UNESCO: Westminster World Heritage Site

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Baroness Jolly

Thursday 26th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jolly]

I will tell the noble Baroness that all the planning regulations and the whole planning flow have been exactly as they should be. Currently, having been through the Secretary of State and Lambeth twice, it is now back with Lambeth. So we wait. As for the report, I am not sure whether it would have normally been placed in the Library, but it has clearly been on the UNESCO website since the end of January.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, by standing on Waterloo Bridge, not many visitors would appreciate just how many of the buildings they see are in different planning authorities. The Secretary of State, in refusing to call in the Elizabeth House development, said that it could not,

“have significant effects beyond the immediate locality, give rise to substantial cross boundary or national controversy”.

Bearing in mind what we have heard, does the noble Baroness really share that view; or, like the Secretary of State, is she so committed to the dogma or doctrine that a local council should have the sole responsibility, whatever the consequence? Talking about Westminster heritage, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Graham on his 90th birthday today.

[Baroness Jolly]

Noble Lords may not be aware, but the Government Whips all sang happy birthday to him first thing this morning. There are planning guidelines and protocols, which have been used all the way through this process. Everybody in your Lordships’ House values the skyline. I have seen many maps and reconstructions of how the whole thing will look alongside Big Ben or Elizabeth Tower. From where the Supreme Court is you can still see clear sky, which is one of the things that caused concern.

Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Baroness Jolly

Monday 23rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jolly]

I do not have that information, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord to let him know the reason for the long delay.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I, too, thank noble Lords for this debate. It has been really important to raise these issues again. The concern is not just in this Chamber; it is in our communities. Nor is the concern just among people who do not gamble; the concern is among people who want to use their local betting shop as a community resource but are fearful of what they are turning into. That is the problem.

Of course, it is not just about activity on these machines in relation to problem gambling; it is about the way that they can be used and the pressures that this puts on staff. For the sake of clarity, I think that all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate have shared one absolute, common concern—that these machines are potentially dangerous and that we should have a precautionary approach.

The actions of the Government have been, in my noble friend’s words, too little, too late. I think that I said that if there is one thing worse than inaction, it is the pretence of action. Not for the first time, my noble friend Lord Lipsey and I agree on the fundamental issues, even if we occasionally disagree on other issues. As a co-signatory of the amendment that supported the horserace betting levy, I was very keen to ensure that the consultation on its future was full and frank.

I agree with my noble friend that it was wrong for the Chancellor to prejudge issues to make short-term political gain, but I fear that that is a problem with the coalition as we have it at the moment. When Labour is returned to government on 7 May, our focus will be on giving control to local communities to determine what is safe in their own areas. In the light of the comments I have made, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Public Bodies (Abolition of the Library Advisory Council for England) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Baroness Jolly

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo my noble friend’s remarks about the current crisis libraries are facing. They are not a luxury but a practical tool and provide vital public space for individuals and families across the country. They are a resource for parents and young children, schoolchildren who do not have a place to work at home, jobseekers who are trying to gain new skills and employment, elderly people living in isolation and community groups. Increasingly, they are incubators for new ideas and places where businesses come to fruition.

Personally, I regret that over the past four and a half years the Government have been slow to respond to the growing crisis in the sector. At a time when many library services were under threat there was no sense of urgency, coherent strategy, direction or guidance for local authorities, and no idea about what might be the minimum acceptable outcome. Libraries are provided at local level, and councils, rightly, have the first claim on leadership, but the Government have a clear duty to minimise the damage done to the library service and to provide an overarching strategic vision.

I feel a little as though I am in a “Monty Python” sketch. We are considering the case for a body in this debate on its proposed abolition, but the Ministers have told us that essentially the ACL is a defunct body, with no staff, premises, assets or liabilities. In other words, it is a dead parrot.

I, too, welcome the Independent Library Report for England, published just before Christmas. However, as Ed Vaizey, the Minister, tells us, it,

“did not include consideration of the statutory requirement of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964”,

and,

“makes no reference to the ACL”.

I admit that I find it difficult to follow the argument that since the ILR did not consider the statutory requirement of the statutory Act or the ACL, its abolition is not dependent on the report’s publication, yet one of its primary recommendations now apparently negates the need for the ACL. As the Delegated Powers Committee suggested, the considerations of the ILR clearly intersect with the practical implementation of the duties placed upon the Secretary of State and local authorities by the 1964 Act, and it is therefore reasonable to see the outcome of the ILR as relevant to the decision on the ACL. I am sorry for all these abbreviations—they will get worse when we get to the recommendations.

Clearly, my party believes that there is a good case for a body to support development, innovation and best practice, including measures to find efficiency savings and increase impact, helping to lessen the pressure for cuts to services. That is why we welcome the conclusion of the review to establish the libraries’ task and finish group. I rather like that name. Gone are the days of a good old task force; it is now “task and finish”. Maybe that is where some of my concerns are.

Cross-party and organisational working must be at the heart of its activities. The Department for Education, the Department of Health, DCMS, BIS and the Department for Communities and Local Government, all have a role to play, as have organisations such as the British Library, Booktrust, the Reader Organisation, the National Literacy Trust, Arts Council England—as we heard from the Minister—the CILIP and the Reading Agency.

