Devolution: England

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is not for me to say; I guess that is for the English people to say. Given that roughly 85 per cent of the membership of the House of Commons comes from English constituencies, one of the solutions may be not to change the devolution settlement in respect of England.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, surely the outcome of the commission that the noble Lord has said the Government will set up within the year will have an impact on consideration of Lords reform. Given that, does the noble Lord agree that we had better wait to see the outcome of the commission’s work before bringing legislation before your Lordships' House?

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I crave the indulgence of the House to say a few words. Today is 9 May, and we had Second Reading of this Bill on 9 November. For six calendar months, this House has been considering the Bill. The Bill has been much changed by this House; I think we all share the view that the Bill has been improved by this House. This House can be proud of its role of scrutiny, which it has demonstrated in scrutinising the Bill and improving it. It can serve as a textbook example of how this House serves that great and fundamental purpose.

I say a word of thanks to Members of this House for that role. In particular, I thank those on the opposition Front Bench for the constructive way in which we have been able to talk about the Bill from the beginning. They had firm ideas of what they wanted to happen to the Bill; we had ours; but the discussions were always friendly and open. I am very grateful to them. I am very grateful to all Peers who have attended our meetings: those from the Cross Benches, in particular, for their construction of ideas and resolution of some of the impasses which looked difficult to overcome; and to coalition Peers for their support and input. Right to the end, we have been discussing these matters, and the House has been divided on them, but there has been a real sense of partnership on the Bill. That has been particularly true of my Front Bench colleagues who have shared the passage of the Bill with me and have taken particular amendments. I have been reluctant to comment on individual involvement, but I feel that I should thank my noble friend Lady Rawlings, who is my Whip on the Bill and who has been with me more or less throughout its passage.

I conclude by thanking the Bill team, because they have had to work particularly hard not just within the Cabinet Office, which originated the Bill, but across all government departments, because every government department has been engaged in the Bill. I thank them for the way in which we have enjoyed working on the Bill together. They now go to see it through another place, and their job continues. I also mention the Bill team manager, as was, Louise Parry, who during the Easter Recess had a baby daughter. Cecilia is perhaps the most visible token of the Bill's passage through this House, and we are delighted for both of them. They are both very well and I thank Louise for her support to me and to her colleagues during the passage of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I must say that when we completed the passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, which also took about six months, I never thought that I would be facing the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on another Bill which took so long. I echo his comments: I think that the Bill is much changed; it has benefited from scrutiny in your Lordships' House. I am sure that the whole House would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his stewardship of the Bill. He has shown great skill and sensitivity to the issues that have been raised. All of us are grateful for the manner in which he has met us to discuss the issues, but his responses in your Lordships’ Chamber have also been in a flavour of seeking a way through. We are very grateful to him.

There has been a cast of thousands on either side of the opposition and government Front Benches. I, too, very much thank my colleagues for their help. I echo the noble Lord’s words of thanks to the Bill team. We are very grateful to them for the help that they have given us over the months. I, too, congratulate the Bill team manager on the birth of her daughter during Easter.

The Bill goes to the other place much enhanced. Because of the sunset clause, although the Bill will deal with a number of public bodies, when that is done, there will be a mechanism for looking at public bodies in future in a way that noble Lords find a very satisfactory outcome.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate that has built on the progress that we have made since the Government started tabling amendments in Committee, way back in November when consultation was first discussed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for moving Amendment 65 to set up the debate and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his amendment on local government.

In speaking to Amendment 65, I will also try to deal with the other amendments in this group, Amendments 66 to 68. Amendment 65 would insert a requirement that the public are consulted on all proposals before an order is brought forward under the powers in the Bill. The Government support the principle behind this amendment, which is to ensure that the public are given an opportunity to make their views heard on the reform of public bodies. In many instances it will be entirely appropriate and desirable for the public to be consulted on the reforms that we are delivering using the powers in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will know from first-hand experience, the Government publish guidance for departments on best practice in consultation, the current code having been issued under the previous Administration, of which he was a part.

The one-size-fits-all approach in Amendment 65 would not result in a better deal for the public. Where a full public consultation is appropriate, the Government will undertake one. Clause 10 does not preclude public consultation, which will be undertaken where the Government consider it appropriate, followed of course by the extensive parliamentary scrutiny required under new Clause 11. The evidence on whether the Government will act in a responsible and proportionate way is already there for your Lordships’ House to see. Take, for example, the consultation document on reforming the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This has been published in full on the Government Equalities Office website, has been laid in Parliament and will stay open for responses for three months. This is very clearly a reform that affects the public at large, which is why the Minister for Equalities and the Home Secretary decided to run a full public consultation.

However, the noble Lord cannot in all seriousness claim that it would be appropriate or proportionate for a full public consultation to be undertaken on the announcement and detailed implementation of the proposal to abolish Food From Britain, with all the associated costs of ensuring that such a consultation was accessible, widely distributed and adequately publicised, in line with best practice. That is why the Government believe that there should be adequate discretion in Clause 10 for the Minister to be able to carry out a consultation that is proportionate for a particular reform. I am not advocating complete discretion, and the Government have made it clear repeatedly in Committee and on Report that the powers of the Bill should be offset by clear and meaningful standards. Clause 10 plainly sets out these safeguards by defining a statutory minimum that the body or office-holder, and where appropriate the devolved Administrations, and the Lord Chief Justice must all be consulted.

My noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart rightly emphasised the importance of this consultative process. The Minister must comply with the Clause 10 requirements, and the details of the consultation must be included in the explanatory document that accompanies the draft order and proposal for Parliament to scrutinise. This is the point that my noble friend Lord Eccles made when he acknowledged his debt to the late Viscount Colville in the scrutiny of statutory instruments in the Merits Committee. It is not absolute discretion but, importantly, it builds in sufficient flexibility to ensure that on defunct bodies the Government are not compelled to run meaningless public consultations that incur unnecessary costs when we can least afford it.

Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, runs into two similar issues in that it would put into statute something that in many cases is unnecessary. First, there are cases in which consulting staff would not be appropriate, such as where the proposal is a change to constitutional arrangements that would alter the name or method of appointment of the chair. In this case, Amendment 66 would add an additional burden without producing a meaningful improvement in the consultation process.

Secondly, the noble Baroness’s amendment cuts across existing requirements to consult and inform in specific circumstances. This includes TUPE and redundancy—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to the discussions that we have had on these—where there is already a requirement to consult trade unions, which was designed to build in a statutory guarantee for the situations in which such a requirement is appropriate. The problem with the amendment is that it would go beyond already well established requirements and codes of practice without considering whether such an additional burden was appropriate. I seek to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the Government are mindful of our obligation to consult trade unions where it fits the requirements of the Bill and to account for that in the explanatory document that we produce with the statutory instrument.

It is a similar story with Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. There would be clear cases in which the groups and organisations captured by his amendment should and would be consulted. However, that does not mean that putting such a provision into the Bill would change the instances in which such groups or organisations are consulted in practice.

Amendment 68 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lord Greaves—neither the noble Lord, Lord Judd, nor my noble friend are here, and I continue to wish my noble friend a speedy recovery—would require a Minister to publish the proposed reform on their department’s website, in the event that a full public consultation was not required.

I do not believe that such a requirement is necessary in the Bill. There are a number of ways of seeking input from interested parties that may or not include publication on a departmental website. It would obviously be a very effective way in a major consultation, but it would be likely to vary over time. It is therefore not possible or appropriate to place these as a statutory duty in the Bill. The code of practice—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is very familiar with it—encourages departments instead to,

“be clear about the reasons why the methods being used have been chosen”,

and further guidance supporting the code provides useful information on alternative forms of engagement that extend beyond simple publication on a website and that may be seen as a soft option when active engagement with stakeholders is preferable.

