Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024.

Baroness Rawlings Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I also welcome this statutory instrument and the detail of it. A lot of my points have already been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees. It is certainly very important from a farming point of view—I represent vets who work with farmers—and on the ability to export breeding stock in the long run, and with all respect to the bluetongue outbreak.

I also note that the equestrian side of it needs to be addressed in due course. We welcome that, so I will not go into any more detail on that.

Live exports to Northern Ireland were just addressed by the noble Lord. The time limit for exports of sheep et cetera from Scotland to Northern Ireland has been extended, because there is no direct ferry route from Scotland to Northern Ireland due to the ferry regulations. Is Defra going to monitor the number of live exports from England to Northern Ireland, and likewise from Northern Ireland back to England? That is important to ensure the numbers are tracked correctly.

Furthermore, when animals arrive in Northern Ireland, who is going to monitor what is in place, as requested by the RSPCA? Is Defra going to monitor that, as well as the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland?

I will further emphasise the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Trees: we would welcome, for improved animal welfare, a review of the current journey times within Great Britain.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, following the very good speech of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I will say that animal welfare was the most debated subject when we were both in the European Parliament together. I wonder whether we are still abiding by all EU rules now.

Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Baroness Rawlings Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, the Ivory Act 2018 and subsequent statutory instruments pertained only to ivory of elephant origin. Although those instruments covered the vast majority of ivory products, these new regulations extend the meaning of ivory to include the “tusk or tooth” of a hippopotamus, killer whale, narwhal or sperm whale. These species are listed under CITES, and although they compromise only a small amount of the broad definition of “ivory”, the amending regulations limit opportunities for laundering ivory under the guise of another species that is not prohibited. The regulations also mitigate the risk of poaching displacement—a lovely word I had not come across but which was in the Explanatory Memorandum—to non-elephant ivory-bearing species.

The current legislation places the burden of proof on anyone accused of potential ivory trading to prove that the ivory is not from a prohibited species. It is very useful that specific institutions are named as able to provide expert advice to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether that could partly satisfy some of the noble Lord’s concerns. I note that walrus products are already covered under the assimilated EU regulations, as the Minister mentioned.

The regulations sensitively recognise that certain indigenous communities, such as the Inuit, rely on subsistence hunting of some of these species for food and derive part of their income from the sale of ivory products as a by-product of this hunting. As I understand it, these regulations would not prevent UK tourists acquiring small amounts of ivory items made from the species covered by these regulations from these communities and bringing them back as personal possessions under CITES regulations—that is, with a permit and declaration at customs—but will prevent any degree of commercial trade and onward sale in the secondary ivory market in the UK. Can the Minister confirm my understanding of this permitted trade with indigenous communities?

The miscellaneous amendments in the instrument will further strengthen the protection of endangered species around the world. I welcome them, although I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s concerns.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I very much concur with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham. I declare my interests as listed in the register.

I will comment on the detrimental impact that extending the Ivory Act will have on the formation of collections of historical objects. Most museum collections in this country, whether quirky municipal ones or great national ones, were formed as a result of the philanthropy of community-spirited collectors. Those collectors may have spent their lives—and, I hasten to add, their own money—being passionate about and studying a particular branch of history, and acquiring historical artefacts or works of art to reflect their passion. After decades of forming a collection they may have wanted the public to have access to it, so they gave or sold it to their local museum.

One such example of this is the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, which has a scrimshaw collection formed by Surgeon Captain AWB Livesey RN. The collection comprises etched sperm whale teeth from the first half of the 19th century, depicting subjects such as naval engagements from the Napoleonic Wars, the War of 1812 between Britain and America, the bombardment of Algiers to release Christian slaves in 1816, and the struggle of many countries in central and South America to achieve independence from Spanish rule. All these etchings were created from the perspective of the ordinary sailor, armed with a sharp blade and some lamp soot. Had Captain Livesey been alive today, this statutory instrument would have prevented him forming such a remarkable collection.

Agri-environment Schemes: Permissive Access

Baroness Rawlings Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

In addition to the six schemes which I suspect are the ones the noble Baroness heard about from my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Gardiner, we are also looking at around 1,000 farms, we hope, that will be coming into the sustainable farming initiative pilot that will start in October. There will be an access element to that as well. But I would draw attention to some of those six, which are very extensive indeed. They will offer groupings across landscapes, as I said, and will really inform how successful we can be in getting more people into the countryside.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very constructive answers. As there are more and more people from cities using footpaths across farmland for the first time, will the Ministry encourage clear signs with codes of behaviour, especially if there is livestock around, as protection for all?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, we would encourage clear signage, and the Countryside Code, the revised version of which was published last month, gives advice to land managers, along with the Health and Safety Executive advice. Like my noble friend, I am concerned by the number of injuries and tragic deaths of members of the public caused by cattle. We want signage and a clear understanding of the risks. Under environmental land management, it will be possible to get funding for, for example, a fence to separate walkers from cattle.

