers are still considerable, albeit that welcome safeguards have been given. My noble friend’s amendment would be very helpful in providing yet another safeguard.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I support that. The noble Baroness and I have not conspired on, but discussed, various matters of interest to us both on the Bill. She has a point and I hope that my noble friend will respond constructively.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we come to an important group of amendments, which are in part probing but in part really urge the Government to take a rather more transparent approach when an order under this Bill is used.
Clause 5 gives power to modify or transfer functions and on the face of it appears to give huge discretion to Ministers. I would really like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the circumstances in which he envisages the power being used. In our earlier debates on Monday in relation to Clauses 3 and 4, Ministers gave a great deal of comfort when they described the circumstances in which orders in relation to governance and financial arrangements would be used and it would be helpful if the noble Lord were able to give similar comfort in relation to Clause 5. If this clause is used, will the Minister describe how that use of it will then be made transparent? When the order is used, what will happen to the functions; who will be performing them in future; why are the changes necessary; what about the future performance of the transferred and modified functions; and what do the Government intend to do to track the performance of those transformed or modified functions to ensure that the decisions made by passing the order were and remain appropriate? What assurance can the Minister give about the information that will be given to Parliament at the time of the order, if it is used? What further work will be done subsequent to the order in relation to performance scrutiny?
It is fair to say that some of these concerns were raised by my noble friends during the UK Film Council/BFI debate on Monday. My noble friend Lord Stevenson noted in that debate that while some functions of the UK Film Council were clearly marked as transferred to the BFI and Film London, there were other central functions, such as working film exports, upon which the Government remained rather silent until prompted. I would like to get some reassurance that if this order is used in future, there will be a way of providing Parliament with as much detail as possible about what has happened to those functions.
On Clause 7, I am looking for some comfort. We have been approached by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is concerned about the legal effect of Clause 7. While bearing the innocuous title, “Consequential provision etc”, this clause appears to give Ministers the power to modify the functions of the transfer or transferee organisations. What appears to be missing is a qualifying element of consent. Where, for instance, the Government would like a body such as Citizens Advice, in the case of Consumer Focus, to assume functions, surely it would be a requirement of the Government first to obtain the organisation’s consent to the changes. It would also be nice to know that the CAB was in a condition to accept those responsibilities. I point out to the Minister the dire situation in the great city of Birmingham, with the potential closure of all the CAB centres. As currently drafted, the clause essentially makes it permissible for the Government to change the constitution or funding arrangements of a body that is to assume those functions without consent or even bothering to consult that body. I have looked for comfort there.
The Minister will know of the quality of the briefing provided by the RSPB, since he used it extensively during the wonderful days when we debated the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. It is quite extraordinary that officials have found a defect in that Bill, given the extensive briefing that we received from bodies like the RSPB.
The other two amendments in this group deal with the related subjects of data protection, freedom of information and privacy. We have tabled Amendment 102 to ensure that where public functions of bodies listed in Schedule 5 are transferred to another body, the public will continue to have assurances that the performance of these functions is transparent. They will be audited, the responsible body will report to Parliament on the exercise and expenditure of these functions and the freedom of information and data protection provisions will still apply to the organisation to which the function is transferred.
Then we come on to Amendments 175A and 175B. They are in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth but unfortunately he is unable to be here. His amendments effectively prevent a Minister making an order to share personal data. He was using these amendments to emphasise the complexity of these subjects and his doubt whether it is wise simply to include them in a statutory instrument. If he were here, he would speak of his own experience with data protection in the context of the Education and Skills Bill, which required further amendment through the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill. The point that he wanted to make is that these are complex and sensitive issues and that, in relation to parliamentary scrutiny, it may be that secondary legislation is not really the most suitable vehicle. As we have learnt in the past, if you get this wrong you have to come back and try to put it right at a later date. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart
I should like to add a few words in my capacity as the previous chairman, and a member for several years before that, of the Delegated Powers Committee. A strong case has been presented for further action on this matter. The final sentences in paragraph 20 of the committee’s latest report state:
“Especially in the absence of a convincing explanation, it is not appropriate for an existing power to make subordinate legislation to be transferable to another, unidentified, body. This renders the powers in clause 5 in relation to these bodies especially inappropriate. The Committee draws the attention of the House to amendment 99A”.