Consultation is an important issue and one about which the Government feel strongly. We believe that the amendments tabled and adopted in Committee, and which now make up Clause 10, represent a sensible and proportionate way to manage the diverse array of reforms that are being facilitated by the Bill. The amendments in this group, each in their own way, reduce the flexibility of the way in which consultations can be run, in many cases without substantively improving the quality or breadth of consultations.

Amendment 65 specifically requires that all consultations are full public consultations, regardless of whether such a consultation is necessary. It would therefore guarantee that all consultations incurred substantial costs without providing any meaningful improvement to the legislative scrutiny process. Clause 10, as drafted, provides a proportionate obligation to consult on the proposals to reform public bodies. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it also provides that Ministers are accountable for that consultation process in the Explanatory Memorandum that they lay with any statutory instrument. Unless the noble Lord feels that the public need to be consulted, for example on the abolition of the already defunct Food From Britain, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. My noble friend Lord Whitty made some very important points about staff and trade unions, as did my noble friend Lord Kennedy about local government.

The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to the Merits Committee. As the first chairman of the Merits Committee I echo his remarks and the tribute he paid to the late Viscount. I recall that looking at the consultative process undertaken by departments was a very important part of that scrutiny. I certainly take his point that any order that a Minister wished to make under this Bill, when it becomes law, would go through scrutiny by committees of your Lordships’ House. His argument would have more power were the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to intimate that he is prepared to accept my later amendment on the use of the super-affirmative procedure, but, alas, I do not see the noble Lord quite ready to intervene on that point.

The noble Viscount is certainly right about Clause 10(1)(g). It allows a Minister to consult “such other persons”, but should that be left to ministerial discretion? As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the powers contained in the Bill are considerable. As a result, there need to be safeguards. I believe that automatic public consultation is one of those safeguards.

The Minister said that he supported the principle behind my amendment and that in many instances it is entirely appropriate and consistent with best practice, but he also said that there may be circumstances in which public consultation is not appropriate, and he instanced an organisation that may have been in abeyance. Surely the response to that comes from the Minister’s friend, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who say that consultation in those circumstances can be proportionate. Therefore, there could be a very modest public consultation in those circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

I support the noble Lord’s observation. The Minister, in his response to the previous amendment, agreed that a full public consultation would be highly desirable in many, if not most, circumstances, but in some cases it would not be appropriate to have a full public consultation, and it seems to me that Amendment 68 deals precisely with that point.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am under instructions to resist—I think that is usually the phrase that is used. However, I understand the arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords to have a requirement, where public consultation does not take place, that at least the proposal is put on the website. I think that the Government are in a position to consider this and, if necessary, will bring forward an amendment at a later stage.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that is very handsome of the Minister and we look forward to coming back to this on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I can confirm that every statutory instrument will have to be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum. That is very important if a statutory instrument is proceeding under this Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sorry, too, but would like this to be clarified. At the moment, the clause says:

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

The Minister has already decided, in the light of consultation, that he is going to proceed with the order. That is not now in doubt because he,

“considers it appropriate to proceed”.

Surely it should then say that the Minister “must” lay that before Parliament. I do not understand why it is not “must”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I make my point quite simply: if he does not lay an order, he will not get it approved. It is as simple as that; that is the nub of the issue. In order to get the change he requires, he has to lay an order and “may” is the correct word to use, in parliamentary terms, as the noble Lord will know.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The next subsection uses “must”. I know that this is a very familiar argument, but it is quite clear that “must” is often used in legislation and I do not see why it is not used in this case.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Minister refers to the problem of borders but how are the Government dealing with the problem of borders by splitting Birmingham from the Black Country? It is sheer madness in terms of getting support across a region for the major infrastructure projects that are so desperately needed.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. The difficulty with RDAs was that they had clearly defined, strict borders. The great thing about LEPs is that they are partnerships and they are flexible enough to be able to work together when they need to. That is our answer to the question of the north-east. There are opportunities for LEPs to work together across boundaries. That is their huge advantage over the strictly geographically delineated boundaries that existed between RDAs and the difficulty of getting joint projects going with them.

The south Midlands was an area of the country where the south-east, the east Midlands and the eastern region met in an area around Milton Keynes, Northampton and Bedford. That particular group now has an LEP in common. It is a true economic region in the sense that there is a community of interest across what previously was RDA territory. We have deliberately placed the onus on the partners to show that they have identified a real economic area to cover. We have not sought to second-guess them. We have asked the partners to think again about a particular proposal only where there is a substantial difference of view in the area itself and in the places around it.

The RDAs were expensive bodies to run and often duplicated activities which could be better undertaken at local or national level. In much of the country people felt little or no attachment to regions. In our earlier debate much was made of the local support for the north-eastern and north-western regions. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, talked of the way in which Cumbria identifies more strongly with Newcastle than with Manchester. Only yesterday the House approved the creation of the Greater Manchester combined authority. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I took that through as a statutory instrument in the Moses Room last week. It reflected the desire of that area for a stronger local focus. I remain doubtful that the enthusiasm for a unified north-east region runs quite as high by the Tees as it does by the Tyne.

In our new circumstances we need lighter, more nimble bodies, capable of forging new linkages and alliances, rather than being caught up in regional straitjackets. Where partnerships wish to work together, we welcome it. If they had chosen areas which had matched one or more of the former regions and been able to demonstrate economic benefits and support from businesses and local authorities, we would have welcomed that too, but the fact is that they did not. In our previous discussion I pointed to the enthusiastic response we have received throughout the country to our call to develop local enterprise partnerships. On 8 March 2011 the 31 partnerships sent 90 representatives to a summit in Coventry. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Business and Communities were all present. They confirmed their support for the formation of an association to help partnerships share knowledge and ideas. This idea came from the partnerships. The Deputy Prime Minister also announced that the second of the regional growth funds would open on 12 April, and those successful in the first round will be announced shortly. Some £1.4 billion will be in that fund over the next three years.

I am grateful that my previous letter has been well received. I shall do my best to answer some of the questions that have been asked tonight, although it may not be possible to do so in the case of some of those which were highly specific. I shall do my best to give answers that cover some of the most central points raised. The first question was what the Chancellor announced today. He announced that the Government would introduce 21 new enterprise zones. I do not belittle them—the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, did rather. They will all be important; they will all be established in LEPs; and they will be focuses for growth. The Budget names the LEPs that will receive the first enterprise zones, plus London. The next 10 will be established through a competitive process. Benefits include the business rate discount over a five-year period.

It was asked whether LEPs have the capacity to take on the wide range of projects envisaged—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made this point particularly strongly. The capacity of LEPs will vary initially. Some are based on well established structures—Manchester being an example of an existing structure, let alone the fact that it now has a combined authority—but others are entirely new. The LEPs are establishing a network to share experience and best practice to bring new partnerships up to speed quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in what I acknowledge was a very impassioned speech, asked whether there would be a fire sale of assets. The brief answer to that is no. It will be a managed process. Assets of which it makes commercial sense to dispose in the short term are being identified and a list will be made available to local authorities shortly. However, where it is more sensible to dispose of assets over the medium or long term, it will be done. It is important to emphasise that the RDAs are liaising with the local authorities within their patch and with the LEPs to make sure that this process is managed efficiently.

It was suggested, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the LEPs will not have a role in inward investment and European funding. That is not the case, because UKTI and the DCLG have made it clear that they will work closely with LEPs and other local partners on inward investment and on the European regional development fund. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also asked what discussions were going on about the position of the North East Economic Partnership and its assets. Discussions are ongoing; I cannot comment on the path that they are taking. However, we have confirmed that that we are not able to pass on assets as gifts or for deferred consideration to that partnership.

