16:25 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 190 / Noes: 259 - Amendment 3 disagreed.
17:22 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 191 / Noes: 235 - Amendment 4 disagreed.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as being the chairman of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, because it is from that perspective that I want to speak to the noble Lord’s amendment. It is by virtue of that role that I am familiar with the intentions of Professor Löfstedt when he compiled his report and with the concerns that lie behind the amendment. Equally, I am familiar also with the thinking that has gone into the way in which the Bill, and particularly this clause, are drafted.
I firmly believe that accredited certification of occupational health and safety management systems could support almost every scenario. It could certainly support and benefit the status quo; it could certainly support and benefit the approach that Professor Löfstedt has proposed, which is one of positive exclusions. Equally, and probably importantly in terms of the House’s consideration of this amendment, it could also support and benefit the clause in terms of positive inclusions.
Accredited certification can provide the regulator with an authoritative assurance that the businesses concerned have good health and safety policies, procedures and controls in place. It allows organisations to earn recognition for their efforts to manage their own health and safety obligations. Accredited certification could act as a safety net for those industries, businesses and professions which may be excluded from the Act. In other words, if in doubt whether a business, profession or an industry should be within the ambit of the Act, one can safely err on the side of deregulation by putting in place a system of voluntary or mandatory accredited certification to underpin safety standards.
The accredited certification would be carried out against the recognised standard for occupational health and safety management—that is, BS OHSAS 18001—which is soon to become more formally recognised by the international standards organisation through its adoption as ISO 45001. The certification bodies would need to be accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, ensuring their competence to carry out the certification.
There may be concerns that a management system approach may not be suitable for very small businesses. However, the standard is flexible enough to be adopted by all sizes of organisation. Alternatively, size limits could be introduced whereby all businesses in a sector above a certain threshold would be required to comply.
Certification to BS OHSAS 18001 is now widely available in the United Kingdom. Some 40 certification bodies are accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service to offer certification to the standard. It is estimated that more than 10,000 businesses are now certified as complying with the standard, and that figure is growing.
BS OHSAS 18001 was developed by a range of organisations specialising in health and safety management, certification and end-user businesses. It was co-ordinated by the British Standards Institution, the national standards body for the UK. The standard would bring immediate benefit in workplace safety to the status quo. It would bring benefit to the approach that Professor Löfstedt proposed. Most importantly, it would certainly benefit and support Clause 1.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this clause has emerged out of a series of consultations during the past four years. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, remarked in his very detailed and constructive speech, the first consultation took place in 2012 on the principle that there should be a list of undertakings prescribed in regulations that are excluded from health and safety law. That did not find large favour in the consultation. The most recent consultation has not found very large favour for the Government’s current proposals. We are finding it difficult to satisfy all those concerned. I note that the noble Lord did not quote the Federation of Small Businesses’ response to the current consultation, which is a good deal more favourable that those that he did quote. On the question of the current consultation, it took a certain amount of time; we had a lot of responses to the consultation and we had to put them all together. It has now been published and the Government will, of course, consult and consider what their response should be. We very much hope that we will have time to consult further and return to this issue before we get to Third Reading.
The Health and Safety Executive has, of course, been actively engaged in this entire process over the last four years; I stress that it is very much part of the process of policy-making. We all share the underlying purpose, which is as it should be, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested in his speech, a lessening of health and safety burdens on those self-employed who are not at risk and are highly unlikely to put others at risk from their activities. That is what Professor Löfstedt suggested in his earlier report; it is part of the German system. To the noble Lord, Lord Lea, I say in passing that there are many parts of the German system of employment, training and employment protection that we would very much like to take on board. I am happy that this Government have indeed taken us a good deal further down the road towards apprenticeship training than their predecessors. There are other aspects—including some aspects of the Meister system, now that I have begun to understand that—which are clearly restrictions on trade and which we do not wish to follow. However, one cannot ever take an entire model from one country and put it into another.
There are other areas over which I have spent some time arguing with German policymakers over the years; the idea that, just because a system has worked since the 14th century, one should maintain it at all costs, is not always an idea that one wishes to promote. I was one of those involved in the British side of the argument over the Reinheitsgebot, which the noble Lord might remember. It was to do with the purity of beer and was passed in about 1351. However, we will leave the German dimension aside and return to the current issue. We apologise that the consultation document has only just appeared. The Government will respond as soon as we are ready and we hope that we will have more to say on this before we reach Third Reading.
The issue at stake is which side one takes in reducing the burden, and whether to make a list of those, as this proposal suggests, whose activities are at greater risk of putting others in harm’s way from the way they are conducted—those involved in construction or a range of other activities that involve interaction with others. Professor Löfstedt prefers a system in which there is only a prescribed list of those activities that are exempted from the current health and safety regulations. The argument that we have been having through two series of consultation has been about how one defines “low risk” and “high risk”. This is an area, after all, on which one can spend a great deal of time, having a large number of consultations without meeting consensus. I regret that we have not yet reached an entire consensus.
The noble Lord’s first proposed amendment reverses the effect of Clause 1, so that all self-employed persons continue to owe a duty under Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act unless regulations are made to exempt them from that law, whereas the Government’s proposals exempt them unless they are on another prescribed list. This approach, we argue, would increase confusion for the self-employed because there are a plethora of low-risk activities that would need to be captured to ensure that the regulations were as extensive as possible. Furthermore, each of these activities would need to be appropriately and carefully defined. This could create further uncertainty in the law and make it unwieldy for the self-employed to comply with. This is part of what the Federation of Small Business was saying in its response to the current consultation.
The noble Lord’s second amendment seeks to impose various conditions upon the making of regulations before self-employed persons can be exempt from Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The amendment would require an independent review to be conducted and considered by both Houses before the regulations can be brought into force. We do not consider this necessary. The Government amended Clause 1 in Committee so that regulations made under the power that it creates are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure before they come into force. This provides Parliament with an adequate opportunity to scrutinise and debate the list of prescribed activities to ensure they are fit for purpose.
The conditions which the noble Lord seeks to impose on the regulations can already be considered by both Houses as part of the affirmative resolution procedure if, indeed, Parliament considers those factors to be relevant. Additionally, the proposed prescribing regulations contain a commitment for their review and for a report to be published after five years of making them. That report will seek to assess the extent to which the intended objectives of the proposed change have been met. Given the safeguards already in place, the Government do not consider that a further independent review of this alternative proposal would be of any benefit.
It is imperative that self-employed persons, especially those involved in conducting high-risk activities, understand when health and safety law will continue to apply to them after this legislative amendment is made. For the reasons I have already given, we do not consider the noble Lord’s amendments to be the best way of achieving that. They are unnecessary and overly burdensome. After all, the purpose of the Bill is to reduce unnecessary burdens. The clearest and simplest way to achieve this change is by having a list of prescribed high-risk undertakings together with guidance produced by the Health and Safety Executive which will make it clear and unambiguous to those who continue to owe a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
I repeat: the Government are currently considering the comments just received following the 2014 consultation on the draft regulations already produced. These raise a number of important issues which the Government will consider further before Third Reading. In that context, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. My noble friend Lady Donaghy put the matter straight about Professor Löfstedt’s views. My noble friend Lord Lea spoke about the danger of building proposals on perceptions rather than proper evidence. I thank my noble friend Lord Jordan for providing the historical context of health and safety, and the cost when it goes wrong. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, broadened the debate a bit around the accreditation processes. I am sure we would have scope for a fuller debate around that issue. As I understand it, he argued that its application could be to an inclusive, exclusive or status quo proposition.