Ivory Bill

Baroness Rawlings Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 7 and 11. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord De Mauley has said and I will not speak at length because I made many similar points when I introduced my earlier amendment. However, it is terribly important that we do not unwittingly pass into law an Act of Parliament that would, as its inevitable consequence, lead to the destruction of part of the fabric of our rich artistic heritage and civilisation. That is something which we should all take very seriously.

We should also take seriously the point made by my noble friend Lord De Mauley about religious significance, not just in the Christian context but in that of many religions. Of course, in the European and Christian context we should remember the school of ivory carvers that existed in Dieppe for centuries and produced, among other things, some wonderful devotional objects. They are part of the warp and weft of domestic civilisation in Europe. Just as in our churches we would throw up our hands in horror at the thought of the despoiling of monuments and other wonderful objects which happened in the 16th and 17th centuries at the time of the Reformation and the English Civil War, surely we in the 21st century do not want to connive in the despoiling of domestic objects of devotion such as those made in Dieppe.

My two amendments have a similar aim to that of my noble friend Lord De Mauley in that I would delete the words “outstandingly high” so that that paragraph in Clause 2(2) would refer to the item being of,

“artistic, cultural or historical value”.

I would of course accept “religious value” as well. That is much more objective, much less subjective, and easier to determine. In Amendment 11 I would take out the word “important” and replace it with “significant” because again that is a little less subjective and thus easier to determine.

When I spoke earlier in moving Amendment 1, I referred to the fact that there is a different application for what is an item of museum quality in my native city of Lincoln than there would be in London. There is nothing right or wrong about that, it is just a fact, and we do not wish this Bill to penalise smaller museums in places like Lincoln at the expense of London. Of course I want wonderfully important objects that naturally would go to the London museums to continue to do so—they house our great national collections. Equally, however, items from historic families in Lincolnshire, although they might be less important, nevertheless in the context of Lincolnshire history are of incalculable wealth. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will recognise the force of the many points made by my noble friend Lord De Mauley and that within this group of amendments there are things that could improve the Bill without in any way diluting its central purpose.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 9 and I declare my interest as a former president of the British Antique Dealers’ Association, which is still superbly run by the secretary-general, Mr Mark Dodgson.

We are all, and when I say “all” I mean in this Chamber and outside, appalled by the disgraceful poaching of elephants in Africa and elsewhere. The reports last week of the slaughter of so many elephants in Botswana are beyond belief. Although the Government announced extra funding last July, in the joint statement from the Foreign Office, Defra and DfID, I wonder whether even more direct help can be provided to range states in Africa. I hope all your Lordships agree that we want Britain to play its part in protecting elephants.

When I spoke during the Second Reading, I expressed the view that the Bill provides a framework for preventing the sale of modern ivory trinkets in this country, which is desirable, but we surely must bring a sense of proportion to how we protect elephants. As Clause 2 is presently worded, the requirement that cultural property may be sold only if it is of “outstandingly high” cultural value is so restrictive that it will have a damaging effect on the cultural life of this country and will prevent the sale of many items of historical significance.

The allegation that the UK is supporting a large commercial ivory trade conjures images in the public’s mind of a trade in ivory as a modern commodity, which is how it is thought of in Africa and Asia. I am not aware, however, of any evidence to suggest to any significant extent that modern poached ivory is imported into this country, offered for sale here or exported. I will explain this further since this is important to grasp in the context of this clause.

We have already heard from my noble friend Lord De Mauley that the number of worked ivory antiques exported from the UK is not as large as some of us imagine. Additionally, the TRAFFIC report made clear that large-scale seizures of African ivory tusks and bangles at UK airports are relatively rare. Furthermore, when they occurred, they represented items in transit to other countries, not destined for buyers or workshops here. Of course, some modern ivory carvings may have made their way to the United Kingdom, which TRAFFIC says are brought here by private individuals from trips abroad, not as part of smuggling rings. In the context of the hundreds of thousands of antique items incorporating ivory owned by people in Britain, there is no evidence that modern poached ivory is prevalent. Furthermore, as the antiques trade is aware, any seizures of exported ivory objects that occur do so because someone is attempting to export them without the required CITES permits, not because they represent examples of poached ivory.

Lucy Vigne, a conservationist and ivory trade researcher working in east Africa, is the author of a number of respected reports, including one recently for Save the Elephants looking at China and the trade in ivory there. She is on record in the press as saying that:

“This recent issue in the West has been taking away valuable time and resources from dealing with the big issues we are facing urgently”,


by which she meant,

“the trade in new ivory in Asia and poaching in Africa”.

In case the Committee feels that I have diverted from the points in hand, I say that I am not aware of anyone having demonstrated that the UK is awash with poached ivory. Precisely the same result would be achieved without sacrificing so many cultural items. For this reason, I support this amendment proposed by my noble friends Lord Carrington of Fulham and Lord De Mauley. I add that the debate is not “elephants or history”; both need preserving and should be dealt with together to be successful.