The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, also raised questions about the north-east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment and for allowing us to debate for a few minutes the Valuation Tribunal Service. It is one of a number of bodies which are either listed or not listed in the Bill and whose work is not particularly well known by the general public. However, these are bodies that have played an important role in terms of the good order of society. As we have debated the 150 or so bodies under consideration, there has been a tendency and temptation—given that we have all agreed that it is right that these bodies should be reviewed on a regular basis—to underestimate the contribution of the people who have worked for them or sat on their boards. It is right for me to invite the Minister—who has, if I may say so, expertly steered the Bill through your Lordships’ House—to reflect on the importance of the tone with which we debate these organisations.

I say that because, in relation more generally to debates in your Lordships’ House, in the other place and among the public on public services, there has been an unfortunate tendency to speak in a pejorative way about back-office functions. That is a matter for regret. It is not sensible to suggest, for instance, that only a policeman is doing a good thing while someone who works for the police force in a back office is not. That is not a sensible way forward. Back-office staff are being made redundant from police services, while bureaucratic tasks have to be undertaken by front-line police officers. That demonstrates some of the perverse incentives of taking a black-and-white approach.

I mention that because, as we close our first day on Report, we have an opportunity to reflect on the fact that many of these organisations will go out of business. The functions of some will be transferred to another body while the functions of others will come to a close. It is important to send a message out to the people who have worked in these bodies that we do not underestimate the contribution that they have made. The regular review that is taking place should be sensible, but in no way should it be taken as a criticism of the work that is done by thousands of people up and down the country.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I happily associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because we all share his sentiment. The more you become involved in this process, the more you realise that you are dealing with bodies that in many cases are performing important tasks and are staffed by people with a due sense of purpose and public service.

What is interesting about the amendment—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for giving us a chance to talk about it—is that in many ways it brings continuity between the previous Government’s proposals in the area of tribunals and our own. As will be clear from my explanation of why the Valuation Tribunal Service is in Schedule 1, noble Lords will recognise that the foundations for this decision were laid by the legislation of the previous Government.

The Valuation Tribunal Service is a non-departmental public body that provides administrative support and all the services required by the Valuation Tribunal for England, which hears appeals on council tax and business rates—in other words, national non-domestic rates.

Taken together, the Valuation Tribunal for England and the Valuation Tribunal Service—I will use the acronyms from now on—provide an independent appeals service for business rate or council tax payers who wish to challenge either the basis on which the banding or valuation of their property has been calculated, or their liability to pay business rates or council tax. In the Government's recent announcement about the future of arm’s-length bodies, both the VTS and the VTE were identified as bodies that could be abolished. However, I stress that the Government recognise that the jurisdiction that the VTE exercises, and the functions undertaken by the VTS, are still necessary—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is correct—and plan to transfer them so that they become part of the unified structure for tribunals, thus ensuring that the independence of the appeals process for business rates and council tax will be maintained. The achievement of these transfers would be a further step in the achievement of the long-standing policy introduced by the previous Government, following the 2000 Leggatt report, Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service, which this Government are continuing. The aim is to bring central government-sponsored tribunals in England and Wales under a single umbrella organisation.

The Government's proposal is that the jurisdiction of the VTE and the functions of the VTS should transfer respectively to the First-tier Tribunal and Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service. It is important that noble Lords should note that the planned transfers are fully supported by both the chairman of the VTS, Anne Galbraith, and the president of the VTE, Professor Graham Zellick. The jurisdiction of the Valuation Tribunal for England will be transferred to the soon-to-be-created Land, Property and Housing Chamber—the Land Chamber—of the First-tier Tribunal, which was formally established under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Powers in the 2007 Act would allow the formal transfer of the VTE's jurisdiction to the First-tier Tribunal, and the subsequent abolition of the VTE as a separately constituted tribunal. Since the 2007 Act powers are already available to achieve this, the Government do not need—and nor do they intend to seek—its abolition through the powers in the Bill. I trust that noble Lords will be comforted to learn that the jurisdictional independence currently enjoyed by the VTE will continue, following the transfer of that jurisdiction to the First-tier Tribunal.

Noble Lords will also wish to be made aware that the transfer will bring added opportunities. Members who would formerly have been in separate tribunals will be able, following the transfer, to sit on tribunals in all jurisdictions exercised within the First-tier Tribunal Land Chamber. Such arrangements are already in place elsewhere and have brought significant operational and jurisdictional advantages.

I turn to the Valuation Tribunal Service that is the subject of the amendment. If the jurisdiction of the VTE is transferred and the VTE is abolished, the VTS will effectively cease to have any purpose and powers. Therefore, the Government's intention is that, in tandem with the transfer of the VTE, the parallel administrative functions provided by the Valuation Tribunal Service should also transfer at the same time to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice that is shortly to be established following a merger between Her Majesty's Courts Service and the Tribunals Service.

The functions of the VTS, which are essentially to provide all administrative support for the operation of the VTE, including staff, accommodation and IT, would be absorbed into the tribunal service to sit alongside the administrative support for all jurisdictions within the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. Once these functions had been transferred, there would be no further need for the VTS to remain in existence as a separate body and it could then be formally abolished. However, as the VTS was established under statute—in the Local Government Act, to be precise—new powers would be required to achieve both the transfer of the VTS’s functions and its subsequent abolition. The power set out in Clause 1 would allow an order to be laid to achieve this transfer, and that is why the VTS is included in Schedule 1.

Planning for the transfer of both jurisdiction and administrative functions is in its very early stages but, following the transfer, we confidently expect the realisation of economies of scale, operating efficiencies and added service improvements, which the unified tribunals system was established to provide. The noble Lord will, I hope, recognise and be reassured that the Government’s proposals will maintain and sustain the independence of the appeals process for council tax and business rates, and that they are a continuation of the policy pursued by the previous Government. Therefore, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Transfer of Functions (Dormant Accounts) Order 2010

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The bank will be operating in the market, and it is unlikely that the bank is going to be able to provide finance at a subsidised rate. None the less, the most important thing to secure is the availability of the funding. That is the direction of travel of the bank at this time.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his response and for some of the details he gave to noble Lords. However, from what he said, it seems that it will be some months before money starts to flow and the amounts seem likely to be modest. His contribution was, as ever, meant to be as constructive as possible—until at the end when we heard from him about the deficit and the financial position of the public sector. He made no mention of the global financial context in which the last Government had to move to protect the economy. Also, the Government do have a choice—they can slavishly carry on as now, or, as I hope, they can take steps to deal with faltering growth in our economy; establish a plan to create jobs in the private sector to deal with the crisis of youth unemployment; and take steps to support the voluntary and charitable sector.

I appreciated the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and his tour de horizon on the passage of the 2008 Act. I agree that social enterprises are invaluable and that we want to support the sector. I also agree with his point about access to finance. However, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley says, the voluntary and charitable sector is running short of cash now. At the very least, it needs an injection of resources and time to adapt. As my noble friend Lord Beecham suggested in his question about commercial rates, that is highly pertinent. I know that access to capital is an issue, but when very little revenue is available from traditional sources of funding, the cost of capital becomes a major inhibition on the very organisations the noble Lord is relying on.

The noble Lord is ambitious for the future, for the proposals contained in the order and for the role of the voluntary and charitable sector. I applaud that ambition. However, many of the organisations on which he wants to rely are not going to survive. That is why I continually come back to the situation of the CABs in Birmingham. Of all the organisations on which one would have thought the Government would have depended to provide that kind of infrastructure support, I cannot think of a more important organisation than the CAB. Indeed, that is why in the Public Bodies Bill we are seeing the CAB being asked to take on the responsibilities of a number of consumer organisations. How can the Government say they are supporting and relying on the sector when a key part of that structure in this country’s second city is under threat of complete closure?