I understand that the Government are finding it difficult to get this right. That is why two rounds of consultation have not succeeded in doing that. We argue, given the complexities and difficulties in trying to get it right, that leaving it as it is would be the far better option.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I should point out that the first consultation did not provide much support for the noble Lord’s amendment. The second consultation criticised the Government. I merely remark that we are struggling in this area. That is, of course, why we are considering it further.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am not sure that the noble Lord’s assertion about the first consultation not supporting our position is right. It does not necessarily depend upon a prescribed list of any sort. The key point about our amendments is that they are linked to clear criteria that have to be satisfied before any change could be introduced. There are criteria around not increasing burdens and bureaucracy, representing demonstrable improvement on existing legislative requirements, and clarity and precision as to whom they apply. The two amendments sit together. The consultation that has just been gone through proves how difficult it is to have a list of high-risk activities. I struggle to understand what changes the Government could make to that process or outcome to make it fit for purpose. That is not just my view; it is the view of a raft of people who know health and safety and business far better than I do, the CBI included.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I only had a chance to read the consultation document on Friday and we are at a very early stage on that so it is very difficult to say precisely what we will conclude. I merely wish to say in the most constructive way possible that we are considering our response. We have three weeks before Third Reading and that gives us some time to consider further.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful for that—and I meant Third Reading, of course, not Report. Is the noble Lord saying that we will have a chance possibly for some discussions in the interim and, if not, a chance to consider this further when we get to Third Reading? It is quite important that we have that commitment from the Government on the record, whichever stage it reaches.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, of course I am very happy to discuss this between now and Third Reading. I am not in a position to say what the Government will conclude from their consideration of the current consultation document because we are at a very early stage, but I am very happy to promise to consult further.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am not quite sure why the Government are so pressed on this matter because that consultation finished some five months ago. I note that the Minister has been less than clear on whether, if we are not satisfied with what happens in the interim, we would be able to return with amendments at Third Reading. It would be helpful if the Minister could give me an assurance that he would facilitate that; if he cannot, we have another decision to make.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I recognise what the noble Lord is asking me to do. At this stage, I am afraid I cannot give him the absolute assurance he requires, but I am certainly willing to have further consultations, and the Government will be very happy to carry on on that basis.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The Minister is not making it easy. I know it is not his job to make it easy. We are trying to see a way forward to avoid voting prematurely, in a sense, if the issue has not been completed. If the Minister is saying that he would be happy for us to come back at Third Reading with a proposition, if we need it, depending on what the Government do in the mean time, that would be helpful. If he is saying that he thinks that the processes in the Companion would preclude that, then we have another decision to make.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the clerks are nodding. That suggests it would entirely open after consultation for the Opposition to come back again on this issue.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister and to the clerks for nodding, in which case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—but with notice that we look to return to it at Third Reading.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Minister is not going to take this amendment away and come back. It is a very kind offer to make. We had an extensive discussion on this clause in Committee. The Committee voted by quite a substantial majority to retain it. What we have here is an amendment that is offered as a compromise but which seems to the Government to make the situation a good deal more complicated.
What we have in Clause 2 at the moment is a straightforward repeal of the requirement on tribunals to offer non-enforceable recommendations on wider issues. It does not reduce or abolish the right of tribunals to offer comments on particular cases and it certainly does not lower what they can do in this overall area. It does, however, simplify the position. By contrast, the amendment offered by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Hunt, would lead, we argue, to a more complicated system for tribunal recommendations. It would reduce the protection for claimants and set up more complex arrangements for tribunals. It would allow a tribunal to make a recommendation if it thought that it would completely obviate—not just reduce—the adverse effects evident from the case. That is a much higher standard of proof for the complainant than we require under the present system or that would be required following the repeal.
I will comment briefly on the general issue from the Equality Act. This was intended by the Government to be a light-touch element in the very large number of tribunal cases. I understand that there have been around 1 million employment tribunal cases in total, of which around 10%—100,000—were discrimination cases. Some 3,000 of these discrimination cases were successful and in 40 of them there were recommendations. Therefore, we are talking about a very small number. The range of recommendations includes the question of equal pay where there is a requirement for equal pay audits, which is enforceable. An equal pay audit ordered by an employment tribunal is a precise and mandatory requirement with sanctions for non-compliance to advance equal pay in the small number of organisations where a breach of equal pay law has been found and it is also a direct transparency measure as it has to be published.
By contrast, wider recommendations in discrimination cases are effectively discretionary for employers and do not have to be made where an employer loses a discrimination case. Wider recommendations are generally broad-brush proposals; for example, a recommendation that human resources staff undergo equalities awareness training. These are non-enforceable recommendations about training, company culture or a range of other areas that are made by tribunals that may not themselves be very closely aware of the culture of the companies concerned. They are recommendations from the outside.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that, although the amendment is in some ways defective, he would like the Government to take it away and improve it. The amendment, even if modified as the noble Lord proposes, would, in our opinion, result in a quite complex and heavy set of requirements. These could mean, for example, that tribunals might be required to consider wider recommendations in a very large number of cases while quite minor omissions by employers, such as failing to train a manager or to update a diversity statement, could become unlawful acts under equality law. I regret, therefore, that the Government have to decline the invitation to take this away and improve the quality of the amendment.
Our repeal will not prevent tribunals from making non-binding observations on employers’ practices. These could reasonably include the type of points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Low, in specific cases. For all employers, losing a tribunal case and having to pay compensation, which our repeal will not affect, itself concentrates employers’ minds and persuades them to learn from their mistakes. The lack of enforcement already there means that they have to take them into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, also talked about introducing the word “proportionate” into the legislation. As someone who struggled in the EU balance of competences review to define “proportionate”, I am conscious that it opens a large door to lawyers and that it is very difficult to discover precisely what proportionality means.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised the question of the introduction of fees and I recognise that that is of course a serious point. He will in turn recognise that the Government are struggling to contain public expenditure. It is important to emphasise that the Government have been careful to ensure that fee waivers are available for people of limited means in order that they are not excluded from seeking redress in tribunals. The Government have committed to reviewing the introduction of fees, although of course it will be for the Government after the next election to take on that review. We are considering the scope and timing of the review and will bring forward our plans in due course.
I hope that that provides sufficient information to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Low, to withdraw the amendment. The House did support the Government’s repeal proposal at Committee stage last autumn and I stress that we proposed a straightforward repeal of an unenforceable power that creates a perception of burden and unfairness.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I am grateful to all those who have spoken, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, who I thought went out of his way to suggest ways in which there might be a meeting of minds between the proposers of the amendment and the Government. I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to respond more flexibly to the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to be flexible, which I am afraid does not give us a lot of room for flexibility on our part, although we might well have shown it had the Minister agreed to accede to the suggestion made by the noble Lord to make time for a further look at the amendment.
The Minister said that this is intended to be only a light-touch measure. I cannot see how more light touch it could possibly be. He gave us the statistics showing that there were 1 million tribunal cases over the period he referred to, of which 100,000 were discrimination cases. Some 3,000 of those cases were successful, and in only 40 cases were wider recommendations made. It is hard to see how this could be more light touch than that. You cannot say that the tribunals have been abusing this power.
The Minister went on to suggest that there is no need for such a power by dismissing as immaterial or unimportant the sort of cases in which it has been used. He said that it had been used in minor cases such as the failure of a company to train a manager. Well, I am not sure how much less minor it is possible to be than failing to train your managers properly. He also suggested that our amendment would make the situation worse. I cannot see that because it seeks simply to reinstate the position as arrived at in the Equality Act. It does not seek to be more draconian than that or more burdensome on employers. I think I showed in moving the amendment that it is hard to argue how the use of this power, as it has been used, constitutes a burden on business and employers.