Schedule 5 lists a group of bodies that are among the most important to be covered by the Bill. They include the British Waterways Board, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Competition Commission, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Human Tissue Authority, the national parks authorities, Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading. All are organisations of considerable importance. There is a very strong case for the arguments presented by my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. This matter needs further consideration and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will use the period before Report to have a serious look at it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, first, I echo my noble friend Lady Andrews in paying tribute to the stewardship of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Clearly, he has listened to the House and we have made a great advance. We very much appreciate the briefing sheets from his hard-working officials.
It is good that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has joined in our debates. I do not know whether the Government think the same, but the point that he raised underpins the remarks of his noble friend Lady Thomas, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. They made pertinent remarks about how the powers in the Bill should be exercised. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and his noble friend Lord Henley have given us eminently reasonable explanations as to how Ministers intend to use the powers. The problem is that future Ministers may take a different approach. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, put forward the good example of the HFEA and the HTA.
We are looking for ways to build further reassurances into the Bill. We will have a later debate on what the noble Lord calls the enhanced scrutiny of orders and on my amendment proposing a super-affirmative procedure. That is one approach, but we should also pursue the suggestion of both the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I am glad to hear that work is in progress on Clause 8. The noble Lord said that he could not give any guarantees, but I encourage him in that direction.
I am glad that the noble Lord also said that reviews of these bodies will take place in future. We on the opposition Benches support that. It is right that these bodies and their functions should be kept under regular review. I was also glad to hear that accountability, reporting and FOI responsibilities will continue if the functions are transferred. However, does that apply only if they are transferred to a public body? What would happen in the case of Consumer Focus, whose functions will be transferred to Citizens Advice? What about the British Waterways Board when it transforms itself into a charity? What will happen to the accountability, reporting and FOI requirements?
I take the noble Lord’s point about the sparing use of data sharing that is likely to occur under any order arising from the Bill. However, I issue a caution that past experience suggests that this issue is very complex and will demand the careful use of orders. The noble Lord may want to write to me on the issue of non-public bodies in relation to FOI and accountability functions. In the mean time, I am glad that work is in progress.
Lord Henley
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I regret that we have been deprived of the pleasure of having my noble friend Lord Greaves move this amendment this afternoon, but I am very grateful that his noble friend was able to step in and move it, because it is important that the Government set out their case in relation to the waterways.
As the Committee will be aware, the British Waterways Board was originally established under the Transport Act 1962 to operate and maintain much of Britain’s waterways network. In passing, I shall mention that we are dealing with England and Wales here; Scotland is another matter. I am not sure that any waterways go across the border, so there are not going to be any concerns there. However, I remember that with the passage of the Scotland Act we had problems with some of the rivers—
Lord Henley
Indeed, because the boundary moves. If the noble Lord remembers correctly, that legislation allowed the Scottish Government to have an interest in English matters relating to some rivers’ tributaries and vice versa. With England and Wales, the case is different. I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness’s question about the powers of the Welsh Assembly Government but I shall certainly write to her in due course.
In the intervening years since 1962, the British Waterways Board has done an excellent job in transforming what was a very run-down industrial transportation network, with its roots in the industrial revolution, into a hugely valuable environmental, heritage and leisure asset, but it is one which still—again, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Greenway, for stressing this—also carries some freight, so it continues to have a commercial operation. Its network consists of some 2,200 miles of historic canals, rivers and docks, and it is visited by some 13 million people a year. Again, as I think noble Lords have made clear, it provides benefits that range from not just freight, which has been mentioned, but flood relief and sanctuary for wildlife, as well as its users, through to employment and recreational facilities for walkers and others.
The intention behind setting up a new waterways charity—and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for stressing that the previous Government were thinking of something along very similar lines—is to give waterways users and the communities alongside them greater involvement in how waterways are managed, thus contributing to their sustainability in the longer term. Moving the powers, functions and assets of British Waterways to civil society through the creation of what we would like to think of as a sort of national trust—a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—for the waterways will allow key stakeholders the opportunity to play a role in their governance and allow them to bring their expertise and passion to the organisation. Providing greater engagement by local communities will, we believe, lead to a range of enhanced public benefits, including green travel to work, health and well-being, support for inner cities and rural regeneration.