I was recently written to by Mary Kitson, who is honorary secretary of the Fan Circle International, an antique fan study group whose membership includes collectors, dealers, museum curators, conservators and art historians. She is extremely concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on this delightful part of our social history, and indeed the history of fashion. She explained that a collector of antique fans is likely to include in their collection fans whose sticks are made from a variety of materials such as mother of pearl, ivory, wood or metal. A fan’s sticks give strength to what is termed the leaf—the part of the fan that is exposed when the fan is fully opened. Fans with ivory sticks certainly comprise more than 10% ivory.

Other items of our social history include games that incorporate ivory components. The immediately obvious example is Victorian chess pieces, as mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Cormack. Then there are children’s games such as bagatelle, where the small balls can be fashioned from ivory, or the cup-and-ball game bilboquet, where the cup can likewise be made of ivory. Some of your Lordships may argue that these items could be given to museums, but they would not welcome thousands of duplicates. What is more, observing objects located behind a rope cordon or in a glass cabinet is not always the best way to appreciate them properly. There is no substitute for owning and handling antique objects in one’s own home, which is one of the best ways to interact with and appreciate our history. If we cannot recognise properly the way in which different materials were used historically, we can lose touch with our past.

It is very sad that people should even contemplate exchanging original materials in genuine antique objects with modern substitutes. The recent replacement of ivory with ivorine, a form of celluloid, in a Chippendale cabinet is a case in point. I worry about where all this is heading. Next, someone will suggest that bone or leather should be outlawed. Therefore, I support the proposal that exemption certificates should be issued for not only objects of outstandingly high historical value but also for those that are of the same calibre as objects found in our officially recognised museums. This would include not just the British Museum or the National Museum of Scotland but other wonderful collections, such as those of the Fan Museum in Greenwich or the Museum of Childhood in Bethnal Green.

Ivory Bill

Baroness Rawlings Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a former president of the British Antique Dealers’ Association. I am sure that your Lordships agree that we should all be extremely proud that the UK represents the largest art and antiques market in Europe and the second largest in the world. Through its specialist dealers and major auction houses, it offers a concentrated source of expertise and knowledge, unmatched anywhere in the world.

I warmly welcome the aims of the Bill and its desire to conserve elephant populations. The appalling slaughter of the African elephant in such large numbers in recent years is a matter of grave concern to us all. The Government should be proud of the action that they have already taken to tackle the illegal wildlife trade and protect elephants from being poached. This action includes expanded British military training in anti-poaching skills for African park rangers, a project with China to deliver training to African border forces, and additional funding for Interpol to increase its work with key nations in tracking shipments of ivory. As we have heard from many noble Lords this afternoon, we hosted the Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference four years ago, and another is due here in the autumn. I therefore think that we are selling ourselves a little short when we say that we are lagging behind other countries in our fight against elephant poaching.

It is recognised that China is the world’s largest market for ivory, where it has been continuously imported as a raw material up until the end of last year. As recently as 2008, 62 tonnes of ivory tusks were released from Africa and sold to China. Hong Kong’s official stockpile of ivory in 2015 amounted to 78 tonnes. I mention these figures to provide context for the situation in the UK, where our market is not one of ivory as a commodity but of antiques, some of which happen to incorporate ivory.

It is on our cultural heritage that I really wish to reflect. I am fascinated by the evolution of mankind’s cultural and artistic development, as seen through the monuments, works of art and domestic items that earlier generations have left behind. We have access today to many objects from earlier times that were created under conditions of which we would not now approve. It is inevitable that items created in earlier centuries will reflect the social, economic and political norms of their era. The most obvious example is books. The views espoused in some printed matter from the past might now be abhorrent to many, but we do not ban its sale. The people who read those books today are well able to interpret the opinions they contain in the context of the period in which they were written. I believe that we should take the same approach with old artefacts that incorporate ivory.

We recognise that the ivory found today in antique objects came historically from thousands of dead elephants, some of which died from natural causes and others, sadly, were killed for their tusks. But I believe the British public are all intelligent enough to understand that buying an antique that incorporates old ivory does not mean they approve of objects made from modern, poached ivory.

This contrasts enormously with the attitude of some Asian buyers. As we have heard, they have a culture of acquiring ivory for its own sake, regardless of age, and they generally do so in the form of solid ivory carvings, many sold by weight. It should also be noted that Asian buyers buy fewer western antiques; attempts to interest them in doing so have largely proved unsuccessful. The British Antique Dealers’ Association has been trying for several years to garner more interest from Chinese buyers in items such as English antique furniture or silver, and it has proved an uphill struggle. In 2013, the European Fine Art Foundation, which runs the world’s most significant art fair, in Maastricht, gave up its plans for a fair in Beijing.

The vast majority of western antiques containing ivory are not therefore exported to the Far East. Consequently, despite claims to the contrary, they do not contribute to the vast market for ivory carvings that exists in China, Hong Kong and other countries in Asia, such as Vietnam. There is not even the danger of such items being mixed in with the carvings on sale in the ivory shops of Hong Kong. When did anyone last spot a 19th-century English silver teapot with carved ivory handle sharing shelf space with rows of modern, cellophane-wrapped carved Buddhas?