No one in the House or even in the country is more expert on these matters than the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I am sure that we are all extremely sorry that he is not able to be present today to give us the benefit of his wisdom. However, I am perfectly sure that he would not be moving an amendment of this kind if he did not think that it was a useful component of discrimination law and the light-touch enforcement thereof. In crafting it, the noble Lord sought to be compromising and to move a less drastic amendment than the complete removal of the clause as was attempted in Committee. This is a different approach. It is perfectly open to the House to support the amendment. It is not constrained in that matter by the discussions that took place in Committee. For all these reasons, I want to test the opinion of the House.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
For a moment, I thought your Lordships would have a very enjoyable debate with no opportunity for me to speak. Let me start by responding to the issue of why we are moving clauses ahead of our response to the Law Commission and—undoubtedly, some time in the next Parliament—primary legislation dealing with the much broader issues of the changing world of private hire and taxis. That is a huge area and there is significant work yet to be done.
There are two reasons for going early with these clauses. The first is safety. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that subcontracting within a licensing district is permitted for everybody and has been for years and we know of no issues arising from it. In London 10 years ago this place and the other place agreed to subcontracting across districts to help deal with the problem of unlicensed cab drivers behaving in a criminal way and putting the public at risk. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, gave some numbers for sexual assaults in London but the category she described included unlicensed drivers as well as taxi drivers and licensed private hire drivers. Unlicensed drivers have been the real problem within London. Permitting subcontracting so that someone calling up a company can be assured that a car will come and get them instead of being told, “Sorry all our cars are taken”, makes them far less tempted to get into an unlicensed cab crawling along the street attempting to get their business. That was the driver behind subcontracting in London and those who talk to people with experience of this in London will recognise that it has indeed been helpful in increasing safety. However, one sexual assault is always too many: we have to be vigilant and there is a great deal more to do.
One of the reasons I support moving ahead with this is my own experience of being out in more provincial areas, calling every number I could find for local taxi firms and finding not a single car available. This happened to me when I was going to visit a friend in a nursing home in a country area. I was very glad that it was not dark, that I was not standing there with several small children and that it was not pouring with rain because I think that had an unlicensed cab come by and offered me a lift I might well have been desperate enough to take it. That is not a situation we want. This measure is largely designed to make sure that there is a car available when someone calls a reputable licensed operator.
The other thing I want to clarify—I think there is real confusion over it—is subcontracting from an operator in one district to one in another district. Each operator has to be licensed in their own district and each of them can give the job only to a driver and a vehicle that are both licensed in their same area. So if you call an operator in District A and they give the job directly to a driver, both the driver and the vehicle have to be licensed within that area as well as the operator. If Operator A were to subcontract to an operator in District B, as would be permitted under this change in legislation, then Operator B could give the job only to a driver who is also licensed in District B with a vehicle licensed in District B, so the chain of accountability remains. I want to make that clear because it seems there has been incredible confusion.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
Can I just ask the Minister an honest question of clarification? In this age of technology, why can the person who has called the taxi not be told—because that is all that is being asked—that there is a different company coming and make the choice at that point that that is what they want to happen?
Baroness Kramer
Let me move on to exactly that issue because it refers to the first part of Amendment 4. We looked at this very seriously because consent is attractive. First, we looked at the existing situation. As I said, subcontracting across districts in London has been going on for a decade. We have never heard—and we genuinely asked around as much as we could—of anyone complaining that a car came to get them which was not from the firm that they called. You call the Yellow cab company in your area, and a cab from Sun arrives to pick you up. We have never found any complaints that people were not asked for their consent before that happened. So the question arises: is there a problem? Again, within individual districts, subcontracting has been permitted for as long as anyone can remember. We have not had any complaints and cannot find anybody saying “I wasn’t asked before the subcontracting happened within this licensing district”.
Then we looked at the practical application. The big companies—my noble friend Lord Deben underscored this—could probably handle it quite easily. For people who go to a website or an app to book a cab, some additional lines somewhere in the terms and conditions would probably cover the consent issue—not that I have ever met anyone who has ever read the terms and conditions. The burden will fall on small companies which rely on the telephone. When we first started to look at this, I was quite hopeful that a casual question such as, “Do you mind if we need to bring in a cab from another area?”, would do, but in this day and age, to be legally secure, in effect the operator would have to read out something very like those six or seven lines you would find in the terms and conditions. I suggest that would drive everybody batty. Small companies do not have legal staff on hand and creating that and having to say that routinely every time would be an imposition, particularly when we can identify no problem.
We want to make sure that small companies have flexibility. This brings me to the second reason why we have adopted these clauses because it is particularly important. It is that these are changing times. Small players will be able to create collaborations with other companies in another district to be sure that they will have a larger pool of companies. Their reputation is on the line and the original operator is always on the line for the booking. Having that greater reach of cars gives them the ability to compete against the big boys who, I suspect, would like to see many of them out of business. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ridley for enumerating the many other business benefits—not running empty cars et cetera. It is particularly important for small players to have that flexibility, and it is another rationale for bringing this forward ahead of the Law Commission.
I have covered some of the reasons why we are concerned about the consent language. It appears attractive on the surface, but when we looked at it, it was becoming an impossible burden, particularly on small players. The enforcement clause raised more questions. First, it is only with regard to a vehicle. We currently have that chain of accountability—operator, licensed vehicle licence, driver licence—within the same enforcement authority, which is important. This clause deals only with the vehicle licence. It also fails to recognise the reality on the ground—I am sorry; I have forgotten which noble Lord made this point. Local authorities can delegate enforcement powers on this issue to other local authorities. With increased subcontracting, which will primarily be across the borders of neighbouring districts, we would not be at all surprised if various local authorities decide to collaborate or to delegate enforcement powers. That has some economies for them and will streamline enforcement.
At the moment, cars constantly cross district lines. It is quite possible that the car you get into is taking you shopping in another licensing district or to see Aunt Sally in another licensing district, so local authorities are very used to having to deal with the fact that cars are coming from other licensing districts and to communicating with the licensing district for enforcement purposes. Therefore they have experience in this area and deal with it on a regular basis. I therefore suggest that we do not have a particular problem here, and that what has been presented is a rather clear and narrow power that, frankly, would not contribute very much to effective enforcement.
Baroness Thornton
The noble Baroness keeps saying that there is no problem here. Why then, for example, do the student unions all say that their agreements with local taxi companies will be undermined and that they have problems? Those campus universities have huge problems with taxi companies going from one district to another and with the accountability of those companies. The noble Baroness knows that, because she will have received the same information that I did from Warwick, Coventry and Huddersfield.
Baroness Kramer
I point out to the noble Baroness that she is describing a situation that exists today. I cannot answer to the individual situations, but it may well be that with a subcontracting arrangement in place it would be possible to have more secure arrangements for these various universities, which presently go to operators that cannot do the subcontracting that I have just described. However, there are many misconceptions about the relatively small changes that we are making and the benefits that they offer.
Baroness Thornton
These student unions are concerned about the safety of their students—that is their issue. The noble Baroness is dismissing those concerns and the safety issues that noble Lords have been asking her about. She needs to address the issues around safety here.