As I have mentioned governance, it is worth stressing that the consultation includes proposals for governance on the charitable company model. Subject to the passage of this Bill through Parliament, there will be further consultation on the draft order or orders—I cannot remember whether there is one or more than one—required to transfer the duties and functions of British Waterways to that organisation. However, in relation to the questions that the noble Baroness asked, following on from the speech of her noble friend Lord Hunt in relation to Clause 5, I hope she will await a response from my noble friend which, I am assured by him, will come before we get to Report stage.
There are obvious concerns over funding, particularly in the light of what has been, as we know, a very tight spending review settlement—and I will not say again why it has been so. British Waterways’ funding has seen a reduction in line with other bodies that are attached to Defra and to other parts of government. It is no greater because British Waterways is becoming a charity. We recognise, however, that the move to a charity will require a long-term contract for continued government support, and we have given a commitment to maintain levels in line with the spending review until 2022-23. That will obviously be subject to—
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this debate relates to the order-making power given to Ministers in relation to the constitutional arrangements of the bodies listed in Schedule 3. I am concerned that very considerable power is given to Ministers in this Bill, and this is an example of that.
Perhaps I may reiterate a point that I made when we started scrutinising this Bill some few weeks ago: we have no objection in principle to a proper review of the public bodies contained in the Bill and to their abolition if they have reached the end of their useful life. Nor do I doubt the need for such bodies to be appropriately accountable to Ministers. However, there also has to be some distance and independence. There is clearly no point in having a public if it does not feel that it has independence. That is why I am worried about the effect of the power in Clause 3. It has the potential for a chilling impact on the behaviour of boards. If boards are aware that, on a whim, a minister can get rid of the chair and members through an order-making power, that would have an undue influence on their behaviour. We will come later to a similar amendment to Schedule 4 in relation to the financial arrangements.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this opportunity. We are making progress in a direction with which he will be content and with which I am content. Perhaps I can bring together the various changes that have been made as a result of our amendments.
As the noble Lord rightly points out, this group of amendments deals with Clauses 3 and 4. Clause 3 gives a Minister the power to make provision, by order, to alter the constitutional arrangements of any body or any office listed in Schedule 3—but only those listed in Schedule 3. Of course, now that Schedule 7 has gone, the list is finite. For example, in the case of the Theatres Trust, we intend to do away with the Secretary of State’s role in the appointments process, which will increase the body’s independence as it moves towards charitable status.
The noble Lord referred to Clause 4, which is a parallel clause with different purposes—it concerns funding arrangements—but is structured in the same way. Clause 4 confers on the Minister the power to make an order modifying the funding arrangements of a body or office listed in Schedule 4. In this regard—I am giving examples which I hope demonstrate the purpose to which these clauses will be put—the Government intend to reform the Drinking Water Inspectorate by allowing it to recover its costs from the water industry, bringing this body into line with the existing principle that it is the businesses which benefit from regulation, not the taxpayer, who should bear the cost of the regulation. The previous Government concurred with this approach.
In considering these clauses as a whole, I understand that the noble Lord is primarily concerned that these powers could be used to restrict the independence of bodies. Indeed, the noble Lord said that one of his anxieties was that, by granting Ministers the power to amend the governance or funding arrangements of bodies, the Bill would enable Ministers to threaten the position of chairs or board members who have displeased the Government, or constrain the ability of a body to carry out its work by squeezing its functions. While I seek to reassure the House that the Government have no intention of acting in such a manner, I understand the sentiment behind these concerns. However, the appropriate way to deal with them is to place appropriate limits on the power of Ministers to act, both within the Bill and elsewhere, rather than to abandon the powers altogether.
As with all the principal order making powers in the Bill, the uses of Clauses 3 and 4 are restricted by the conditions described in Clause 8 and elsewhere. Under the proposed government amendments, Ministers would be required to set out the rationale for an order in an explanatory memorandum when laying a draft order before Parliament. I explained that in a previous debate on an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Ministers would thus be held accountable for the use of the power in relation to the particular considerations in the Bill, including the effectiveness of public functions. A change in funding which, for example, would leave a body unable to carry out its public functions properly would be unlikely to meet this objective. I cannot envisage a situation in which a Minister would wish to make such an order. I can further assure the House that in light in particular of today’s third report from the Delegated Powers Committee, the Government are considering whether it is necessary to clarify Clause 8 further. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in light of his previous amendments.