The structure of the Bill provides a framework for measures to prevent modern ivory trinkets being offered for sale. Such trinkets include solid ivory tourist carvings that may have been acquired legally in the 1940s or 1950s but hold no real cultural significance, either for the people who made them or for mankind in general. However, I urge your Lordships to be aware that, as presently worded, the Bill will have a significant impact on the future of many culturally or historically important objects that do not meet the extremely limited exemption criteria, particularly items containing 10% or more ivory that fall foul of the Clause 2 criteria.

I will explain my concerns more precisely. The Bill allows people to continue to own any ivory items that do not qualify for those exemptions. It also lets owners give them away or pass them on to their beneficiaries on death. I realise that some of your Lordships may imagine that this would be sufficient to protect these items for future generations. I cannot, however, agree that these items will be protected. When the owners of prohibited cultural property die, their objects will not necessarily be wanted or appreciated by their remaining family members. Museums will not automatically accept every gift offered to them; they have neither the storage space nor the funds to look after them. Furthermore, museums may well be unwilling to accept artefacts already represented in their collections.

If the objects have no financial value, there will be no incentive for an indifferent or busy executor or beneficiary to bother to find a new owner. As my noble friend Lord De Mauley said, many items will be abandoned or thrown away. Even if not discarded, because they lack a resale value, there will be no financial incentive to spend money on having them restored or conserved for posterity. I am concerned not only for the artefacts themselves but for the preservation of examples of our social history. We should all remember that antiques have a big following in Britain, as the viewing figures for “Antiques Roadshow” show.

Although the Government have published an estimated cost to businesses, they have not attempted to quantify the cost to individuals of rendering their treasured antique possessions worthless. Dealers and auction houses are merely the conduit between one permanent owner and the next. For every item currently in a dealer’s stock or being handled by an auction house, there will be many more similar items held privately. The potential losses must be considerably larger to citizens than to businesses. Can the Minister therefore inform me whether the Government have attempted to compute the loss to the Exchequer arising from this measure, as it will undoubtedly make a dent in the tax take from both inheritance tax and capital gains tax?

We should also consider the works of art that emanate from cultures in other parts of the world, many of which have ended up in this country. Ivory has been regularly used in religious artefacts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, mentioned, whether crucifixes or carvings of Hindu deities. If these religious objects end up discarded, would that not amount to a form of iconoclasm?

The use of ivory is prevalent, as we have heard, in Indian, Asian and African culture. Although we do not wish to encourage the purchase of modern-day ivory trinkets by people of the Far East, we cannot write off the figural carvings of high aesthetic appeal from the Ming dynasty, or the high-quality Guangzhou tribute pieces that were made for the Chinese imperial court. While introducing their ban on modern carving workshops, the Chinese themselves will continue to recognise their own cultural inheritance by permitting auction sales of cultural relics. Is it our place to dismiss the culture of such a great civilisation in such a way?

The same may be said of Japanese culture. As my noble friend Lord Cormack said in his eloquent speech, you have only to read Edmund de Waal’s book The Hare with Amber Eyes to appreciate the lure of those masterpieces of the carver’s art in boxwood, porcelain, lacquer or ivory: the netsuke. How many netsuke made from ivory will be rendered valueless, as my noble friend said, while their wooden counterparts of similar artistic merit will continue to be sold?

It is normal for this House to ponder matters in a less hurried way than is sometimes the case in the other place. After this fascinating debate this afternoon, with so many interesting and different views, I hope that your Lordships will give careful thought to these concerns. Essentially, this is a good Bill which has cross-party support, but it could be improved by making certain that it creates the correct balance between recognising our cultural heritage and providing the framework for prohibiting the sale of modern-day ivory in Britain—and of course protecting the elephant.

I started by stressing the importance of and need for change. It would be perfectly possible to introduce effective amendments without delaying the Bill’s passage or in any way watering down the important message it sends out to other countries about the serious attitude we take to elephant poaching. We might all agree that we surely do not want to live in an ivory tower.

Northern Forest

Baroness Rawlings Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Rawlings]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in establishing the Northern Forest.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, as part of the 25-year environment plan, the Government have pledged £5.7 million to support the creation of a northern forest that will stretch 120 miles from Liverpool to Hull. We are now working with the Woodland Trust and five community forests to identify sites where the first trees, funded by government, will be planted next winter.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his Answer, and I commend HMG for supporting this grand project, and all the many bodies involved, especially the Woodland Trust, which will oversee the planting of the 50 million trees, starting this March. Do Her Majesty’s Government agree that this forest will be a huge plus for the environment in countless ways? As we have heard, the forest will stretch from Liverpool to Hull, and my point is that much of it is on Duchy of Lancaster land. Will the Minister consider supporting naming it the “Royal Northern Forest” in celebration of Her Majesty the Queen, who has ruled longer than any British monarch in our history?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the northern forest will undoubtedly bring benefits for people, wildlife and the environment. Planting the right trees in the right places will reduce flood risk; help adapt to climate change; improve air quality, health and well-being; increase biodiversity; enhance landscapes; and, indeed, build resilience for our treescapes. I like my noble friend’s suggestion, and will ensure that the Woodland Trust and England’s Community Forests are aware of it.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Baroness Rawlings Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, I should like to make it clear that I am answering as the Minister from the DCMS, as this is the DCMS part of the Bill.