Baroness Kramer
I absolutely accept that safety has to be the primary issue. I make the argument that you could see these measures as only enhancing safety by making licensed vehicles or drivers more available to a wider range of people, through subcontracting from one operator to another. This system was adopted in London because it added to the safety of the travelling public. We have not allowed the rest of the country to have that benefit, and it is time we did. Having read much of the material that has come to me, I agree that there are many misconceptions around the clauses we have brought forward. However, it is important for us to look at the reality and make sure that we make these relatively small changes. Eventually there will be a major piece of primary legislation, so it is important that we do not pursue the amendments that the noble Baroness has brought forward and that we understand the benefits that will come from the clauses that have been proposed to provide for subcontracting across districts in the private hire industry.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she just explain to the House clearly why the Government are pressing forward with these changes rather than waiting for the report from the Law Commission? If her argument is that that will be long delayed, can she tell us for how long it will be delayed?
Baroness Kramer
I thought that I had explained that, but I will repeat it very quickly. Obviously, we are working on our response to the Law Commission. I have listened to this House today, and this will be a complex piece of legislation in the very much changing world of private hire and taxis, so it seems wrong to deny the public the benefits of simple changes that could be passed now. As I say, they both enhance safety and give flexibility and opportunity, particularly to the small players, who must live day to day. I see no reason not to take advantage of that possibility.
Lord Harris of Haringey
So the Government have the Law Commission’s report at this stage?
Baroness Kramer
I am sorry, but I feel as if I am constantly bobbing up and down. Yes—we are preparing our response to the Law Commission.
Baroness Thornton
I thank noble Lords for this debate and for all their contributions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that technology has moved on—he is absolutely correct. However, the principle of safeguarding people is one that you would want to operate whatever the technology or lack of technology that is being used to order your taxi, whether you do that online or not. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for her contributions.
I need to be quite clear with the Minister that I have not said that we are opposed to flexibility. The Minister keeps putting this sally up, that we are opposed to the availability of more taxis. That is not the case; I have now said it twice on the record. In these amendments, we seek to ensure that people have a choice. The Minister dismisses the idea of consent in a very cavalier fashion; she says, in effect, “Consent is attractive, but we have looked at it and it is too complicated, so we are not going to go down that road”. Well, frankly, I do not think that is good enough. It is very important that people give consent as to whose cab they get into and when.
The Minister is right that local taxi companies will combine and provide a better service, and we want them to do so, but we need to ensure that it is done with the safeguarding of the travelling public in mind. That is what these very small and very modest amendments seek to do. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that we are not seeking to oppose these clauses. In fact, we are silent about Clause 10. We are seeking to make modest amendments to Clause 11 that address the issues of customer choice and the travelling public’s safety.
The Minister said that there were a lot of misconceptions out there. Well, frankly, if people are worried and have misconceptions, it is the Government’s job to put those to rest, and the Government have failed to do that. They have failed to make the student unions believe that their students will be safe with this legislation and failed to convince the Suzy Lamplugh Trust that this deregulation will make women safer. At the moment, the only things before the House are my amendments, which seek to do those things. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s new partial authorisation for insolvency practitioners would split the existing regulation of this quite tiny profession—some 1,350 who take appointments, according to the noble and learned Lord the Minister—into three. There would be company-only and individual-only insolvency practitioners, and some of course doing both. On the basis of no evidence, the Government have decided to dilute this very small but specialist profession. Amendment 6 would preclude the development of corporate-only licences.
The Government admitted to the insolvency practitioners’ professional body, R3, that Clause 17 was not being introduced to “fix a problem”. Indeed, the Government cited no evidence of undercapacity in the market, nor of complaints about the current system. Virtually all the insolvency practitioners consulted, and their major representatives, said that the proposal was a bad idea. The ICAEW’s consultation evidenced no support for the partial qualification. Indeed, the only body cited as being in support, the IPA, found that 61% of its respondents were against—they did not think that the proposals were a good idea.
According to the Government, it was only some of the IPA’s non-practitioner members who were in favour. More than that, having finally seen the IPA’s survey last week, I discovered that its questionnaire did not distinguish between individual insolvency-only licences, which we support, and corporate-only licences, about which we have grave reservations. So the IPA has no idea whether any of its respondents support the idea of practitioners undertaking corporate insolvencies without also being qualified in individual insolvency. Furthermore, despite finding that a majority of its respondents did not think it was a good idea, the IPA dismissed these views as being those only “of current licence holders”. Surely those are exactly the people who know what they are talking about.
Without Amendment 6, Clause 17 would allow insolvency practitioners to undertake corporate bankruptcies, which almost always also affect the financial status of individuals, with no qualification as to the latter’s needs. Indeed, insolvency practitioners often do not know at the outset of a case, particularly with micro-businesses, whether they are dealing with a corporate or personal insolvency—or, indeed, with both, given the involvement of personal guarantees and the nature of creditors.
It is strange that this Deregulation Bill will create three types of licence—rather than the current one—with new exams, oversight and monitoring. The assertion has been made, but with no evidence, that it will attract new entrants; the assertion has been made by the Government that IP fees will be reduced, without any evidence; and the assertion has been made that training costs will be reduced. Again, no evidence was supplied. This whole shake-up is on the basis, by the Government’s own estimates, that there will be only about 100 partial licences.
Furthermore, it is likely to be the large insolvency firms that train corporate-only practitioners at the expense of smaller insolvency firms, of which two-thirds do both corporate and personal insolvencies. More than 80% of smaller firms do not believe that they would get much benefit from lower training costs. Indeed, 90% said that they would not train a partial licence holder. Smaller firms are least likely to specialise and are therefore least likely to benefit from the change. So there is no help to smaller firms—just when the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill is aimed at trying to help small firms.
Why have the Government dreamt up this clause? There is no evidence of a waiting group of would-be IPs dying to enter the market if only they could train simply in corporate insolvencies. Indeed, a number of firms have been reducing their workforce. The Insolvency Lawyers’ Association questioned the logistics of operating a two-tier mixed system, while R3 has serious concerns about the change. It considers that partial licences will have a negative impact on businesses and individuals seeking financial advice, and on the quality and competitiveness of the UK’s insolvency regime, which is currently rated one of the world’s best by the World Bank. Meanwhile the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, the largest authorised body regulating insolvency practitioners—regulating, I think, about half the profession—opposes this partial insolvency licence system. It set out its reasoning to the Government a year ago. The Government, however, ignored that, despite the reputation and expertise of the ICAEW. The institute sees no need for partial licensing; it is unaware of any demand for it; and it does not consider that regulatory costs would be lower.
The ICAEW is also concerned that an insolvency practitioner with partial authorisation would not acquire the broad range of knowledge and expertise necessary to provide appropriate advice in a corporate insolvency. We also fear that the proposal would lower standards, given that Jenny Willott MP, the Minister in the Commons, said that the partial licence would,
“reduce a little the high bar on entry to the profession”.
As the ICAEW retorted:
“Reducing the breadth of knowledge required of IPs could be regarded as a lowering of standards”.
We are talking about people’s futures: whether jobs are to be saved or a company liquidated; whether individuals will be made bankrupt; whether creditors will get their money back; whether a company will be sold to someone who can retain at least some of the business.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, which operates under a royal charter, works in the public interest. Given the potential impact on standards of practice that partial authorisation might have, it does not believe that the proposed reform would be beneficial to the public. The proposal to allow corporate bankruptcies to be handled by people who are unqualified in personal insolvency is misguided, unnecessary, criticised by the profession and other stakeholders and based on unsubstantiated claims. Apart from that, it seems a very good idea.
I urge the Government—even at this late stage—to think again, to listen to R3, the ICAEW and other specialists, and to accept Amendment 6. I beg to move.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment. We have debated this matter in Committee and I met her and representatives of R3 a few weeks ago to discuss it. The amendment seeks to limit partial authorisation to personal insolvency. This debate allows the Government to set out why we believe that allowing specialised authorisation for insolvency practitioners for both personal and corporate insolvency is the right thing to do.