It is also important to remind the House that we are continuing to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other noble Lords in relation to his Amendment 175, with the intention of ensuring that the safeguards applying to the order-making powers in the Bill include appropriate protection for the necessary independence of public functions. Furthermore, as I have said, the removal of Schedule 7 from the Bill will ensure that no body or office can be listed in Schedules 3 and 4 and be subject to the powers there unless its inclusion has been approved by Parliament through primary legislation. I hope that this change to the structure of the Bill provides the House with a strong reassurance that full parliamentary scrutiny will be central to the operation of these powers.
In addition to the protections present and planned for the Bill itself, there are safeguards which rightly limit the power of Ministers. First, in terms of appointments and governance, chairs and board members are in most cases appointed in line with rules issued by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments. This ensures that appointments are made on merit following an open and transparent process. The Government are further committed to strengthening the role of Select Committees to scrutinise major appointments, giving Parliament an effective voice in the process. In addition, for certain appointees who must be demonstrably independent of Ministers, the terms and conditions or relevant statute will provide safeguards to reinforce the officeholder. This might include pre-appointment scrutiny by Parliament or appointing certain officeholders on a single, non-renewable term so that the decisions and actions of those officeholders are not, and are not perceived to be, motivated by a desire to be reappointed. Examples of office holders listed within the Public Bodies Bill that fall within these categories include the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the chairs of regulatory bodies such as Ofcom.
I wish to emphasis the Government’s position that it is right for Ministers to have a role in public appointments and the governance of public bodies. The Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice clearly states that the ultimate responsibility for making public appointments rests with Ministers. Ministers should remain answerable and accountable for the overall performance of public bodies and have the ability and authority to intervene if a body is failing. This must include the ability, in extreme cases, to remove board members. The balance that the Government must strike, met by the safeguards I have described, is to retain this principle of accountability while ensuring that public bodies are able to act independently of ministerial influence where required.
That is also the case in relation to the powers in Clause 4, which relates to funding mechanisms. The Government’s position is that ultimate decisions on the allocation of funding must rest with Ministers, who are ultimately accountable for the delivery of public service by central government and for public expenditure within their spending review settlements. It is for precisely that reason that it is against Cabinet Office rules, for example, for public bodies to use public funds to employ PR or marketing consultants to lobby government or Parliament for more funding. We could not support amendments to Clause 4 which would risk undermining that principle. It is also right that Ministers have the assurance that public money is being spent appropriately. In the case of most NDPBs, Ministers and departments must be consulted by public bodies before they exercise certain financial powers such as borrowing or capital expenditure. We believe that the powers that Clause 4 would confer on Ministers are entirely in keeping with this position; they do not establish a new status quo but rather reaffirm ministerial accountability for public expenditure.
It is taxpayers who ultimately fund public bodies in most cases, and I am confident in suggesting that the citizens of this country expect government to account for its use of their money, no matter by whom it is eventually spent. On this basis, I believe that the removal of Clause 3 or 4 from the Bill would be a disproportionate measure, as it would remove Ministers’ ability to take forward the type of changes that I described earlier and instead require primary legislation for such changes, regardless of their nature. As well as preventing or delaying sensible reforms, the removal of Clauses 3 and 4 would run contrary to the principle of ministerial accountability for the performance of public bodies and their use of taxpayers’ money. While I agree with noble Lords who have highlighted the need to safeguard the independent delivery of some public functions, I believe that this can and should be achieved through other means, such as the safeguards within the Bill and outside it.