I respect the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, enormously. We support the use of dormant accounts but the context in which we find ourselves is that the very organisations on which the Government depend so much are being obliterated by the impact of the cuts taking place. I commend the Motion.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I would very much like to support my noble friend on this. It is timely to remember that thousands of people who work for the public bodies listed in this Bill are likely to be affected by its provisions. Many will lose their livelihoods; some will find their careers seriously damaged; some, as my noble friend Lord Whitty has said, will find themselves transferred to other employers. It is important that we recognise and acknowledge that those people have given dedicated service, in some cases for many years. Where they are transferring to another body, we must make the transition process as smooth as possible. That is clearly the intent behind my noble friend's amendment. It would ensure that, where a person is transferred to another body, TUPE will apply, with the implications and protections as described by my noble friend. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide the necessary assurances on that. The Government also need to take on board the point that my noble friend made about the complexity of the issue and the need for clarity, which is why his amendment deserves serious consideration.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling the amendment, because it raises an important aspect of the reforms and allows the Committee to consider the impact of the Government's reform programme on the staff of the bodies affected. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the thousands of hard-working staff of public bodies across the country. Specifically, I put on record that our proposed reforms to public bodies are no reflection on the work of the staff.

I assure the Committee that the Government are working with the chairs and chief executives of public bodies and trade union representatives to ensure that necessary change is carried out as smoothly and fairly as possible. As the noble Lord said, that must be an important aspect of this operation. The Government have been diligent in acknowledging the needs of staff during the public bodies review programme, and we will continue to be so—for example, by exploring opportunities for redeployment where possible.

The Cabinet Office has been working closely with other departments since 2010 to ensure that the needs of staff are fully factored into the public bodies programme of work, particularly on the need to provide staff with clarity following reform decisions and the milestones along the route. The Cabinet Secretary has sent a message to departments on that very point. The Cabinet Office has also provided a checklist of considerations for departments which takes the needs of staff and stakeholders into account.

Those arrangements reflect a flexible approach that ensures that government departments can respond in the context of individual changes—based, of course, on the proper protections that are already enshrined in UK employment law. That is the right approach to support our public bodies’ staff. It also reflects the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector. The guiding principles, as set out in the document state:

“The Government is committed to ensuring that the public sector is a good employer and a model contractor and client”.

The principles recognise that the:

“involvement, commitment and motivation of staff are vital for achieving smooth and seamless transition during such organisational change”.

On the specifics of the amendment, I should like to inform the Committee why the Government believe that the blanket application of TUPE is not appropriate. TUPE, and the European law which underpins it, was designed to protect staff where the business for which they worked, or the services to which they were assigned, would be carried out by a different organisation. Staff retain their jobs and conditions, and the new employer steps into the shoes of the old one. The definition of relevant transfer under TUPE is broad and will cover most transfer situations.

However, Clause 23 already provides the mechanism for equivalent protection to be confirmed in non-TUPE situations where that is appropriate. That is underpinned by the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers, to which I have already referred, which provides that the TUPE principles should generally be followed through a transfer scheme which addresses the imperatives of the particular transfer.

The blanket application of TUPE to all transfers conducted pursuant to this Bill seems likely to lead to inefficiencies and unintended consequences. For example, there may be circumstances where a body following an order made under this Bill is carrying out functions which have significantly altered and which require different skills and resources, with the result that there is no relevant transfer for TUPE purposes. If TUPE were nevertheless to be applied, staff would be transferred to the new body by operation of law, only to be potentially made redundant by the transferee. This would involve extra work and unnecessary expense and delay with no benefit to anyone, increasing uncertainty for staff and possibly disruptive relocation.

I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I can assure him that the Government will continue to have a positive approach to TUPE regulations where they properly apply, and seek to make appropriate provision where this is not the case. I hope that, in the light of the assurances I have given, he will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not suppose that the Committee would have chosen to debate this important group of amendments at this time of night. I do not really want to rush but I am mindful of the time. It is interesting that the amendments contain the workplace of me and the Bill team. This is certainly an area in which we are and have been much engaged. I hope that all noble Lords will understand that it is rarely possible to deliver everything. There are some areas where the Government have to draw a line but there are others—I think that I can indicate these in the debate this evening—where further consideration is justified and where I would hope to come back with amendments before Report, after discussions with noble Lords. I say that by way of preface.

The whole group of amendments relates to the procedures that Ministers must follow. These issues have had substantial discussion in Committee. I thank noble Lords across the Committee for their contributions. As I seek to respond to each amendment, I ask noble Lords to contextualise the debate against the changes that we have already announced in the Bill, notably the removal of Schedule 7 and our ongoing commitment to work with noble Lords on a variety of related issues.

I begin with Amendment 106A in the name of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree. This amendment would add the objectives of,

“fairness, openness, transparency and justice”,

to the list to which the Minister must have regard when considering making an order under Sections 1 to 6. I thank him for his amendment and reassure the Committee that these objectives underpin the Government’s rationale for reforming public bodies and, of course, the Government’s programme as a whole. It is good that my noble friend carries the coalition agreement in his inside pocket, close to his heart. I am reassured by that and always value his contributions, even when they are not necessarily supportive of everything that I am seeking to do with this Bill. The only points where I fear we disagree concern whether this amendment would work in practice and whether such wording is necessary on the face of the Bill. The Government believe that such a requirement in legislative terms would be ambiguous and could, as drafted, be quite difficult to measure or assess. However, it is an area in Clause 8 that we have committed to look at.

Amendment 114A returns us to the question of consultation, which was originally debated on our first day in Committee on this Bill. It would amend government Amendment 114 by introducing a specific requirement to consult the public before laying an order using the main powers in the Bill. The Government have accepted the principle that Ministers should be required to consult on their proposals to reform public bodies before using these powers. The Government also accept that in some cases it is completely appropriate to consult the public in relation to such proposals. For example, I can confirm to the Committee that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills intends to consult this year on its proposed changes to competition bodies. We discussed that earlier this evening. It will be a public consultation. The Government Equalities Office will soon publish its consultation document on reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Later this year, Defra will issue a public consultation on its plans to replace British Waterways with a charitable body.

However, I take issue with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as it would apply without due regard to proportionality to any proposed reform. Such an approach runs contrary not only to the policy of this Government but also to the existing code of practice on consultation, which was issued in June 2008 by the Government of whom the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was a part. The introduction to the code of practice is clear:

“Ministers retain their existing discretion not to conduct formal consultation exercises under the terms of the Code. At times, a formal, written, public consultation will not be the most effective or proportionate way of seeking input from interested parties”.

I do not quote from this document to seek to absolve Ministers of responsibility. Subsection (1)(b) in Amendment 114 specifically requires a Minister to consult persons whom he or she considers,

“to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal”.

This provision clearly could include the public. The Minister must therefore expect to be held accountable for his or her decisions in relation to this provision. However, the proper requirement that Ministers should consider whether to consult the public does not lead to the conclusion that it will prove necessary or proportionate in all cases. For example, is it proportionate to require a full public consultation on the statutory abolition of Food From Britain, a body that, to all intents, has been defunct since 2009, or on the proposal to use Schedule 2 to merge the Pensions Ombudsman with the ombudsman for the board of the Pension Protection Fund? These two bodies already share services to a great extent and those functions will not change.

As with other cases in the Bill where the public will rightfully expect to be consulted, undoubtedly they will, but the Bill as drafted allows for that possibility and the Government accept their responsibility to ensure that that occurs when necessary. By contrast, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will remove the ability of Ministers to conduct a more targeted consultation when that is appropriate. While I have sympathy with the sentiment behind Amendment 114A, the Government do not believe that the public will welcome a proposal that would add unnecessary bureaucracy to the order-making process and with it, in effect, the process of reform.

The question of proportionality is also pertinent to Amendments 118A and 118B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which concern the parliamentary procedure that should apply to orders made under this Bill. In responding to these amendments, I should clarify for your Lordships’ House that we have substituted government Amendment 118 with a new version that makes it explicit that the enhanced procedure can be activated by a recommendation of a committee of either House. This clarification responds to paragraph 24(a) of the sixth report of the Delegated Powers Committee—that is, the committee’s second report on this Bill. I am happy to clarify the Government’s intentions in response.