I recognise that this is a matter of considerable interest to those in the insolvency profession. However, there is a wider impact. The purpose of generally requiring insolvency practitioners to have certain qualifications and experience is that they are given significant powers by statute and it is important that there is confidence that they will use such powers appropriately. It is not to protect insolvency practitioners as a profession as such. It is important, therefore, that the barriers this places on entry—there is quite properly a barrier because of the statutory responsibilities and powers—are no higher than needed for the purpose. I think this was the context in which my right honourable friend Jenny Willott was speaking. The noble Baroness has not provided any evidence whatever that having separate authorisations for personal and corporate insolvency would in any way lower the standards in each of these disciplines.
Most insolvency practitioners are already qualified, usually as accountants, sometimes as lawyers. What we are discussing is what specific training and qualifications they need in order to act as insolvency practitioners. The amendment would allow specialised authorisation in personal insolvency but not corporate, so I will focus on why we believe that it would be helpful to allow specialised authorisation for corporate insolvency.
Opponents have said—as the noble Baroness herself did in moving her amendment—that there is no evidence of the need for change. However, there have been reports on the insolvency profession that have raised concerns about the level of competition in this profession. Two independent reports have noted failings in the current regime that result in fees being higher than they should be. We believe that partial authorisation will increase competition and place downward pressure on fees, which in turn could benefit creditors in the form of higher dividends.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, legislation on public rights of way is complex, often archaic and certainly plentiful. I declare an interest as an owner of farmland in Cheshire over which there are a number of uncontentious footpaths.
In Committee, many of the issues behind the proposals in the Bill were examined. One of these was the question of procedures and costs involved in addressing the complexities highlighted by footpaths going through gardens and farmyards and alongside private homes, with the consequential privacy and safety concerns. I agree with the noble Lords that this is an important issue and the stakeholder group did address it. However, the measures in the relevant passage of the Bill should alleviate most of the problems. This is not to deny that there may be the further concerns to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has drawn our attention.
In Committee, we were concerned that these measures and others should be subject to follow-up through a report to Parliament. They are, as I have said, very important measures and progress must be made. From the debate in Committee, it is clear that there are several channels of communication through which progress can be monitored and outcomes highlighted, and I am not sure whether there is a need for this proposed new clause to be in the Bill. The Minister at the time may find that a Written Statement would be entirely sufficient and satisfactory as a method of addressing this, but there may be others. The stakeholder working group can issue reports for deliberation. However, if progress is not forthcoming, then we shall certainly return to the issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I declare an interest as the owner of a farm across which there are public rights of way and, indeed, as a user of public rights of way myself.
We have considerable sympathy for those people, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Byford, who face problems with a public right of way that passes through their farm or garden and who feel that the system has let them down or conspired against them. Where these cases occur, people may indeed experience acute problems, but they are comparatively few and we should ensure that any changes we make to legislation are proportionate to the extent of the problem.
Rather unconventionally, I will go in reverse order, and turn first to Amendment 12, in the name of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I understand that the intention behind the regulation it proposes is to enable the creation of rules prescribing how local authorities must make decisions on applications to divert or extinguish rights of way. We believe that the combined effect of our existing measures, which have cross-party support in both Houses, will make a significant difference and that we should not legislate further before seeing how these measures work out in practice. I will explain why that is.
There is clear agreement among stakeholders on the working group that the major difficulty for landowners is in getting local authorities to make a diversion or extinguishment order in the first place. Our plans to implement the right to apply for such orders are designed to overcome this. The right to apply will enable a landowner to make a formal application for the diversion or extinguishment of a public right of way. With that will come the right to appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority rejects the application or fails to act on it. Therefore, local authorities will no longer be able to ignore requests or dismiss them out of hand; they will be obliged either to make an order or to be prepared to justify their reasons for not doing so on appeal to the Secretary of State.
The right to apply will be extended to land-use types other than those for agriculture, forestry and the keeping of horses—for example, to private residential gardens. The right to apply will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem. I suggest that guidance such as this, which has been introduced though agreement among stakeholders, is far more likely to prove successful in practice, regardless of whether it has statutory backing.
I realise that there is the further hurdle of getting an order confirmed. However, my noble friend Lady Byford quoted my words in Committee to the effect that, according to Ramblers, which keeps accurate records of these matters, of the 1,257 diversion orders which have reached a conclusion in the last three years, 94% did not attract any objections. Of the 6% that did, less than 1% were not confirmed following submission to the Secretary of State.
In addition, the guidance will give authorities more scope to confirm orders made in the interests of the landowner in circumstances where a right of way may cause hardship because it goes through the garden of a family home, a working farmyard or other commercial premises where privacy, safety and security are a problem. In light of the guidance, authorities would have to put forward compelling reasons for not confirming an order in such circumstances.
We appreciate, and my noble friend will be the first to point out, that the numbers of orders confirmed without objections may fall under the right to apply. Each case will depend on the merits of the proposal. However, given the statistics I have outlined, we believe that the combination of the right to apply and the guidance will have the desired effect and that we should not rush to legislate before giving these measures a chance to work in practice.
Lord De Mauley
I understand my noble friend’s point, but I hope he would be prepared to give the provisions in the Bill a chance. They are actually quite far reaching. With great respect to my noble friends, who have raised some important points, we are talking here about points which, in their eyes, would make yet further improvements. I think my noble friends acknowledged in their speeches today that there are already some good, positive changes in this Bill. I hope my noble friend would accept that.
Moreover, under the right to apply provisions, the Secretary of State will be the confirming authority for all disputed orders. The Government will therefore be in a prime position to promote implementation of the revised policy set out in the guidance by setting a clear precedent with any cases that come before the Secretary of State. In addition, the Government will work with rights of way officers, through their professional organisations, actively to promote to local authorities the existing guidance on diversion or extinguishment of rights of way which pass through gardens, farmyards or commercial premises.
To return to the amendment, the existing legislation on extinguishments and diversions, in Sections 118 and 119 of the Highways Act 1980, already sets out rules, which Parliament has debated and agreed, under which local authorities make decisions on applications to divert or extinguish rights of way. My noble friend’s proposed regulation-making power would, in effect, be a power to make new rules by delegated legislation and therefore without full parliamentary scrutiny. I suggest that it is highly unlikely that we would get stakeholder agreement to such a measure, knowing that this was the purpose behind the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale
Will my noble friend give way? I thought, or at least I hoped, that I had made it quite clear that, if my noble friend accepted my amendment—which, clearly, he is not going to—it would be necessary to have a Third Reading amendment to make these regulations by affirmative order. In that case, of course, they would have parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend makes a fair point.
It has been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that Parliament agrees with our view that that the consensus should be supported by keeping the rights of way package as it stands. I spoke to the stakeholder working group at its latest meeting and learnt at first hand that its overriding aim is to get the package implemented intact. We are determined that the consensus should not be put at risk by adding measures that have not been discussed with stakeholders and, of course, not consulted on.
Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Byford, is intended to ensure that the Government review the success or otherwise of these measures after their implementation. That is an absolutely laudable aim and one that, in any event, would be a matter of good practice. However, although we agree with the aim of evaluating the effectiveness of the right to apply and associated guidance, I hope that my noble friend will agree that it would not be appropriate to use a deregulatory Bill to impose on the Government the statutory burden of making a formal report. That would run contrary to the aims of the Bill.