I am sorry to have taken some time over this, but this explanation probably goes to the heart of many of the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about how the Bill empowers Ministers and the balances that we seek to set within the architecture of the Bill to ensure that this is not abused. On this basis, I contend that both clauses should stand part of the Bill. In the light of the reassurance that I have supplied, I seek the noble Lord’s support on this. Furthermore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whose amendment is I think included in this grouping, not to press his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for a full response to the issues raised. He went a very long way to reassuring me about how this will operate. I do not disagree with him when he says that ultimately Ministers must be accountable. I very much agree with that, but it is also my contention that there is very little point in setting up these bodies unless they, too, have a degree of independence of judgment. The concern has always been that some of the clauses in the Bill will hang like a sword of Damocles over those bodies and inhibit their independence. I take very much the point that the Minister raised that one critical issue here is Clause 8 and the matters to be considered by Ministers when making an order under Clauses 1 to 6. I know that there is a lot of discussion taking place about this, and I hope that there will be a positive outcome. It also takes place in the context of Clause 10 and the order-making procedure. We will come to that in a couple of days’ time. But the Minister has reassured me to a very great extent tonight on this particular matter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 73 in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty and speak to his Amendment 79, which refers to the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water, my Amendment 80, which relates to the Marine Management Organisation, to which Amendment 155 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also refers, and to Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which relates to Natural England. All these bodies have a very significant responsibility in terms of sustaining and protecting the environment. Will the Minister explain why these bodies are covered in the Bill? The noble Lord has sat very patiently through much of our deliberations on the Bill. He will know that part of the concern felt about the Bill is that the independence of organisations listed in a number of the schedules is called into question, given the ability of Ministers to intervene, change their governance structure and finance and merge or abolish them simply through an order-making power. There is therefore a general concern about the architecture of the Bill, and one is concerned when one sees these organisations listed, because in terms of protecting the environment it is important that they can discharge their responsibilities independently, without undue interference or influence from a government body.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his comprehensive response to the amendments in the group. He explained very clearly that these are minor changes which should help to improve efficiency: the JNCC fully supports the aim; the amendment for the Drinking Water Inspectorate is to improve the charging regime. I cannot accept that there is a shortcoming in the 2009 Act. It took six months to go through your Lordships' House; it cannot possibly have a shortcoming.
The Minister explained that the amendment on Natural England was to remove ambiguity; and that government Amendment 79A was to respect the wishes of the Welsh Assembly Government. This is a good opportunity to acknowledge the referendum success last week, which I am glad to do. The answers of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seem entirely reasonable. The problem is that a new Minister could come on the scene and use the Bill to make draconian changes to those bodies because they are listed in the schedules. That is why, in the end, we come back to the architecture of the Bill.
My worry is that, for instance, Natural England is not always the most favoured of organisations sponsored by the department. The very fact that it appears in one of the schedules is a kind of sword of Damocles, which the department and the Minister’s officials can hold over Natural England. Although his response tonight has been entirely reasonable, I remain concerned about the fundamental architecture of the Bill. Of course, in the light of his response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, responded to the question that we raised about Clause 4 when we debated Clause 3 stand part. I appreciated his response. We look forward to further debate on Wednesday on this matter, but the response he made very much applies to this part of the Bill as well.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this amendment is on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. We listened carefully to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, earlier this evening concerning the protections that will be in place for the economic regulators listed in this Bill. The changes proposed to Ofcom obviously fall into this category. I was very much persuaded by the arguments made earlier by my noble friend Lord Whitty that, by allowing these changes to remain part of the Bill, Parliament is giving up the right to revisit their wider strategic and ongoing role through the medium of primary legislation. There are some concerns about the detailed changes proposed for Ofcom under the powers of this Bill but, more importantly, we are keen to secure a powerful and meaningful role for Ofcom as an independent regulator in the future.
Last week, this House had what can only be described as a spirited debate about the Government’s proposal to allow Mr Murdoch to take over the remaining shares in BSkyB. It is fair to say that considerable concerns were expressed about this from around the Chamber. If anything, the mood of that debate would have supported a stronger and more interventionist role for Ofcom in ensuring media plurality in the future. In this final debate tonight, can the Minister reassure me that the overarching responsibility for Ofcom to maintain a diverse media and prevent a narrowing and damaging spread of ownership will be maintained if the proposals in this Bill go ahead? What guarantees is she able to give that Ofcom’s independence will not be compromised by an overreliance on being asked to report only at the discretion of the Secretary of State?
These are important issues, which have already been touched on during earlier debates, but I take this opportunity to say that it is important that we are satisfied that the proposals in the Bill do not weaken Ofcom’s independent status. I beg to move.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, Ofcom is a highly respected organisation that, since its creation by the Office of Communications Act 2002, has successfully regulated one of the most dynamic and diverse sectors. The media and communications market has developed significantly since Ofcom was created and it is only appropriate that eight years later we take the opportunity to make some small changes to how it operates.
Amendment 82 would prevent changes to Ofcom’s funding arrangements. We believe that in the current environment it is only right that Ofcom should have the ability to charge for certain services to alleviate the effect of cuts. Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom is not currently permitted to charge operators for this work and, at present, meets the £400,000 per annum cost of the work out of a grant in aid from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Most other countries currently charge for this work, so we would be bringing Ofcom into line with international practice by allowing it to charge for this service.