This has been an impassioned and eloquent debate. We all agree on the importance of Welsh-language television broadcasting. It is not in doubt, as we have heard from a very full debate this afternoon.

This Government remain committed to making certain that Welsh programming is a key part of the UK broadcasting landscape and that a dedicated channel for Welsh language broadcasting is maintained. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Roberts, Amendment 83, would remove S4C from Schedule 4. This would prevent us amending the funding formula. Following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that in the current economic climate it is not possible to have funding linked to the RPI, I say that the Secretary of State needs the flexibility to allow the funding settlements appropriate to the prevailing fiscal climate, so that all relevant factors are taken into account. The Government have had to make some difficult decisions about the organisations they fund directly, and S4C is no exception. The comprehensive spending review made a firm commitment to funding S4C. Subject to this piece of legislation, the funding levels are secure for the next four years, as I said to my noble friend Lord Roberts on 28 October 2010 in answer to his Question on funding for S4C, and to the noble and learned lord, Lord Morris. I give reassurance that there will be a review before the end of the four years.

[Lord Rowlands]

The noble Baroness mentioned the need for the particular order-making power to change the financial arrangements. Does that mean there is nothing in the original Act which would allow that?

[Baroness Rawlings]

I do not think there is. That is why it is in this Bill.

In relation to Amendment 113D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, it is right that S4C should remain a responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy is absolutely right in his well argued speech. As he started S4C, he rightly said that no order can be laid without consultation. Broadcasting is reserved as part of the Welsh devolution settlement and is, therefore, not devolved. This Bill does not represent an opportunity to reopen what was agreed as part of the devolution settlement—

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

I wonder if my noble friend would allow me to intervene for a second? I understand that she may be making a very good point about the need for financial readjustment, but I should have thought that any sensitive Chancellor of the Exchequer or Treasury Minister, without needing to be Welsh, would recognise that relying on legislation of this nuclear kind to address the issues that she is rightly focusing on would be politically unwise and disastrous. I am quite certain that it would be possible to find a method of adjusting the financing without continually mentioning it.

[Baroness Rawlings]

I understand the concern of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, but we go back to the current economic climate. It is not possible to have funding linked to the RPI. The reason for doing this is to secure the funding through the DCMS and the BBC. If we do it in that way it will be secured; otherwise it will not.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Is the Minister ready to listen? Her Majesty’s Opposition have suggested that there could be discussions between this stage and Report; indeed, some very important points have been made with great force and with great vigour, from all sides of the House. Is the Minister saying she is not prepared to move from this position? That would help my noble friend decide what to do.

[Baroness Rawlings]

I appreciate what my noble friend Lord Thomas said, and I am getting there, but if I am interrupted all the way through, I will not be able to get there. I will come to that point.

The reservation of broadcasting is for sensible reasons. We have both European and international broadcasting obligations, and it is appropriate for those obligations to be secured on a UK basis, largely because of the nature of broadcasting itself. It is clear that spectrum does not respect boundaries, and we know that S4C can be and is viewed in parts of England. We are committed to ensuring that all the nations in the UK are properly served with broadcasts which suit their individual needs, but it is right that it should continue to be a UK function to do so.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport works closely with the Secretary of State for Wales on S4C matters to make certain that a Welsh perspective is fully taken into account. The interests of S4C will be protected by the coalition Government and the new arrangements. In addition, to make certain that the Welsh aspects are fully taken into account, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for Wales have agreed new arrangements whereby Wales Office Ministers will be involved in all ministerial meetings relating to S4C. Wales Office officials will be involved in the drafting of all submissions on S4C matters. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands.

In recognition of the importance of Welsh language programming and in the light of the changing financial situation, the Government believe that the best way for the audience to have a high-quality service is through a partnership with the BBC. My officials are currently in talks with the BBC and S4C about the arrangements for such a partnership. A review of the service, which should cover both its funding and output, will be conducted towards the end of the current spending review period. It is important that we give the partnership some time to grow and to deliver the efficiencies and increases in quality that we fully believe can be achieved.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that DCMS is in discussion with the BBC and S4C to develop the new partnership arrangements. DCMS officials have engaged with Welsh independent producers as part of that process, and we continue to do so.

[Lord Wigley]

I am grateful to the Minister. Can she confirm that the discussions that she mentioned—DCMS officials discussing with the BBC, S4C and the independents—took place before the decision was made?