In the other place, the Government have already put on record that the stakeholder working group’s advice will be sought on the constitution of a review panel to advise on how well the reforms are working and whether any further measures need to be taken before the cut-off date. I am happy to put on record now that we will ensure that any arrangements to review the rights of way reforms will include an assessment, within two years of implementation of the reforms package, of how effective the right to apply provisions and the accompanying guidance have proved in getting local authorities to respond positively to applications for public path extinguishment or diversion orders.
The proposed assessment will include an opportunity for people to provide evidence to the stakeholder working group either through wider consultation outside the group or a call for evidence. The assessment will send a message to authorities that the Government are determined that the new policy should work and that if guidance does not bring about sufficient change, we will consider introducing further measures.
My noble friend Lady Byford returned to the issue that we discussed in Committee about the authorisation of gates. We recognise that an amendment to extend the powers to authorise gates and similar structures could be helpful to people with a right of way going through their premises or garden. The stakeholder working group discussed this at some length. While there was agreement about the proposal in principle, the group has not yet arrived at a formulation on which it could agree. Those measures have not, unlike the rest of the package, been widely consulted on and are therefore not necessarily agreed by wider stakeholders, whose views we also have to consider.
Concerns have been expressed by users of rights of way about the possible proliferation of gates and other structures across rights of way. Particular concern has been raised with me by equestrian groups in the stakeholder working group that I attended. They are worried about riders with disabilities who may not be able to dismount or who have difficulties in opening and closing gates without risk of injury to themselves or their horse. Since the House of Lords Committee stage of the Bill I have received correspondence expressing concern about the suggestion that the powers of local authorities to authorise gates should be further extended beyond those changes already being introduced by Clause 24.
My noble friend also raised the point about the right to apply not providing a presumption that paths will be diverted away from gardens, houses and businesses. We have covered that quite extensively. The guidance agreed by the stakeholder working group introduces a presumption that paths will be diverted away from houses and businesses. We believe that the guidance, combined with the right to apply, will have the desired effect. My noble friend also asked whether there should not be a time limit on making claims based on long use. The stakeholder working group has not been able to reach an agreement on that, but it will continue to keep it under review.
On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, although I am grateful to my noble friend for his full response to my Amendment 7 and for his acceptance that the review should take place two years after the Bill becomes enacted rather than after three years, as was originally proposed, I will read Hansard carefully—but this is indeed welcome.
I still have some concerns about the important ongoing work by the stakeholder working group. We get such few opportunities of such legislation coming before us in Parliament, when we have a chance to try to make sure that practicalities are overcome if they possibly can be—although that is not always possible. I hope that the stakeholder working group will continue to work closely together to try to resolve some of these issues. They are not impossible to resolve. My noble friend Lord Cathcart said that it is costly to apply for diversions. I gather that unopposed diversions cost about £2,000, but those that are opposed cost more than £8,000 and can be dearer. We need to keep that in the back of our minds when we are talking in fairly general terms about something that was a problem 40 years ago, to which my noble friend Lord Spicer referred.
Although there are improvements in this Bill, which I have publicly acknowledged, there are still things that need addressing. If that cannot be done within the Bill, I hope that the words that my noble friend the Minister has given me today will fill me with confidence rather than suggesting that he thinks that I have got it wrong.
We have another stage. Other Peers have taken part in this short debate: my noble friends Lord Skelmersdale, Lord Cathcart and Lord Spicer, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The noble Lord has, as I do, footpaths across his land and we are happy to have them. Ours are not contentious, but there are people—and 1% is 1% too many—who are having a rough time, because the various interested bodies cannot get together to try to reach a proper outcome to something that I hope is not an insurmountable problem. It may seem a huge problem to those who want the right of way; and those who say that if they were to divert it, that would be of benefit to everybody. Perhaps the working group could attach a little more vigour to some of the outstanding issues.
I thank my noble friend and other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and, with my noble friend’s words saying that within two years there will be a review panel rather than a report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord De Mauley
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, government Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 in this group are minor and technical in nature and do not make any substantive change to the policy of Clause 25 or Schedule 7. They make in fact the following changes.
One is a correction to new Section 54C(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is concerned with modification consent orders, to make any path or way resulting from such an order “maintainable at public expense” instead of making the surveying authority responsible for its maintenance. This small change in terminology makes the provision consistent with existing rights of way provisions and avoids creating any uncertainty among practitioners. There are extant provisions that enable diversion and extinguishment orders to be severed, where only part of an order is subject to a valid objection. Another change in terminology substitutes “parts” for “modifications” in these provisions. That is because “modifications” has a very particular meaning in relation to definitive map modification orders and is best confined to that context.
The final change is to enable the Secretary of State to decide which procedure to use in deciding appeals and objections on rights of way diversion and extinguishment orders. This will make the procedure consistent with that for recording rights of way. It will enable the Secretary of State to opt for the exchange of written representations rather than a hearing or public inquiry and avoid unnecessary and costly public inquiries where there is no justification for them.
My noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Bradshaw have amendments in this group, but it is appropriate that they introduce them before I respond. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, the problem we are trying to deal with is the unauthorised use of green lanes by 4x4 vehicles and trail motorbikes. This problem is getting worse, making many rights of way impassable and creating an intrusive noise nuisance. Present legislation is entirely inadequate for dealing with this problem. Local authorities which are short of resources are unable or unwilling to commit to dealing with an outdated and burdensome situation.
When the Peak District National Park and other national parks were formed, the use of rights of way by 4x4 vehicles and trail motorbikes for recreational purposes was not foreseen. At present there is no simple way of dealing with this obstructive and noisy nuisance and some fresh way must be found to deal with a problem that prevents walkers and riders enjoying the countryside. The purpose of any new legislation would be to create a right of appeal where a highway authority fails to make a traffic regulation order that excludes motor vehicles from a byway open to all traffic, and other green lanes, where there is evidence that such an action is necessary. At present, local communities have no redress if their highway authority refuses to act.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, the stakeholder working group is to be commended on finding and building consensus around the main interested groups to recommend the changes to the Bill as a package, to streamline the process, and to make quicker progress with less contention and confrontation, even though there may appear to be plenty of time until 2026, the cut-off date under the CROW Act 2000. We agree with the measures in the Bill as a balanced approach to speed up the process. We wish to retain the consensus and build on it. I am grateful to the Government for listening to our views and those of many others, reflecting on the proposals and coming forward with these further technical clarifications. We agree that the stakeholder working group must be retained following this excellent report, and its remit extended to experience more contentious, protracted issues. Indeed, in the other place, the Minister agreed to set this up.
The problem raised through Amendment 17 is one that needs addressing, but not in the context of this Bill. This is not to deny that there are issues, costs and damage created by the use of off-road all-terrain vehicles. However, they must be addressed in the context that 62% of byway traffic is due to land management and dwelling access, with the remaining 38% due to recreation. The damage done by this 38% cannot be denied, and the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lord Judd have highlighted this tonight. But 70% of byways are without drainage, and much damage can be done by farm vehicles, water erosion and poor maintenance. The stakeholder working group must be allowed to examine the issue to find solutions first, to be arrived at through dialogue, a process more likely to result in less conflict, more compromise and thus acceptance, reducing the need for enforcement. Ministers could then make better informed decisions. These measures relating to public rights of way will bring benefit to all interests—land owners, local authorities and the public, even with their competing interests.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, in what is an understandably contentious debate about the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsurfaced routes in the countryside, and particularly inside national parks, we are addressing similar issues to a debate we had in Committee. We sympathise with genuine concerns about the problems that can arise from the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsealed roads, encapsulated in Amendment 17 by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. I have seen some of the pictures that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to. We agree that this is an issue which needs to be tackled and some means of resolution found. The Government’s published response to the Joint Committee’s report of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Deregulation Bill said as much, but also recognised that this Bill is not the right mechanism for doing so. The issue of recreational off-road motor vehicle use is an emotive and contentious one, where one person’s pleasurable pastime is anathema to another. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said that by no means all damage to unsealed roads and tracks is by the recreational use of motor vehicles, and I broadly confirm the figures that he mentioned.