Amendment 96 would mean that we could not change the way in which Ofcom carries out its functions. In the Communications Act 2003, the structure of Ofcom’s committees was set out in a disproportionately prescriptive and detailed manner. It makes sense to allow Ofcom the flexibility to streamline the structure to meet the requirement and to reflect the diverse needs of the people involved as it best sees fit. This should not compromise its independence. The ability to reshape the structure of the various advisory committees, panels and boards should also lead to a reduction in bureaucracy and could save Ofcom around £100,000 a year.
Following the Government’s decision to table an amendment to remove Clause 11 and Schedule 7 from the Bill, Ofcom will not appear as previously tabled, so Amendment 158 has been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 96.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and of course I shall not press my amendment to a vote. I would say only that the arguments about Ofcom are very similar to the arguments put forward in our debate on the previous group of amendments. The problem is the very appearance of such a body in this Bill, notwithstanding the commitments given at the Dispatch Box by Ministers. This also relates to whether we will reach some sort of agreement on sunset clauses and on the extent to which a body lives on in this Bill for a long time. A time limit would provide great reassurance.
The noble Baroness has said that Ofcom is in the Bill for eminently sensible reasons. Our problem is that, in a couple of years’ time, Ministers might take against Ofcom and use their powers to make much more radical changes. The context is what we have described as the architecture of the Bill. I am hopeful that in the next few weeks we will be able to decide a sensible way forward that enables the Government to undertake reviews of these bodies. I fully accept that they have every right to do so, but they should do so in a way that secures their independence as far as that is appropriate and with proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clark of Windermere
The noble Lord is very perceptive. I am just about to deal with those points. I compliment him on the excellent work he did when he was chair of the Football League. It was much appreciated. He was able to bring to that role the discipline and vision that we all respect.
The key point I want to turn to now is what the Government have in mind when the FLA is abolished. At one stage, there was talk that it would be taken in-house by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but I have serious doubts about how viable that would be. The alternative is to look at the safety of sports grounds. I am in favour of that because the point I was making was that the FLA has in the past performed this job which is outside its remit. It would be helpful if all sports grounds were regulated by the same body. I am trying to tease out of the Minister whether that is what the Government are trying to do. If they are, will they give us some ideas about the funding? It is not only about the regulations. One thing the FLA did was to work with City & Guilds to have an NVQ course for people who work in safety in grounds. That is the sort of thing that we ought to be encouraging.
This is not clear. We want some clarity because at the end of the day we do not doubt that the Government have in mind some agency to provide this and to guarantee this standard across the country, but many of us would like to see it right across sports.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friends Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lady Taylor for allowing us to debate the Football Licensing Authority. My noble friend Lady Taylor described supporting Bolton Wanderers as being a mixture of highs and lows; of course, as a supporter of Birmingham City, I fear it is usually all too low and very few highs.
I want to start by paying tribute to the Football Licensing Authority. There is no doubt that safety issues are very important in our football grounds and that there has been a huge improvement over the years. As the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, said, there has been an improvement in overall safety culture. I believe that the development of stewarding by the clubs themselves has enhanced the development of a secure environment in a non-confrontational way and that we have seen a big improvement in facilities. However, with all the improvements that have taken place, can we say that the problem has gone away in its entirety? I do not think it has. There have been some incidents—I am sorry to say at my own football club in a derby against Aston Villa only a few weeks ago—where there were issues of concern about safety. That suggests to me that we can never be complacent. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, is that however much—
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
While my noble friend is on this point and talking about the future, does he agree with the comments of Paul Thorogood, the chief executive of the Football Foundation, which is responsible for many of the support packages for improvements at smaller clubs, that he would be extremely worried were the FLA to be abolished because that would affect the future safety of the projects with which the foundation is involved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My noble friend raises a most important point. Even if you take Carlisle United, with the dedication of my noble friend as a director and his concern for safety, surely directors in their responsibilities regarding safety can still take advantage of the advice and presence of a body such as the FLA. I am convinced that the FLA or a similar body has an important role to play in the future.
I see from noble Lords opposite that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, whom we welcome to our debates on the Bill, is going to give a positive assurance about the future. That would be very welcome. However, I have to say to her that our problem with the Bill, as described by the Public Administration Select Committee only last week, is that the overall reviews by individual government departments were very poorly managed, there was an absence of meaningful consultation, the tests in the reviews were not clearly defined and the Cabinet Office clearly failed to establish a proper procedure for departments to follow. That has left noble Lords in a vacuum regarding the intention of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the mysteries of the Bill, and this is a classic case in point.
