Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

Amendment 96 is in my name and I feel that, if the mood of the House were different, I could have pushed it pretty hard. I shall briefly explain why I think that it is a matter of importance to the Bill and to our general approach to orders. At the moment, with almost no exceptions, orders are unamendable in this House. If we are unhappy about them, we can only vote them down, in which case we are breaching the convention that we should not undermine something that has come from the Commons where the Commons cannot have a second say. As your Lordships know, if we vote an order down, that is the end of it and the House of Commons has to start the process again. That is an unsatisfactory position on orders and something to which—unless the Minister accedes to the amendment today—I am sure the House will return when we consider Lords reform. The way that this is operating is not right.

When I was a Northern Ireland Minister, most legislation was done by order. Sometimes, the House would be faced with an order 40, 50 or 60 pages long—longer than many Bills—and yet it was totally unamendable. People in Northern Ireland were pretty fed up, saying, “There is a major change in our housing policy and it is going through without an opportunity for it to be debated properly here”. Now, of course, they can do it as they wish in Stormont.

We know that many orders are to give effect to EU legislation. If I understand the Government’s EU Bill correctly, there will be fewer of those in future, as they will be replaced by primary legislation. The EU Bill has not gone through and perhaps that part of it will not—I hope that it will not. If orders to give effect to EU legislation were amendable, we would save the Government a lot of effort with the need to have primary legislation and, at the same time, achieve the objective of giving this House a proper say.

I think that these arguments are pretty sound. I remember that, when I was in the Commons, we found a Bill under which there was an order-making power and, for reasons that totally escape me today, it was possible to amend that. We wondered at the time why Parliament could not amend orders. This seems a very reasonable proposition. I do not think that it would open the floodgates and it would make sense—nowhere more so than in this Bill. A lot of the argument about this Bill is due to the fact that, when the day comes and the Government table the order to give effect to changes to many quangos, we will have no chance to amend it. There may be consultation beforehand or other methods, to which my noble friend Lord Hunt referred, but, on the whole, we will not be able to make an amendment. This is such a simple proposition that I do not understand why it has not been adopted long ago and why it cannot be adopted in the Bill.

[Lord Adonis]

Can my noble friend clarify one important point? As I understand the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt, proposed new subsection (10) in effect gives the House the power to amend an order by agreeing to a recommendation by a committee that an amendment should be made. Does that not meet the point that my noble friend is trying to make in his amendment?

[Lord Dubs]

It does partly, but Amendment 96 is a little stronger, as it would mean that, when faced with an order, we could simply amend it without any preconditions. If I understand it correctly, the other amendment has a precondition in it, whereas this one does not. My argument is that that would be right not just for this Bill but for the run of orders.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Amendment 69 seems unexceptionable. I do not understand why the word “may” is included in Clause 11(1) and the word “must” is in Clause 11(2). I do not understand why there is a need for any discretion in that area. The clause refers to a situation in which,

“after consultation under section 10 the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under sections 1 to 6”.

If he is satisfied with all that, he or she should have the obligation to lay a draft order and explanatory document before Parliament. Unless the Minister has some special reason why he needs to retain a discretion, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on that narrow amendment.

My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury’s Amendment 69AA is on proportionality. This is a bit complicated, but I hope that I have got it right. I like to think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and I are godparents to Clause 16 and, especially, to including proportionality. The principle of proportionality simply teaches that you must use necessary and proportionate means to accomplish a legitimate aim. The Minister is proposing to leave out from Clause 11(2) the words,

“including reasons relating to the objectives in section 8(1)”,

so that it would just state,

“introduce and give reasons for the order”.

Another amendment changes Clause 11(2) to include a reference to purpose in what will be Section 8(1).