We believe that the best way to review policy on the recreational off-road use of motor vehicles is for it to be based on the stakeholder working group model. I am grateful to noble Lords who echoed those sentiments. That approach has proved to be successful, as demonstrated by the stakeholder consensus on the rights of way reforms package, of which the clauses in this Bill form the major part. This has resulted in mutually beneficial solutions being arrived at through dialogue and negotiation.
The Government plan to set up such a motor vehicle working group, with an independent chairman, as soon as possible after the Deregulation Bill has completed its passage. My department will work with Natural England to organise a secretariat, and it will invite stakeholders with the relevant experience and expertise to join the group. We propose to invite interested organisations to put forward their suggestions for suitable members. In response to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s specific question, I say that a key principle is that the group should contain a balance of interests across all sectors. We plan to have members who can represent the interests of national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national trails as well as all the different types of users of rights of way.
Within such a group, recognised professionals can explore all the viable possibilities and their likely consequences. Resolutions arrived at in this way, based on agreement and mutual interest, are likely to result in less conflict and reduce the need for enforcement. Solutions will work best if based on compromise, and I have been assured by those representing the anti-vehicle groups that it is not their intention to change the legislation in relation to allowing motor vehicle trials and competitions. I welcome this approach, as I do the points made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale raised a point about access for disabled people to the countryside. This is a complex issue with many different aspects, which is why it needs to be considered carefully by a working group and fully consulted on.
My noble friend Lord Bradshaw asked about timing. I have said that the stakeholder working group will start its work upon completion of the passage of the Bill. We will set a target time for the group to report. The original stakeholder working group took 18 months to report and I believe that a similar timeframe is realistic for this group to work to. I can confirm that a public consultation will follow the report.
While the group needs to have a clear remit, it will be invited to come up with its own terms of reference. I expect that it will look at all the issues in the round and include assessments of any economic and social benefits of the current recreational use of unsealed roads as well as an assessment of the costs and burdens. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw will be prepared not to press his amendment.
Lord Bradshaw
I thank the Minister for what he has said, but what was missing was the question of what happens—
Lord De Mauley
“(3) Where a modification consent order takes effect, any path or way, or any part of a path or way, which is shown in a definitive map and statement in consequence of the order or any special order combined with it under section 54B(5) is maintainable at the public expense”
Lord De Mauley
Lord De Mauley
“( ) In that paragraph, after sub-paragraph (4) (as inserted by sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph) insert—
“(5) In the case of an order relating to England, the Secretary of State may, instead of affording a person an opportunity of being heard as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b), (2A)(b) or (3)(b), afford the person an opportunity of making representations (or further representations) to a person appointed by him for the purpose.“(6) Where the Secretary of State acts under sub-paragraph (5) by affording a person an opportunity of making representations (or further representations) instead of an opportunity of being heard as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) or (3)(b), the reference in sub-paragraph (2) or (as the case may be) (3)(c) to the report of the person appointed to hear representations or objections is to be read as a reference to the report of the person appointed under sub-paragraph (5).””
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I can be brief because of the powerful arguments made this evening by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Harris. The points they made were extremely telling. It is incumbent now upon the Government and the Minister to try and answer why an approach that is non-localist and bureaucratic should proceed rather than the current arrangements under the London Local Authorities Act 2007. What is the problem with London that this seeks to solve? It is incumbent on the Government to say.
The Government’s focus on this area is all very well, but is it the right priority at the moment? The Minister will be aware of current figures for recycling rates that show that for England household recycling has pretty much flatlined, with a very small increase in the last figures that I have seen. There are real concerns that recycling rates could potentially decline. I would have thought that the Government should be more worried about that than tying up these bureaucratic arrangements that have been so roundly challenged tonight. I hope the Minister will be able to explain very clearly why the Government are where they are on this.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I believe that there is broad political consensus that Clause 44 is needed to introduce a fair system of penalties related to household waste collection in England. This new system will treat individuals more fairly than hitherto and deal effectively with those whose behaviour has a negative impact on residents’ local neighbourhoods, such as leaving bin bags on the street for days on end.
The clause removes the current criminal sanctions available under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The system we propose means that fixed penalties of between £60 and £80 will be available if a person does not present household waste as required and this causes a nuisance or is detrimental to the locality. The clause introduces a “harm to local amenity” test. Civil sanctions will be available to deal with behaviour such as putting waste out in a way that causes obstruction to neighbours, attracts pests, unreasonably impedes access to pavements or is an eyesore.
In Amendments 18 and 19, my noble friend proposes to retain a parallel system in London. We want to change the law so that only people causing real problems for their community will get punished—for example, people leaving bin bags on the street for days on end. The new test of causing harm to local amenity is designed to ensure this. My noble friend’s amendment would enable London boroughs to bypass this important safeguard. That would mean that if a London resident happened to leave a bin lid open or if someone threw the wrong rubbish into someone else’s recycling bin then the householder—that is, someone else—could be punished, in London.
We do not think it appropriate for people to be penalised for a first-time mistake or someone else’s careless action. They should be told what they have done wrong and have the opportunity to rectify their errors. Clause 44 introduces these changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I am confident that this will not add significant burdens compared to how the current arrangements operate in practice. We know that many authorities already communicate well with their residents and seek to educate them if they have difficulties with collection requirements.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Can the Minister tell us how many instances of the cases he has described have led to action under the London local authorities scheme?
Lord De Mauley
I am quite happy to do that. If I cannot do so during this debate, I will let the noble Lord know whatever information I can find for him.
Clause 44 would ensure that this best practice is adopted and that additional safeguards for the individual are available across all boroughs.
I understand that my noble friend is concerned that the process of issuing penalties will take too long. We need to get the balance right between protecting individuals’ civil liberties and dealing with behaviours which damage local neighbourhoods. We intend that this is reflected in legislation. Since the Deregulation Bill was first published in draft, we have amended Clause 44 so that local authorities will not have to issue multiple warnings to people who repeat the same behaviour of causing harm to the local amenity within a year.
We also believe in a fair and measured approach to penalties. A shoplifter committing a first offence may be issued with a £90 penalty notice for disorder. My noble friend’s amendment would levy penalties of £110 for mistakes and carelessness with Londoners’ bins. Clause 44 allows us to set the level of penalties at between £60 and £80 because we do not believe such mistakes and carelessness should be penalised more heavily than shoplifting. I understand my noble friend’s focus on London and know she would like the city to be treated as a special case. However, other cities in England have, for example, high-density housing, transient populations and student populations. I am sure she would accept that a proportionate, fair approach should apply throughout England.
My noble friend asked why the clause needed to be so wordy. We appreciate that the clause and the schedule are long and look complicated. There are two reasons for that. First, we want to be clear about the process that local authorities must go through as we do not want householders to be penalised for a first-time, inadvertent mistake. Secondly, we are looking to align two different systems, set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the London Local Authorities Act 2007.
To summarise, this clause as it stands will introduce the protection that a household needs from being punished for a simple mistake or for people throwing the wrong rubbish into someone else’s bin. It will align all of England with a sensible approach that keeps residents informed and levels of penalties proportionate.