The noble Lord then went on to say that the real problem is the architecture of the Bill. I do not think he was in his place when we had our debate on the first group of amendments when we discussed the architecture, but it is perfectly clear that if the Government were to come forward and make it abundantly clear that they are now prepared to make changes to the architecture of the Bill in relation to Schedule 7, in particular, and also on public consultation, on the procedure under which orders would be debated in your Lordships' House for bodies that come under the Bill and other matters that we have discussed, then noble Lords would have much more confidence. At the moment, we have been left in the dark. It is clear that noble Lords do not know about the Government’s intention regarding the FLA. I do not think it is satisfactory that we are here in Committee debating the Bill when there is uncertainty in your Lordships' House and in the sports world as a whole. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some comfort that the issues of safety will be taken forward in future, but I hope that she will give some comfort about how the Government intend to deal with the Bill more generally.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, who put down this amendment for us to discuss, and all the other speakers. This debate gives me the opportunity to clarify, which the noble Baroness asked for, and to clear up many of the misunderstandings and points on this issue.
Amendment 37 removes the Football Licensing Authority from Schedule 1, and Amendment 91 inserts the said body into Schedule 5, allowing its functions to be modified or transferred while retaining the body in its current form. The Government are very clear that the Football Licensing Authority carries out an important role, and we want this to continue. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, the Government are supporting a Private Member’s Bill that seeks to reconstitute the Football Licensing Authority as the sports grounds safety authority and will extend the authority’s advisory functions so that it has the power to provide advice about safety at sports grounds to any national or international organisation, person or body.
Our intention is that the authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, said, will continue as a separate body, whether in its existing form or as a new sports grounds safety authority until after 2012, when its expertise and functions will be transferred to another body. Doing so would allow the authority to share the back-office functions of a larger organisation. This should lead to greater efficiencies and make it less constrained from broadening out its role. It will therefore be able to make the best use of its expertise and reputation.
I indicating that we will abolish the FLA as an independent public body only after 2012 will allow us time to make certain that we have an appropriate home for its expert role and functions. Over the next 12 months, we will discuss the options with the FLA potential host organisations and interest groups to make certain that we have an appropriate solution in place in time to meet the commitment to implement reforms after the 2012 Olympics. This proposal would not risk the important strides made over the past 20 years to improve safety at football after the Hillsborough disaster.
I take this opportunity to assure the House that we do not intend to change the law in relation to football ground safety and, as I have made clear, these important functions need to be retained.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I must say that this is a bit of a puzzle because Schedule 1 lists the bodies where power to abolish is being given. My noble friend has suggested that the FLA be moved to Schedule 7. I have a theological difficulty with that because—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Yes, it is Schedule 5; I would like to see Schedule 7 removed from the Bill. It is very difficult to know why the noble Baroness’s department is not using the Bill in the way in which it is constructed. Schedule 5 is headed “Power to modify or transfer functions: bodies and offices”. Why on earth is the FLA not in that schedule?
Baroness Rawlings
That part of the Bill will be looked at later, as I have said. With its important functions, it is not being abolished in this Bill. However, as I have set out, the Government’s proposals include the abolition of the FLA as such after 2012 and not now.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, no date is given as to when bodies are to be abolished. Schedule 1 sets out the bodies where this Bill gives power to abolish. The puzzle is that, because Schedule 5 gives the flexibility to list bodies where at some stage—not at the moment maybe but at some time in the future—you might want to transfer or modify their functions, why on earth is the FLA not in that, given that the Government have clearly designed the Bill to give flexibility for such organisations? The noble Baroness might want to come back on that.
Baroness Rawlings
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I have just said that the FLA will not be abolished until after 2012. We believe that there is a strong rationale for doing so, while acknowledging and seeking to protect the benefits associated with its important public functions. The Government will continue to support the Private Member’s Bill and will work with Parliament to secure what we hope will be an extremely positive outcome. On this basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I expected that we were breaking for dinner. Do we not break for dinner in Committee?
Lord Greaves
No? I thought that we were. All right. It is a good job I did not go and have my dinner, isn’t it?
Amendment 28