Amendment 118A seeks to make it explicit that a Minister wishing to make an order following a period of consultation must lay before Parliament a draft order and explanatory document. I agree with the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment, but I do not consider it necessary. While the current drafting of subsection (1) in government Amendment 118 states that a Minister,

“may lay … a draft order, and … an explanatory document”,

it would in practice not be possible to make an order without following this procedure. Our current drafting simply reflects the fact that, following a period of consultation under Amendment 114, the Minister is not obliged to proceed with the proposal.

Amendment 118B would introduce a wholly new parliamentary procedure for these orders, giving a committee of either House the opportunity not only to reject but also to amend an order, or to recommend that the proposals be taken forward only through primary legislation. As I argued when we debated this issue on the first day in Committee, the Government cannot support that proposal for a number of reasons. First, I maintain my position that the noble Lord’s amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill in seeking to effect a fundamental shift in how this House deals with secondary legislation. Secondly, I do not accept that the powers of the Bill, especially in the light of the removal of Schedule 7 and the additional safeguards that the Government are now proposing, justify the use of such a restrictive parliamentary procedure. It is now the case that no body can be subject to the powers of the Bill unless Parliament has consented through primary legislation to its inclusion in the Bill’s schedules. The waiting room of Schedule 7 has gone. Therefore, the scope of the powers in this Bill has been significantly narrowed. On this basis, to continue to suggest that the Bill requires a more restrictive scrutiny procedure than, for example, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act appears a disproportionate response, particularly in the light of the additional safeguards that we have introduced and continued to work towards and the fact that the proposed procedure would apply to each and every order made under this Bill.

I do not intend to quote a list of examples of such reforms. Suffice it to say that I do not consider that the opposition amendment represents a proportionate procedure for an order to abolish a body that is already defunct. Our approach, by contrast, gives Parliament the flexibility to select and enhance procedure while maintaining for the Government the reasonable ability to act to implement their programme. It is for this reason that I cannot accept Amendment 118B or Amendment 117.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I will not detain the Committee very long. I want to make two points. First, presumably in the case of defunct bodies, the Select Committee appointed by the House could deal with this matter in very short order. The Merits Committee, for instance, deals with a huge number of statutory instruments every week. It will list a huge number to which it does not draw the special attention of the House and it focuses on the orders it considers to be most important. Secondly, the noble Lord has been pretty forthright in rejecting my amendment. Between now and Report will the Government at least give careful consideration to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee? It has reported only in the past few days and it covers this issue.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Of course and I would like to feel that the noble Lord would know that I wish to continue the very useful dialogue we have had on this Bill. I felt it would help the noble Lord if I defined the areas where I feel there is going to be more scope for improving the Bill—as we would both describe it—and areas where I think it is not going to be possible. I thought it was better to be upfront and frank about it and I hope that the noble Lord will understand that. We want to maintain our dialogue because, despite the difficulties the Bill had in its early days, I believe this could be a very useful piece of legislation and one which suits both Government and Parliament in its operation provided we put the proper work into the foundations. We will have a chance to talk about that when we come to other amendments in this now slightly enhanced grouping.

As I said, this is why I cannot accept Amendment 118B or Amendment 176 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which makes provision regarding the commencement date of amending orders using wording which appears to be drawn from the Civil Contingencies Act. That Act was designed to create a framework for dealing with emergency regulations, which, by their extreme nature, circumvent the usual channels of parliamentary scrutiny. I do not accept that there is a parallel between such orders and those which would be made under this Bill.

Originally my speaking note at this point mentioned sunsetting; then my speaking note did not mention sunsetting because the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was going to be taken separately. If the noble Lord does not mind I will put it at the end because I think it is quite important that I can say a few words on it.

Amendment 176 would prevent an order being made under this Act from applying to more than one body or office. I understand the thinking behind the amendment which seeks to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of these important orders. However, I am also anxious that the Bill is not amended in such a way that will restrict the sensible decision-making of departments or overburden Parliament with a requirement to consider separately multiple orders of a similar class. I am thinking, for example, of the multiplicity of drainage boards which might have similar requirements for secondary legislation. I hope that any wording covering this would not exclude that because it would not be in the interests of efficient use of parliamentary time, particularly given that the changes to be taken forward by the said orders will in most cases have been debated thoroughly in primary legislation.

We do not accept the argument that in all cases the use of omnibus orders would necessarily reduce the level of parliamentary scrutiny. I should also say to the noble Lord that the particular amendments under discussion would have what I believe are unintended consequences by preventing any orders to merge bodies using the power in Clause 2 as such orders would by their nature apply to more than one body or office. However, I am willing to consider again whether some form of restriction on the use of omnibus orders might be appropriate. I would be happy to discuss that with the noble Lord prior to Report stage. So that is another item for our agenda.

Amendment 177 would remove the provision in Clause 27 that aims to give certainty to the order-making procedure and to avoid lengthy debates on hybridity that could unnecessarily delay reforms from being taken forward by Ministers. This sort of provision is not without precedent; nor does it broaden the powers of Ministers in any significant way. Indeed, similar provisions form parts of a number of Acts passed by the previous Administration, including the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Charities Act 2006, the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Equality Act 2010. In addition, I am happy to assure the Committee that the Government’s initial assessment was that none of the proposed orders to take forward the reform of bodies listed in Schedules 1 to 6 could be considered hybrid.

Amendment 178 would require an annual report from a Minister regarding the use of order-making powers. I understand that the intention of this amendment is to ensure that the Government are properly held to account for their use of these powers, which is of course right and proper. However, the exercise of the powers will be a matter of public record, as is the case in the exercise of any powers made by statutory instrument. In addition, parliamentarians have a variety of means by which to question the Government on all aspects of policy relating to public bodies via Parliamentary Questions and the Select Committee process. I am unclear what is expected to be gained by the creation of a new reporting burden.

It is also the case that these powers will not be exercised centrally via the Cabinet Office but elsewhere by individual Ministers in departments, who will each have set out their own approach to public body reform in their departmental business plans. It is by reference to those documents that the Government have committed to be held to account and departments will report quarterly on them as a matter of course.

I turn to my noble friend Lord Goodhart’s amendments, which seek to sunset the order-making powers contained in Clauses 1 to 6, 13, 17 and 18 so that they could no longer be used after the dissolution of the present Parliament. As noble Lords will know, perhaps all too well, this is not the first time that we have debated this issue. Since our first day in Committee, the architecture of the Bill has changed as the Government have listened and responded to concerns raised by noble Lords. Most recently, that has resulted in the removal of Clause 11 and Schedule 7. For that reason, this is a timely debate as it allows the Committee to consider the issue in the new context in which we find ourselves.

The issue of sunsetting all the parts of the Bill is a complex one. I can see logic in not leaving bodies in schedules in perpetuity; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay made a similar point. Although this is something that the Government are still considering, there is perhaps more merit in the option proposed recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, of sunsetting the contents of the schedules to the Bill rather than the powers themselves. That is all the more persuasive in the light of the removal of Schedule 7, which has drastically limited the scope of these powers, something that had not happened when my noble friend Lord Goodhart tabled his amendment.

Inserting a sunset clause that would limit the period in which powers could be used could now be counterproductive and potentially leave us in the same position as we are in today—that is, without a mechanism to take forward reforms following the regular review of public bodies that the Government will take forward, which I hope will continue in future. By contrast, leaving the powers on the statute book would leave open the possibility for Parliament to debate and consent to the repopulation of the Bill’s schedules through later primary legislation, without having to cover what would be well trodden ground. However, as I made clear to the noble Lord, the Government have already committed to consider this issue further prior to Report stage. I do not intend to renege on that agreement. I am happy to engage on this issue with my noble friend Lord Goodhart and other noble Lords. In that spirit, I hope that he will not press his amendment.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and who have engaged in discussions at earlier stages as this is a culmination of other debates on mechanisms in this Bill. I have made it clear that we continue to look at Clause 8. I hope that my responses today and the amendments and the commitments that the Government have already made reassure the Committee that this Government will ensure that the procedure applicable to orders made under this Bill is proportionate and sensible and allows for proper parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers’ actions. In light of those assurances, I invite my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree to withdraw his amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this opportunity. We are making progress in a direction with which he will be content and with which I am content. Perhaps I can bring together the various changes that have been made as a result of our amendments.