The Minister will explain all this, but the reason for leaving out the words,

“including reasons relating to the objectives”,

in Clause 11(2) is presumably that they are unnecessary, because the reasons will be the reasons and, once the reasons are given in the Explanatory Memorandum and otherwise, one has in the Bill the point that my noble friend is making—the Minister will have to state the reasons for the order and then under Clause 16 he or she will have to comply with the principle of proportionality. It therefore seems to me that, subject to drafting points, the substance of what my noble friend Lord Phillips is seeking is already catered for. The principle of proportionality is fully embodied in the Bill because it requires the Minister to state the reasons. When the Minister legislates by order, he or she must do so in a way that is proportionate to achieving the legitimate aims in the reasons. I hope that that is more or less intelligible. I think that I know what I am saying, but others may not. Anyhow, that is the best I can do.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

89: Schedule 5, page 19, line 16, leave out “Competition Commission.”

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are to do with the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading. These are among the most significant bodies covered in this particular Bill. They are fundamental to both competition policy and to consumer protection.

In passing, perhaps I may say that I regret that the BSkyB matter was not referred to the Competition Commission, but I appreciate that the topic is not one covered directly by this Bill.

I understand the Government want to merge most of the functions of the Competition Commission and the OFT, leaving some to go elsewhere. Clearly, these are matters of enormous concern but I am quite sympathetic to the idea of merging the two bodies. I have always felt there was surplus capacity in the two bodies, and they were not as sharply focused as they might have been in that one referred issues to the other.

It would be interesting to know, however, which of the functions of the two bodies will not be part of the new body. In other words, some of them are going elsewhere. I understand Trading Standards will have to take on some of the responsibilities. It would be useful to know what is in the Government’s mind as regards what the new Competition Commission will consist of, and what functions will go elsewhere and why.

This not an occasion on which to go into the details of how the Competition Commission—or, indeed, the OFT—operates, but it is complicated, because the Competition Commission takes references from other bodies, such as the OFT and sectoral regulators. It takes appeals against decisions by sectoral regulators, and matters of public concern may be referred to it by the Minister. So it is a complicated issue and I would like to know what will be the basis for references to the new Competition Commission. Will they be similar to the old ones? They cannot all be the same because the OFT itself refers issues to the Competition Commission. Can the Minister throw more light on that?

Even if we are to go down the path of merging the two bodies, surely significant lessons must have been learnt from how they operate. We can do things better, a bit differently and more economically, and we should take experience to heart. I think that the Government are going to consult on this, and I would very much like to know the nature of the consultation, how full it will be, how long it will take and what opportunity there will be to make full representations to the Government on what they have in mind.

Having said that, the Competition Commission and the OFT were, I understand, both set up by primary legislation and subject to extensive debate in both Houses. They are significant bodies. I wonder what it is about them that makes them susceptible to the rather truncated procedure under the Bill. I know that that argument has been used about other bodies in the various schedules, but surely it applies with enormous force in the case of the Competition Commission and the OFT. Parliament—I am sure, most Members of this House—would like an opportunity to debate that in full and to be able to move amendments on the proposed new body: to consider the implications, for example, of transferring some functions to local authority trading standards authorities, when they are under severe financial pressure because of the cuts. What will be left of trading standards authorities after the cuts have taken place in local authorities? Will there be sufficient to take on the functions that have come from these two bodies into a local area?

This is an unhappy way to proceed. Even if everybody agrees that the two bodies should be merged—and I would guess that a lot of people would—there is still a need to consider how it will work out in detail. I am unhappy that we are doing something so significant on what is, more or less, the back of an envelope. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I will raise a couple of issues on the consumer aspects—although there may be no other issues, as that is the purpose of these two bodies. I have three questions on which I seek information from the Minister. First, in transferring enforcement of consumer law to local trading standards bodies, how can trading standards enforce significant breaches of consumer law at national level, such as bank charges or airline practices? My second question regards supercomplaints. Is the Minister satisfied that taking supercomplaints about competition direct to the new merged body—without, therefore, the two-stage process of checking on a case—has been carefully considered before the merger was proposed?