[Baroness Rawlings]

These discussions have been ongoing throughout. The noble Lord also asked whether there was prior consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government. Given the scale and pace of the spending review and the licence fee settlement discussions, it was not practical to have in-depth discussions with all the interested parties ahead of the announcement. The timeframe reflected the Government's desire to put the UK finances in order.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

If the sole or main problem for the inclusion of S4C in the schedule is the problem of the RPI formula, will the noble Baroness go back to consider by Report whether S4C should be withdrawn from the schedule and the Government table in its place a particular amendment dealing with the problem of the RPI formula?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Rawlings]

I am coming to that a bit later, but it is taking longer every time somebody interrupts. I will get to that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked whether the licence fee money could go directly to S4C from DCMS. Discussions between S4C and the BBC are ongoing. However, the BBC Trust is the established guardian of the licence fee, as set out in the royal charter and the agreement, and we do not see this position changing.

Following the Government’s decision to table an amendment to remove Clause 11 and Schedule 7 from the Bill, S4C will not appear in Schedule 7 as previously tabled and referenced in Amendment 164. Consequently, we are now exploring further options for how S4C’s proposed constitutional arrangements can be given legal effect. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that it is the clear view of the Government that we have no intention of abolishing S4C.

In a letter to the Prime Minister on 29 October 2010 the leaders of all four major parties in the Welsh Assembly stated that they,

“recognise the difficult financial climate and … no body that is in receipt of public money can be exempt from funding cuts”.

These reforms simply reflect this reality in a way that will protect S4C’s future and not undermine it, as my noble friend Lord Roberts said.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I hope I make this point sincerely and in an attempt to assist the situation. At the moment, the funding of S4C is tied to RPI under Section 61A of the Broadcasting Act 1990. That can be changed without putting S4C into Schedule 4. That is the short point. Speaking for myself and, I suspect, many others, I will be delighted to support such an amendment on Report. It can be done quite simply and effectively.

[Baroness Rawlings]

I will come to the point made by the noble Lord. I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Nickson has approached this debate; it is to be commended. He has arrived open-minded and will be persuaded by the strength of the argument. It is an example of your Lordships’ House at its best and I hope that he has been persuaded. This has been an impassioned debate, but not on party lines, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said. It has been on the actual subject. We fully recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, rightly said, the iconic status of the channel and the contribution it makes to the cultural and economic life of Wales and to the Welsh language.

We have had a really good and interesting debate today. We are all united here in the Chamber in wanting a secure future for S4C. We have had lengthy dialogues with Cardiff to secure the future of S4C within the BBC partnership with DCMS funding. The problem lies, as had been mentioned by many noble Lords, with the index-linked funding, which is not viable anymore. Public service broadcasting is for all parts of the United Kingdom and it is not devolved. S4C’s editorial independence and its distinct entity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, are of paramount importance. I share the passion of my noble friend Lord Roberts and all noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I understand it and of course I, along with my noble friend Lord Taylor, am fully prepared and willing to have a discussion next week to go through many of the points that have been brought up today. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Baroness Rawlings Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, 72 per cent of the population gambled in the past year, so it is important that we get the regulation of gambling, whether it is through the National Lottery or at a casino, right. I took part as a Back-Bencher in the passage of the Gambling Act through your Lordships’ House with particular reference to the consequences for children and young people, which is why I am here today.

The Gambling Commission has been a great success as our regulatory body for most, if not all, gambling. As my noble friend said, it regulates betting, bingo, casinos, slot machines and lotteries, but not spread betting or the National Lottery. Its aims are to keep crime out of gambling, to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and openly and to protect children and young people. Like my noble friend, I have some questions to ask.

The first question is to do with reconciling the contradictions in the proposal in relation to a body such as the National Lottery Commission, which promotes the success of the National Lottery in order to ensure that it makes a great deal of money for good causes but is also there to safeguard people from the dangers of gambling.

The Gambling Commission does three things extremely well and I should like to know what will happen to them in any new organisation. The commission is responsible for the Responsible Gambling Fund and the Gambling Research, Education and Treatment Foundation, both of which are relatively new bodies. The bulk of the money from the Responsible Gambling Fund goes to the work of GamCare, which does a very important job in helping people and families with gambling problems. I should like to know whether the work of GamCare will be jeopardised. The GREaT Foundation raises the required funding to support the work of the Responsible Gambling Fund. What will happen to these bodies under the new regime?

My third question concerns what will happen to the British Gambling Prevalence Survey, which has been an important spotlight that the Gambling Commission has shone on the gambling habits of the nation. It tells us who is gambling, how they are gambling and what the dangers are. I would be interested to know what is going to happen to that survey.

I started by being concerned, as I was while the Gambling Bill was going through this House, about the protection of the young. One of the great successes of the Gambling Act 2005 has been the introduction of age verification technology, which is part of the protection making online gambling that much safer for children and young people. I know that the National Lottery has the same sort of age verification safeguards, so I am reassured by that, but I would like to think that any new body would take heed of the need to protect children and young people from new technology as it advances in terms of gambling.