Mr Vaizey’s case for the task and finish group is that its functions are far wider than the sole advisory function of the ACL—as we heard from the Minister in her introduction—and, as he says, more importantly, it will also be focused on delivery. Unlike the ACL, the membership of the task and finish group will be flexible and dynamic, so that it can adapt to suit the specific tasks involved. The TFG will report jointly to Ministers and the Local Government Association and will be independent of government.

When, in October 2011, the Arts Council took over responsibility for supporting and developing libraries from the former Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, it did not take on the MLA’s supervisory role for libraries—again, a point raised by my noble friend. At a time when libraries are withering on the vine in many communities, oversight is even more critical than at any time before. The point the noble Earl made was absolutely right. I agree with the view that the recommended role and structure of the task and finish group are not suitable for the ACL, whose primary aim and minimum membership is prescribed by statute. However, I do not necessarily accept that the establishment of the TFG and its range of functions negate the need for statutory independent advice in the Secretary of State’s meeting his obligations under the 1964 Act. I fear that in performing its job, working with a range of authorities, it will miss that fundamental requirement that we must have a library service. And what is that library service? It is certainly not a second-hand bookshop in a local high street. It is more than that, and we need to be very careful about the standards that we set.

Mr Vaizey’s view is that, as we have heard from the Minister today, advice and guidance from stakeholders and officials at the DCMS are sufficient to meet the function of providing advice to the Secretary of State, including on the use of his statutory powers. I am not sure that the fact that nobody has taken action is necessarily evidence that there is no need for action. Clearly, with the number of library closures increasing and access to libraries diminishing, that is not the case at the moment.

Although DCMS has stated that no budget is allocated to the ACL—I think that its abolition will save approximately £2,500 a year; this is obviously not a budget consideration—I ask the Minister whether, during the period of the ACL’s inaction, any external advice to the Secretary of State has been brought into the department and, if so, what the cost of that advice was.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interesting comments and searching questions about the library service. I want to respond to the outstanding points raised today—not necessarily in turn but I hope to cover them all.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about responsibility and where the buck stops. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State at the DCMS has responsibility. It is his or her duty to superintend and promote the public library service. There is no reduction in accountability here, so that is the person to whom we should all look. Oversight is critical, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, oversight was never the role of the ACL.

Threading all the way through this—it does not form part of my speech but it has formed part of the debate—is the perceived crisis within library services resulting from cuts in funding from local authorities. I think all of us have seen library services being cut in our own local authority areas, but in some areas they are mushrooming into something far more exciting than was ever there before. The noble Baroness gave us an example of that: a community facility or activity centre where volunteering is key, where information is held in not only book form—which perhaps most of us would recognise from when we were younger—but in all sorts of digital formats with digital access being available.

The task and finish group will do just that and look at the whole issue and come up with recommendations for the Secretary of State. I fully anticipate that they would involve not only ministries—for example, the Department for Education, DCMS, BIS, Communities and Local Government and, I am sure, more that I have not thought of—but Arts Council England and a whole host of other bodies. An independent report will come out of this.

My noble friend Lord Dundee asked whether we had looked at what was happening in the EU. Certainly, I anticipate that the task and finish group will consider what library services look like all over the world, not just in the EU but in other states. I imagine that will be part of its remit.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Baroness Jolly

Monday 31st October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I have received a warning that I must not repeat myself, so I shall try to start from where I left off, which was highlighting the CQC report on out-of-hours services arising from the Daniel Ubani case, which highlighted that we have a nationwide problem. Delaying the requirement to register for a further year means that a lot of the issues that need to be addressed by proper monitoring of compliance will not be.

My other questions relate to which organisations are covered by the regulation. The estimate was about 230 organisations. Does that include the co-operatives such as SELDOC, established in south-east London? Is it simply those organisations separate from GPs? There is an issue about high-risk out-of-hours services stemming from provision within GP services by the use of locums employed directly. I would appreciate clarity about the risk assessments. What concerns me most is that within a 12-month period, the Care Quality Commission will be required to get in to 9,000 organisations, but the Government have given it 12 months to deal with about 230. Having been on the commission’s website and seen the processes and procedures, and the advice being given to primary health services, I think we have a difficult job ahead of us.

I leave my remarks to those few specific points. On the extension of out-of-hours—I must not say out-of-office services, that is my trade union background coming out—the flexibility of the provision of services by primary health services is most important. People are reverting to organisations that do not have their medical records or knowledge of their conditions because they have to work and cannot get to a surgery within its opening times. I know from personal experience that even booking a medical appointment can be extremely difficult. You have to do it within a particular time frame. With those concerns, I leave my remarks.

[Baroness Jolly]

I should like the Minister to clarify one point. Out-of-hours services providers need to register a year early if they are not in the practice of treating patients from outside their area. Can the Minister clarify the situation regarding itinerant or travelling workers? Where I come from, huge swathes of people come in to pick strawberries, daffodils or whatever. They certainly do not register. I am not clear whether the out-of-hours providers would treat them as temporary residents. What is the case in those circumstances? Would GPs who currently provide services in Cornwall in a co-operative be required to register a year early?