My third question is in respect of those supercomplaints which deal with consumer detriment which arises from particular features of a market. I have in mind for example, the current supercomplaint by Which? on payment method surcharging. It is not clear to me where those sorts of supercomplaints, which come under general consumer protection regulations rather than breaches of law on competition, would be taken under the new architecture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I am delighted that he has accepted one of the amendments, although I am not sure that it is because he has accepted the full thrust of the argument. I think that he has done so for a slightly more technical reason, but nevertheless one should take one’s victories where one can get them. I am also grateful to my noble friends for the contributions they have made to this debate.

The Minister said that at a later stage the Government would be coming forward with further amendments. I hope that they will be tabled in this House. It would mean that I could say much less now than I would otherwise say if the amendments were not going to be introduced here. Does he know whether they will be brought forward in this House or in the other place?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

There have been early discussions on this matter and I should like to be able to bring the amendments forward at the Report stage in this House.

[Lord Dubs]

I am most grateful for that helpful response. There is only one issue that I am not clear about. The present process for referrals to the Competition Commission is quite complicated, and as I indicated, referrals can come from a variety of sources. Will the new Competition and Markets Authority be able to investigate issues on its own initiative or will it depend upon referrals? Will those referrals come from the existing arrangements or will they come from elsewhere? I am not totally clear about this.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I can reassure the noble Lord. The authority will not be entirely dependent on referrals. It will have the capacity, as does the current Competition Commission, to initiate investigations. This will be part and parcel of the consultation, which I hope will make the position clear for the noble Lord.

[Lord Dubs]

In which case, all I would say is that I still think it is too complicated an issue to be dealt with in this way. I understand that it is not of the Minister’s own choosing, but if we had been having a Second Reading debate today on a proposal to merge the two bodies and deal with other consumer protection and competition matters, it would have been much easier for us to handle it. It is not for us to change the Government’s approach, but I do regret it. However, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and I commend Amendment 89 to the Committee.

Amendment 89 agreed.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I, too, am a supporter of what NESTA has done and of its very innovative work and enormously important initiatives. I looked with some puzzlement at the Government’s proposals and join my noble friend in asking some further questions to see whether we can be clear about what the Government propose. My noble friend has already asked about the status of discussions between the Government and the Charity Commission on the future of NESTA. It is not always easy setting up a charity, as—quite properly—certain conditions have to be met. How far have the Government got with those discussions to be satisfied that charitable status is appropriate and proper and would be reasonably easy to achieve?

Furthermore, I understand that in the new scheme of things there is to be an individual called the “protector”, who will, presumably in addition to the Charity Commission, have supervisory responsibilities. What will be the powers and responsibilities of the protector and how will they sit alongside the responsibilities of the Charity Commission?

Will the Minister further confirm that there is at present no burden on the taxpayer because of the endowments held by NESTA? Therefore, there will really be no change in public expenditure or public responsibilities if and when NESTA becomes a charity. In other words, there is clearly no financial benefit in all this except possibly at the margin, where I am told that there might be some savings in not having to deal with civil servants or something of that sort. I am not quite clear how that will work, so maybe the Minister could explain that.

I have two further questions. If not all NESTA’s current endowments are appropriate for charitable purposes, I therefore assume that not all the money will be transferred to the new charity. However, if it is not transferred, where will it go? In other words, there are some functions of NESTA that are not totally charitable; clearly, these are now funded by the endowments. What will happen to the money appropriate to those non-charitable functions? Secondly, given that there are trustees to be appointed to run a charity if the proposal goes ahead, how will the trustees be appointed? By what process will they be appointed and what will be the safeguards?

Japan: Whaling

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am not aware, and that is why the words I used in my original Answer were “so-called scientific whaling”.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, in advance of the meeting of the International Whaling Commission in July, are the Government exerting maximum pressure on all countries that are reasonably sympathetic to us—for example, Norway—that still practise whaling? Would it not be right to press very hard before the meeting in July rather than leaving it until July to exercise our influence?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point, and we will continue to exert pressure on all the relevant states. He is right to draw attention to Norway, which is one of the countries that continues to practise whaling. We will continue to do so before the IWC and at the IWC itself.