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, Amendment 66A moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, would remove the Gambling Commission and the National Lottery Commission from Schedule 2 and therefore retain the existing arrangements of two separate bodies. As the previous Administration had announced their intention to merge the two commissions in its last Budget on 24 March 2010, I am surprised that there should be a challenge to the proposal now. The Government are committed to increasing the accountability and reducing the number and cost of public bodies. We believe that merging the Gambling Commission and the National Lottery Commission will help to achieve this aim while preserving the appropriate and effective regulation of both sectors.

The National Lottery Commission is a non-departmental public body responsible for licensing and regulating the National Lottery, including protecting the interests of its participants and maximising the amount of money available for good causes. The Gambling Commission is an NDPB responsible for regulating commercial gambling, along with providing advice to central and local government on gambling and its regulation.

The new body, to answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will retain the existing functions of both commissions and will be well placed to advise on gambling and National Lottery matters. It will make co-ordination of regulation easier and will facilitate greater understanding of gaming and technological developments. Both bodies worked with the department to develop the business case for the merger. The chairmen and chief executives of both bodies discussed it with the Minister for Tourism and Heritage before it was agreed. The department has set up a project board to take forward work in relation to the merger, and the chief executives of both bodies sit on it. We estimate that the merged body will be in place from summer 2012, with some co-location of the bodies in advance of that.

The Government believe that, over time, the merger will generate cost savings and more efficiencies, which should help to reduce pressures on existing sources of funding, including fees. For example, we anticipate that by far the greater part of the NLC’s annual budget for accommodation will be saved. Specifically, the Government expect the new merged body to manage on the same administrative budget as the existing Gambling Commission. On whether GamCare will be protected and on the future of the British Gambling Prevalence Survey, I will write to the noble Baroness. In light of my explanation, I should like the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I made it clear in my opening sentence that the purpose of tabling the amendment was not to challenge the decision to merge the two bodies; the point of a probing amendment is to give us the opportunity to ask some questions. The main question that I asked was whether the new body would have the function of promoting the National Lottery in the way that the National Lottery Commission has had till now—in other words, encouraging people to spend money on it at the same time as regulating it and attempting to protect the public. I say with great respect to the Minister that she has not answered that question. If she is writing to my noble friend in response to her question about GamCare, perhaps she will be kind enough to write to me as well. Certainly at this time of night, and on an issue that I agree is not absolutely central to the Bill, although it is still important, I do not intend to press the amendment.

[Baroness Rawlings]

I will of course write to the noble Lord. I apologise for not giving him the information earlier.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but look forward to hearing from the Minister in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

Baroness Rawlings Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[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 Mawhinney]

My noble friend said that she is planning, on behalf of the Government, to discuss with interested parties what might be the new arrangement. Those of us with experience of government know that there is a difference between discussions and public consultation. I was wondering whether she might be tempted to commit to a public consultation, so that anyone with a view worth expressing and listening to would have the opportunity and no one would feel excluded from the sense of ownership of the new body which the Government are proposing.

[Baroness Rawlings]

I thank my noble friend Lord Mawhinney for that question. As he would know, having been a distinguished government Minister, at this Dispatch Box I am unable to confirm consultation. But I can assure him that there will be further discussions and that that will be looked into.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom or otherwise of abolishing the body before what is going to happen to it has been decided, in view of what the Minister has said about the continuation of the functions of the FLA, surely she could accept transferring the FLA from Schedule 1 to the provision in Amendment 91. That would allow proper consideration of what should be happening in a full way and everyone could be consulted. Just transferring the FLA from the first schedule to later in the Bill would accomplish what she is trying to do.

[Baroness Rawlings]

The FLA is not being abolished. I would not like to take any decisions with great rapidity at the Dispatch Box. All decisions on what will happen to it in the future will be discussed at great length. This is a very important matter and the Government would not want to take such a decision without that.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Greaves]

Before the noble Lord tells us whether he is prepared to do that, perhaps I may just pick up on a couple of points. From the statement that the Minister has given, it is very clear that the Government are proposing, in due course after 2012, to merge the FLA with an unspecified body. In those circumstances, it seems to me that its appropriate place in this Bill would be Schedule 2, which gives power to the Minister by order to merge the bodies listed there. Equally, it could be in Schedule 5, as suggested in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, which would transfer its functions. It would leave a shell organisation that has no function; nevertheless, that would be a sensible place to do it.

I still want to press the Minister on some questions and I have to congratulate her on the way in which she is coping. If I may swap sports, she is batting on a sticky wicket here, which she is doing fairly well and she is not out yet. First, as I have asked previously, can she confirm that the Government do not intend to save money by this proposal and that in no way is there a money-saving aspect? That seems to be what was in the briefing. It would be useful to know that because that would then be put to one side and would not be an issue any more.