As the noble Lord rightly points out, this group of amendments deals with Clauses 3 and 4. Clause 3 gives a Minister the power to make provision, by order, to alter the constitutional arrangements of any body or any office listed in Schedule 3—but only those listed in Schedule 3. Of course, now that Schedule 7 has gone, the list is finite. For example, in the case of the Theatres Trust, we intend to do away with the Secretary of State’s role in the appointments process, which will increase the body’s independence as it moves towards charitable status.

The noble Lord referred to Clause 4, which is a parallel clause with different purposes—it concerns funding arrangements—but is structured in the same way. Clause 4 confers on the Minister the power to make an order modifying the funding arrangements of a body or office listed in Schedule 4. In this regard—I am giving examples which I hope demonstrate the purpose to which these clauses will be put—the Government intend to reform the Drinking Water Inspectorate by allowing it to recover its costs from the water industry, bringing this body into line with the existing principle that it is the businesses which benefit from regulation, not the taxpayer, who should bear the cost of the regulation. The previous Government concurred with this approach.

In considering these clauses as a whole, I understand that the noble Lord is primarily concerned that these powers could be used to restrict the independence of bodies. Indeed, the noble Lord said that one of his anxieties was that, by granting Ministers the power to amend the governance or funding arrangements of bodies, the Bill would enable Ministers to threaten the position of chairs or board members who have displeased the Government, or constrain the ability of a body to carry out its work by squeezing its functions. While I seek to reassure the House that the Government have no intention of acting in such a manner, I understand the sentiment behind these concerns. However, the appropriate way to deal with them is to place appropriate limits on the power of Ministers to act, both within the Bill and elsewhere, rather than to abandon the powers altogether.

As with all the principal order making powers in the Bill, the uses of Clauses 3 and 4 are restricted by the conditions described in Clause 8 and elsewhere. Under the proposed government amendments, Ministers would be required to set out the rationale for an order in an explanatory memorandum when laying a draft order before Parliament. I explained that in a previous debate on an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Ministers would thus be held accountable for the use of the power in relation to the particular considerations in the Bill, including the effectiveness of public functions. A change in funding which, for example, would leave a body unable to carry out its public functions properly would be unlikely to meet this objective. I cannot envisage a situation in which a Minister would wish to make such an order. I can further assure the House that in light in particular of today’s third report from the Delegated Powers Committee, the Government are considering whether it is necessary to clarify Clause 8 further. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in light of his previous amendments.

It is also important to remind the House that we are continuing to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other noble Lords in relation to his Amendment 175, with the intention of ensuring that the safeguards applying to the order-making powers in the Bill include appropriate protection for the necessary independence of public functions. Furthermore, as I have said, the removal of Schedule 7 from the Bill will ensure that no body or office can be listed in Schedules 3 and 4 and be subject to the powers there unless its inclusion has been approved by Parliament through primary legislation. I hope that this change to the structure of the Bill provides the House with a strong reassurance that full parliamentary scrutiny will be central to the operation of these powers.

In addition to the protections present and planned for the Bill itself, there are safeguards which rightly limit the power of Ministers. First, in terms of appointments and governance, chairs and board members are in most cases appointed in line with rules issued by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments. This ensures that appointments are made on merit following an open and transparent process. The Government are further committed to strengthening the role of Select Committees to scrutinise major appointments, giving Parliament an effective voice in the process. In addition, for certain appointees who must be demonstrably independent of Ministers, the terms and conditions or relevant statute will provide safeguards to reinforce the officeholder. This might include pre-appointment scrutiny by Parliament or appointing certain officeholders on a single, non-renewable term so that the decisions and actions of those officeholders are not, and are not perceived to be, motivated by a desire to be reappointed. Examples of office holders listed within the Public Bodies Bill that fall within these categories include the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the chairs of regulatory bodies such as Ofcom.

I wish to emphasis the Government’s position that it is right for Ministers to have a role in public appointments and the governance of public bodies. The Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice clearly states that the ultimate responsibility for making public appointments rests with Ministers. Ministers should remain answerable and accountable for the overall performance of public bodies and have the ability and authority to intervene if a body is failing. This must include the ability, in extreme cases, to remove board members. The balance that the Government must strike, met by the safeguards I have described, is to retain this principle of accountability while ensuring that public bodies are able to act independently of ministerial influence where required.

That is also the case in relation to the powers in Clause 4, which relates to funding mechanisms. The Government’s position is that ultimate decisions on the allocation of funding must rest with Ministers, who are ultimately accountable for the delivery of public service by central government and for public expenditure within their spending review settlements. It is for precisely that reason that it is against Cabinet Office rules, for example, for public bodies to use public funds to employ PR or marketing consultants to lobby government or Parliament for more funding. We could not support amendments to Clause 4 which would risk undermining that principle. It is also right that Ministers have the assurance that public money is being spent appropriately. In the case of most NDPBs, Ministers and departments must be consulted by public bodies before they exercise certain financial powers such as borrowing or capital expenditure. We believe that the powers that Clause 4 would confer on Ministers are entirely in keeping with this position; they do not establish a new status quo but rather reaffirm ministerial accountability for public expenditure.

It is taxpayers who ultimately fund public bodies in most cases, and I am confident in suggesting that the citizens of this country expect government to account for its use of their money, no matter by whom it is eventually spent. On this basis, I believe that the removal of Clause 3 or 4 from the Bill would be a disproportionate measure, as it would remove Ministers’ ability to take forward the type of changes that I described earlier and instead require primary legislation for such changes, regardless of their nature. As well as preventing or delaying sensible reforms, the removal of Clauses 3 and 4 would run contrary to the principle of ministerial accountability for the performance of public bodies and their use of taxpayers’ money. While I agree with noble Lords who have highlighted the need to safeguard the independent delivery of some public functions, I believe that this can and should be achieved through other means, such as the safeguards within the Bill and outside it.

I am sorry to have taken some time over this, but this explanation probably goes to the heart of many of the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about how the Bill empowers Ministers and the balances that we seek to set within the architecture of the Bill to ensure that this is not abused. On this basis, I contend that both clauses should stand part of the Bill. In the light of the reassurance that I have supplied, I seek the noble Lord’s support on this. Furthermore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whose amendment is I think included in this grouping, not to press his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for a full response to the issues raised. He went a very long way to reassuring me about how this will operate. I do not disagree with him when he says that ultimately Ministers must be accountable. I very much agree with that, but it is also my contention that there is very little point in setting up these bodies unless they, too, have a degree of independence of judgment. The concern has always been that some of the clauses in the Bill will hang like a sword of Damocles over those bodies and inhibit their independence. I take very much the point that the Minister raised that one critical issue here is Clause 8 and the matters to be considered by Ministers when making an order under Clauses 1 to 6. I know that there is a lot of discussion taking place about this, and I hope that there will be a positive outcome. It also takes place in the context of Clause 10 and the order-making procedure. We will come to that in a couple of days’ time. But the Minister has reassured me to a very great extent tonight on this particular matter.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Thornton for raising three very substantive matters with this amendment: first, what is to happen to the FSA; secondly, the process by which the Government have undertaken this review; and, thirdly—coming back to the debate on the first group of amendments—the architecture of the Bill.

I was the Department of Health Minister who, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as the Defra Minister, took through the legislation that created the Food Standards Agency. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I are singing off the same hymn sheet here. I remind the noble Lord that the reason for this was that there was a great deal of public distrust, it would be fair to say, arising out of the BSE issue along with some concern about the advice that the relevant government departments had been giving to the public. Therefore, the decision was taken to create an independent agency sponsored not by Defra but by the Department of Health.