My noble friend Lord Tope asked whether I would be prepared to meet him about this, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked the same question. Of course I would be prepared to do that, but I would not want to raise any expectation that the Government will change their position on this. I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Tope
Is the Minister able to answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put to him about the number of prosecutions? As I understand it, he does not have that information to hand. The fact is that in the six or seven years of operating the scheme there has not been one single appeal against the issue of penalty charge notices. Would he conclude, as I do, that that suggests there have been very few issued and even fewer judged to have been unfairly issued?
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, as we know, with this Bill we move from waste to education to farms to taxis and now to schools and nurseries. Amendment 20 would enable nursery schools to become full members of trusts and Amendment 21 would ensure that co-operative schools could establish an industrial provident society, should it be desirable, so bringing co-operative schools into line with other kinds of co-operative organisations.
By way of background, I should say that the first co-operative trust school was established just over five years ago. Few would have anticipated the extent of their growth: there are now around 700 co-operative trust schools and that figure is expected to rise to 1,000 by the end of 2015. In other words, more than 250,000 pupils in England now attend co-operative schools. The values of co-operative schools are drawn from the global statement on co-operative identity, which is recognised by the United Nations and forms the basis of co-operative law throughout the world. The co-operative values of self-help, self-responsibility, equality, equity and solidarity, together with the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others, have been seen by governing bodies to resonate powerfully with their schools.
Moving to a co-operative model provides a framework in which everybody with a stake in the school’s success—parents, teachers, support staff, local community organisations and pupils—have the opportunity to be involved in running it. There is a growing recognition that working co-operatively helps to avoid duplication and distraction, allows school leaders better to focus on the effective leadership of teaching and learning and raises standards. The value of this kind of collaboration and partnership working between schools was recently examined by the Education Select Committee, whose report highlighted the benefits that collaboration between schools brings, in particular where it is on the basis of mutual benefit.
Examples of these trusts can be seen in Cornwall, where over 100 schools have become co-operatives and are part of 13 trusts. Most of these are geographically based clusters, enabling small village primary schools to be part of a learning community with a secondary school that most of their young people will move to. In Leeds, a significant proportion of the city’s schools are already in co-operative trusts and others are in the consultation process.
The remarkable growth in co-operative schools has happened despite, not as a result of, current government policy. This demonstrates that the models developed under the pathfinder scheme programme following the 2006 Act under the last Labour Administration are enormously attractive to schools.
The reason why these amendments have been put down and I proposed them in Committee is that there is scope within the Bill’s intention—to,
“Make provision for the reduction of burdens resulting from legislation for businesses or other organisations or for individuals”—
to correct two specific burdens on the development of co-operative schools and co-operative school trusts. The first amendment concerns nursery schools. Many co-operative networks and co-operative trusts are based on strong geographically based clusters. They have an all-through vision of education, raising achievement by supporting young people throughout their journey through the education system. Yet the 2006 Act excludes nursery schools from becoming parts of trusts. The amendment would correct this and, in effect, amend the 2006 Act.
Nursery schools are in many ways the most co-operative part of the sector, in relation to both their engagement with parents and carers and their pedagogy, as is reflected in the early years foundation stage. Enabling nursery schools to become full members of trusts or, indeed, academies would provide a vehicle for that parental and family engagement in early years to enthuse the trust to further develop the all-through vision of education essential for sustainable changes in achievement.
The second amendment seeks to amend the School Organisation (Requirements as to Foundations) (England) Regulations 2007 to ensure that schools are able to establish themselves as an industrial provident society, should it be desirable. Despite an all-party commitment to co-operatives and mutuals in the public sector, co-operative schools have had to work around existing legislation, as no provision is made in the relevant education Acts for schools to be established formally as co-operative societies as defined in the 2014 consolidation Act. The new clause seeks to amend this, ensuring that any future legislation provides a level playing field and a more understandable legal framework for co-operative schools—in other words, using the co-operative legislation that exists.
There is a question of the Government’s commitment to co-operatives, mutuals and social enterprises in this area. In a real way, they are disadvantaged because they cannot use the legal form that exists for co-operatives. This issue was first raised in the Commons during the first part of the discussion about the Bill. The amendments were withdrawn then on the basis that there would be discussions with the Department for Education. While Michael Gove was the Secretary of State, he was personally supportive of the proposals but said that the department lacked the expertise and resources to adopt the changes. Since his departure, there has been what you might call a decided lack of enthusiasm about the issue in the department. We are told that the department would like to work with co-operative schools to help with these proposals, but that has yet to happen. I am not hopeful that the Government will accept the amendments now, but I would like to see some sign that progress can be made in this important matter. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Government have been, and continue to be, supportive of the broad aims of partnership, collaboration and co-operation in education, as in other fields. I have been a long-standing supporter of the Co-operative movement and I was sorry to see its decline in the north of England over the last 30 or 40 years, just as I am glad to see that in many ways it is now reviving. I am a member and a regular user of the excellent Co-op shop in Saltaire and I was on the point of considering moving to the Co-operative Bank before its recent sad problems.
We all recognise that mutuals are model forms of enterprise that we need to extend across a whole range of fields. As I deal with elderly relatives, I think that we all need to work much more actively to develop mutual models for care homes. As far as schools are concerned, we know that partnerships between schools can be a powerful tool in raising standards and improving educational achievements for all pupils and we place great value on that.
The academies programme continues to deliver examples of schools working together in multi-academy trusts, which help to ensure success for everybody in those partnerships. These trusts pull together schools across both phases of education to work effectively as a family of schools. There are currently 260 multi-academy trusts which have both primary and secondary provision, so it is not simply primary schools working with primary schools and secondary schools working with secondary schools. We are promoting collaboration across the sector and we see the benefits across the educational landscape.
Baroness Thornton
Why does adding provident societies to the sort of business forms that schools can have in legislation make anything more complex? It is not a complex question. It is a simple question; it is straightforward. We are just asking that co-operative schools can have the legal form that co-operatives have. That is all.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we have been open to discussion and we are still open to continuing discussion on what precise forms are needed, but we want to be persuaded of the educational advantages of the changes that have been proposed and we would want to be assured of the advantages for schools before we were to support these very specific amendments. In line with the Government’s undertaking given in the other House to investigate the proposals—
Baroness Thornton
Would the Minister like to tell me exactly where in the legislation creating academies it says that companies limited by guarantee bring better educational results?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I take the point that the legislation does not specifically say that. I was in the process of saying that we are open to discussion. We offered to investigate the proposals further and my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools met interested parties to discuss their concerns last year. He also wrote to the noble Baroness in November last year, inviting her to provide evidence about the problems that these amendments would address and to meet to discuss the issue further. We regret that that meeting has not been held and we are still open to further discussions, but, in consequence, the position has not changed and he remains unconvinced of the educational benefits of the noble Baroness’s case.
The Government are determined to continue to remove the barriers and obstacles that prevent schools delivering the best education possible for their pupils and to promote flexible and collaborative ways of working such as the amendments are intended to promote. So far, more than 700 co-operative schools have been established and, as the noble Baroness said, there will be 1,000 by the end of 2015. We firmly believe that there are sufficient alternative options already available without needing to introduce these additional legislative changes, but we are open to continuing discussions about the obstacles that the noble Baroness and others clearly think still exist. In the mean time, and in openness to further discussions, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister. I know that he is sympathetic. Indeed, we shop at the same Co-operative store in Saltaire—and a very good shop it is, too. I have been a member of the Co-operative society in Bradford since I was 16 years old. I am grateful for the offer of further discussions and my Co-operative colleagues from the Commons and this House will certainly take the noble Lord up on that offer, because there are issues to do with equity, a fair playing field and recognition of different business types. I think that we would all agree that plurality in those issues is important. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.