Secondly, the Government must have some idea of the existing organisations that are in line to merge with the FLA or are in line to absorb the FLA or its staff and functions within their organisations. Can the Government give us a shortlist—perhaps not today but before Report—of those organisations that they consider might be appropriate to take on the FLA en bloc or just its staff and functions?

[Baroness Rawlings]

I thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for his questions. The savings are not a number one priority in this case. Regarding the Private Member’s Bill, it is going through Parliament at the moment, and the FLA has to be abolished in order to be merged with something else afterwards.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her attempt to answer the debate. I have to say that this bit of the Bill is an indication of the problems the Government have with their whole approach, in that the Cabinet Office decided on a series of death sentences in advance of publishing the Bill, and then decided to put forward the trials and amass the cases in order to prove that those sentences are justified. In the case of this body the DCMS, to its credit, is resisting what the Cabinet Office is doing. It does not believe for a moment that there is any other place which the FLA or, in its new form, the sports grounds safety authority can go to for the reasons I set out in my opening speech. I am pretty sure that at the end of this rather painful period, it will be concluded that the sports grounds safety authority, which is what it will become with the passage of the Private Member’s Bill, will continue as an independent body.

The Minister has said helpfully that the functions of the FLA in its new guise are essential and that there is no intention to weaken football stadium or sports ground safety legislation, which is very welcome. The logic is therefore inexorable in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, explained. The conclusion has to be that the authority will continue in some guise or another.

I am most grateful for the contributions that have been made, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, whose support for the FLA is greatly appreciated. He asked my noble friend Lord Clark a question about what role the authority has now. The answer is that sports ground safety is not a piece of history. Local authorities are obliged to license sports grounds year by year. New stadiums are built and new sports are going to come under the remit of the FLA as a result of the Private Member’s Bill, which I hope your Lordships will pass in due course, so the role of an independent body is going to be very considerable indeed.

I am tempted by the amount of support that this amendment has received to test the opinion of the Committee, but it would be fairest if I gave the Minister an opportunity to reflect on what has been said, and I hope that we can come back to this on Report, when she may be able to give a rather better explanation about just where she thinks this authority is going in the future. It cannot go to the Health and Safety Executive, and it cannot go to local government, so the Government are going to have to create a new authority to take over this one. That strikes me as barmy. It would be much more sensible if the Government accepted this amendment, and agreed that the authority should go into Schedule 5 and was reconstituted along the terms of the Private Member’s Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and all noble Lords who have spoken on the importance of libraries. They are our national treasures. Everybody has expressed very clearly the great importance of libraries and how we cherish them in every possible way. On a personal note, one of my proudest moments as chairman of King’s College, London, was establishing the Maughan library in the old Public Record Office in Chancery Lane. Libraries have always been an integral part of my life.

This amendment, however, seeks to maintain the Advisory Council on Libraries as an advisory NDPB. The ACL is a statutory body which is no longer sufficiently flexible to be relevant to current structures, and whose functions are duplicated elsewhere. Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to provide a “comprehensive and efficient” library service. The Secretary of State has a statutory oversight and promotion of improvement role in respect of such local library services and a statutory duty to intervene when a library authority fails, or is suspected of failing, to provide that service.

It is important to make certain that the Secretary of State has sufficient support to fulfil his legal duties. However, the current system involves a degree of duplication. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council provides information to Ministers about the 151 library authorities in England. Officials within the DCMS provide advice. The Advisory Council on Libraries also provides Ministers with information and advice. Abolishing the Advisory Council on Libraries will not save a lot of money, as ACL members give their time freely and it employs no staff. But neither will it compromise the Secretary of State’s ability to fulfil his legal duties. Officials will work with relevant bodies in the absence of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council to ensure that appropriate intelligence about the library sector is captured, and that mechanisms are in place to communicate it to the DCMS. Officials will continue to advise the Secretary of State on the use of his statutory powers in the absence of the Advisory Council on Libraries.

Knowledge of the sector is an essential criteria for recruitment to the ACL, but members cannot know about, or advise on, all issues. People involved with relevant expertise and knowledge will be brought together as required to supplement the skills and expertise available in the DCMS and its NDPBs. This flexible approach to the provision of information and advice has proven effective already in enabling the Secretary of State to exercise his statutory duty and will be adopted as an alternative to an established advisory council. By drawing together experts as and when needed, rather than convening a formal group with limited membership and which meets only three times a year, the quality and depth of the information and advice needed to support the Secretary of State in policy development and oversight will be improved.

I hope that has clarified the point on the advisory council and ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke and to the Minister for her detailed explanation. I thought that the point from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about the timeliness for continuity of advice for libraries was particularly telling. Although I shall read carefully the detail of what the Minister said, the problem of funding for the museums, libraries and archives and their transfer to the Arts Council provides real resource problems for exactly that continuity of policy development.

I know that a number of other Lords who support this amendment cannot be here tonight, so I shall certainly withdraw the amendment for the time being but I cannot promise not to return to the subject at report.