Overall, that agency has worked very well indeed. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and to Mr Geoffrey Podger, the first chair and chief executive of the FSA—and, indeed, to their successors—for doing what I think has been an outstanding job. It has certainly advanced the credibility of the advice that that body gives to the public and, importantly, has also enhanced the credibility of the British food industry. I therefore have some reservations about the changes that are now being proposed to the FSA. I understand that there will be a transfer of some of its responsibilities to the Department of Health. I must declare my interests in relation to the health service and to public health as they are recorded in the Register. The FSA has a tremendous reputation and, in the Government’s place, I would hesitate before making substantive changes.

However, the second point raised by my noble friend relates to the rationale for the Government’s approach both to those bodies that are contained in the Bill and those that are not. It is still not clear to many noble Lords what the rationale is. This is a good opportunity for the Minister, who, as noble Lords have already remarked, has been very helpful to the House, to explain some more about the rationale for the bodies contained in the Bill and those that are not, even where those that are not are actually to have substantive changes made to them.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will be a little tired of having Select Committee reports quoted back to him because it would be fair to say that all of the Select Committees that have so far looked at the Bill and at the review undertaken by the Government have been not exactly complimentary. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has to answer the central charge of the Public Administration Select Committee, chaired by Mr Bernard Jenkin, which said:

“This review was poorly managed … no meaningful consultation, the tests the review used were not clearly defined and the Cabinet Office failed to establish a proper procedure for departments to follow”.

Apart from rejecting the Select Committee’s report out of hand, the Government have been rather silent in responding so far. We are entitled to some comment on the review process itself.

My noble friend Lady Thornton referred to the Bill as being the “Hokey Cokey Bill”. I think it is more Gilbertian myself. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor has a little list. In fact it is a very big list that is gradually becoming smaller. I note that the Jonathan Miller production of “The Mikado” is back at the Coliseum yet again. The noble Lord might take care and reflect by going to see it.

It brings us back to the architecture of the Bill. In an earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised the question of Amendment 175, which is consequential on the paving Amendment 1 that the House passed. That is a very important amendment because it sets very clearly the restrictions on ministerial powers to be used in the Act. If, as a result of the discussions that I know that his officials are having with noble Lord, Lord Lester, tomorrow and other discussions, the Government were able to accept the principle of Amendment 175, while making it clear that they do not intend to reverse this in the other place, then we would make more progress.

There are other substantive issues in relation to the architecture. I have already mentioned the use of the supra-affirmative procedure and the deletion of Schedule 7. Some reassurance that public consultation will take place when it is proposed to deal with any of the bodies in this order would go some considerable way to reassuring noble Lords. In the absence of the House understanding what changes the Government are prepared to make to the architecture, we go inevitably through these bodies one by one and, in a sense, in a vacuum—a point made earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. We are due a Committee day next week when, no doubt, we will hear when further Committee days are to take place. I hope that in a fairly short time the Government will be able to make a little clearer their sense of where they are on the Bill and whether they are prepared to make the kind of changes to its construct that would reassure noble Lords considerably.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for tabling this amendment. I know that she has done so with good intentions but we have enough on our plate without adding an extra dish to the menu. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his recommendation to see “The Mikado”. I saw it when it was previously on at the Coliseum. In fact, I have tickets. Should time allow, I hope to see it in revival.

As your Lordships are aware, the Public Bodies Bill exists to take forward the review of public bodies undertaken across the Government in 2010 to enable changes to be made. I acknowledge the report of the Select Committee produced by another place and no doubt we will be replying to that report in due course. However tempting it might be, I do not want to use this debate as an opportunity for expanding on arguments that the Government will bring forward in their discussions with that committee. We are negotiating with the opposition Front Bench and the Select Committees of your Lordships’ House to try to improve the Bill. It is interesting that, as the noble Baroness said, there is a determination across the House to ensure that we have a public bodies sector that is fit for purpose.

Perhaps I may address the changes that have occurred within the Food Standards Agency in the context of the recent history of the department. The previous Government announced in their public health White Paper, published shortly before the election, that they would bring dietary health and nutrition away from the FSA into the Department of Health. That is the background against which, under the new Government on 20 July 2010, the Department of Health announced its decision to retain the Food Standards Agency as an independent regulator, while transferring some of its functions to the Department of Health and Defra. I shall shortly put those into the context of the size of the organisation. These changes are non-statutory in nature and do not therefore require the use of the Public Bodies Bill, or any another legislative vehicle, to bring them into effect.

The proposed changes to the role of the FSA are designed to contribute to the Government’s objectives to improve efficiency and are paramount to the key priority of improving the health of the nation by creating a public health service. To achieve this coherence, some policy-based functions are to be brought in-house to give a more co-ordinated approach on health and food issues. These changes affect approximately 5 per cent of the 2,000 staff employed by the Food Standards Agency. About 25 labelling policy posts will move to Defra and 85 nutrition policy posts will move to the Department of Health. These proposed changes reflect the Department of Health’s desire to bring together all the policy levers to enable it to deliver a coherent public health strategy. This will allow the FSA to focus on its key core remit of food safety underpinned by scientific expertise. It has been mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in establishing the Food Standards Agency, provided a foundation of science which has greatly benefited that organisation. The proposed changes will enable government food policy to be communicated and delivered in a coherent and consistent manner. The Department of Health, Defra and the FSA—we must not forget that the Food Standards Agency is classified as a government department—will work together to ensure that this structure protects consumer interests, reinforces efforts to improve the public’s health and supports a competitive food industry.

I acknowledge that the last thing the noble Baroness seeks is the extinction of the Food Standards Agency. On the basis of the assurances I have given, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure that that is right. I remind the noble Lord that the Companion recalls the vote taken by your Lordships’ House some years ago that reaffirms its right to defeat secondary legislation. I am sure that that is the position. However, it is important to note the views of the Leader because it is worrying that he should seek to undermine the consensus that I thought we held about the Cunningham convention.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We had this debate the other evening. If the noble Lord remembers, I corrected what I said from “convention” to “custom”. I think that that more closely fits what happens in this matter. It is for the House to decide how it deals with statutory instruments. It is not a matter of convention; it is purely a matter of custom. If the noble Lord is seeking to develop this argument, which may be connected to this amendment—I understand that it is certainly connected to the purpose of the Bill—I think that it would be important for him to bear that in mind.

[Lord Warner]

Whether it is a custom or a convention makes very little difference to the people working in these organisations. As far as they are concerned, if Schedule 1 goes through, they are for the chop. That is the end of those organisations. People will make their own dispositions. They are not going to sit around waiting for the customs and conventions—or whatever we want to call them—of this House to decide whether this House will or will not defeat an order many months later. Does the noble Lord accept that there is a problem of handling for many of the organisations in Schedule 1?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Perhaps I may come in first and respond to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, before he responds to my noble friend. In my remarks I made no criticism whatsoever of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. He is quite right that he made the point about custom, but I was referring to the correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Merits Committee, which has been published in, I think, two reports of the Merits Committee.

Finally, having raised concerns about this Bill, we have been informed that we should be comforted by the fact that each order would be an affirmative order. I do not think that that is sufficient, nor do I think that the amendment that the noble Lord has tabled in relation to enhancing that is sufficient.

The problem is that at the moment we do not find the Government willing to hear the voices around this Chamber or to understand that at some point they will have to make some movement, as it is pretty plain that this Bill will not get through your Lordships’ House in its present form. Therefore, it would be in everyone’s interest for the Government to show willing and to sit down and listen to some of the genuine concerns that are held in the House to see whether we can find a constructive way through. The debate on the Audit Commission allows us to put those matters on the table.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord for that contribution to our discussion on this amendment. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, if not a probing amendment, is a teasing amendment. It is a new parliamentary device to tease the Government into enunciating their philosophy behind the Bill. Noble Lords would agree that some of the speeches have resembled Second Reading speeches and have gone over ground that we have discussed before. So that all noble Lords are aware of this, I reaffirm that I am listening and that I am conveying the mood of the House.

Why I must resist the amendment to include the Audit Commission in Schedule 1, which I have no hesitation in doing, and why I forgive him for not producing an impact assessment on his proposal to include it in the schedule is because the noble Lord knows very well that the time for consultation and impact assessments comes later on in the proceedings. It is not part of this legislation to produce those documents for individual bodies.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right to remind us of our previous debates on sustainability and climate change. I recall the days when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was standing here and urging the Government to do better. He now has an opportunity to show that he is consistent in taking this message into government.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has pinpointed a potential weakness in the construct of the Bill. Noble Lords will know that the Bill allows a Minister by order under Clause 1 to transfer a function that is being abolished to an eligible person. The definition of eligible person includes in Clause 1(3)(a) to (e) companies limited by guarantee, community interest companies or a body of trustees or other unincorporated body of persons. Subsequent clauses extend the ability of Ministers to transfer functions of bodies listed in Schedules 2 to 7.

It would be helpful to know the criteria under which functions of public bodies might be transferred—in particular, to companies or unincorporated bodies of people. So little information is available. The impact assessment is distinguished by its inability to give any figures whatsoever for the financing consequences of the Bill. In particular, the Bill and the Explanatory Notes are silent about how desirable government policies will be transferred when those functions are transferred to companies or to unincorporated bodies of people. Sustainable development is a very good illustration of the point. We are told that the current Government are taking forward desirable policies on sustainability. Those policies relate not just to central Government but to local government and to other public bodies. Many of the organisations listed in Schedules 1 to 7 would be expected to enact the general principles of government policy on sustainability.

If those functions are now to be transferred outside the public domain into companies or into unincorporated groups of individuals, the question arises: how do we ensure that sustainability issues will be carried forward? How will that be monitored, or are the Government saying that, once a function has been transferred outwith the public sector, they are washing their hands of it and there is no guarantee that sustainability issues will be carried forward? That is an important debate.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for bringing forward this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made clear, I am well rehearsed on the arguments for sustainability and I would like to think that the Government too share the conviction that sustainability lies at the core of good governance within government.

This amendment seeks to add a further requirement that when functions are transferred from one body to another, the duty to promote sustainable development transfers along with the function, whether or not the duty is set out in statute. I am happy to confirm to my noble friend Lord Greaves that the Government absolutely share his desire to make sustainable development a key part of public life and a consideration that runs through everything we do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I have answered the question as best as I can. I cannot refer to a television programme which I have not seen, so it would be best if I were allowed to move on by stating the general principle that underlines our approach to this amendment. I consider it to be useful because it does indeed give us the opportunity to debate the issue of sustainability within the context of this Bill. No doubt it will arise when we come to further issues and parts of the schedules.

Where we differ from the amendment is how we go about achieving this important objective. We believe this amendment would go further and potentially add unnecessary bureaucratic hoops through which some public bodies will have to jump. It is a general and not a specific requirement to those bodies which already have a sustainability requirement. We do not want public bodies to get distracted by having constantly to prove to us that they are delivering sustainable development. We expect it of them. We do not necessarily expect them to be saying that they are doing it all the time. We want them to get on with delivering their core functions in a sustainable way.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked specifically about when private companies are involved in delivering a service that is currently undertaken by a public body. It is up to the relevant Minister in charge to determine how much they will be held to account, for example by attaching conditions to the contract or funding agreement. It is then for that Minister to account to Parliament and the public for such decisions. This reform programme is about making public bodies more accountable and more efficient.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Does the noble Lord agree that one of the problems with this Bill is that potentially all the functions listed in Schedules 1 to 7 could actually be transferred to a company or a body of trustees or other incorporated body of persons? This is our problem with debating this Bill. The powers that it gives to Ministers are so draconian that all of these functions could find themselves in the private sector in one way or another.

The Minister is saying that we should not worry because it will be up to each Minister to decide whether in any contractual situation they may or may not put something in about sustainability. But does he accept that our problem is that that gives far too much control to Ministers and that parliamentary oversight is very limited?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

On the contrary: Ministers are accountable to Parliament. If Ministers do not perform how Parliament expects, it is up to Parliament to make that clear. I have no difficulty with this. It is about making Ministers accountable for the conduct of the public sector. We want to mainstream sustainable development so that it is not a bolt-on option, but integral to everything that public bodies do. But we are committed to doing it on a non-statutory basis. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, has made an interesting suggestion. I think that by the time we have gone through a number of debates on individual bodies, noble Lords may well have quite a substantial idea of the pattern that the orders may well form. I hope to be able to provide noble Lords with the background to a lot of the changes that are anticipated by this legislation.

Perhaps I may respond to some specific points. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt—it might have been the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—asked about audit. Where public bodies are retained as a result of the 2010 review process, and in particular where functions have been transferred to them from other bodies, I assure the Committee that they will continue to be subject to the existing requirements for accounting, reporting, and data confidentiality issues. NDPBs are required to have in place robust governance and accountability arrangements, and both the Cabinet Office and the Treasury provide detailed guidance on the matter. Published annual reports and accounts are the main vehicle by which departments and public bodies regularly inform Parliament and the public about their activities and expenditure.

On freedom of information, I further reassure the House that where bodies already subject to the Freedom of Information Act are merged to form new arm’s-length bodies that are established by and at least partly constituted by appointments made to government, steps will be taken to ensure that they fall within its scope. Where a body’s functions are transferred to another body that is already subject to the Act, they will naturally be subject to that Act.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Will the noble Lord clarify one point? My assumption is that when a function is transferred to a company, a board of trustees or an unincorporated group of people, the FOI requirements will not be so transferred. Am I correct?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is surely up to the Minister to determine to what extent that is transferred. It is certainly not referred to here as being an obligation on any transfer. One would expect any orders that are presented to be covered by the Explanatory Notes accompanying any secondary legislation.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for making the point, which is perfectly valid. It is true that the powers are general in their scope within the context of a constitutional arrangement. It may well be that it will concern changes in governance and so on of a body, or its representation in the case of a body listed in Schedule 3—that is, how the governing bodies are appointed. There could be a number of different aspects. I agree that they will differ and, by necessity, that is why this has been put in the most general of terms.

We would argue that we are indeed trying to construct a special form of scrutiny for the orders that will be tabled under this Bill, and that is what our amendments seek to address. I have accepted that the comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published this morning mean that we need to look at this again because we want to try to do this within the context of parliamentary accountability. That is the purpose of seeking to reconsider this matter. I think that I have set out the arguments for why we are where we are and what we are seeking to do with our enhanced procedure for parliamentary scrutiny. However, it is important that whatever we determine here has to be compatible with the procedures of the other House because we would not want ping-pong on statutory instruments. That would be pretty difficult, so we need a process which is capable of operating across Parliament. That is an important consideration of which we are mindful.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his response and for his willingness to have a look at this in the light of our debate. That is very encouraging. I am also grateful to him for the government amendments he has just spoken to, which are an advance on what is currently in the Bill. Again, that is encouraging.

However, the giveaway line in the government amendments is where it is stated that if within 30 days either House decides the order requires further scrutiny, the order cannot be proceeded with until a period of 60 days has elapsed. During that time the Minister “must have regard to” any representations—which, in the end, means that the Minister can disregard as much as he regards. The problem we have is that the government amendments do not go anywhere near the scale of scrutiny we believe is required or as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, clearly expressed. Crucially, they do not contain the veto option which exists in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, as my noble friend Lord Adonis made clear, and it is that option that immeasurably strengthens parliamentary authority.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said in his letter to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that he believes there is a difference between this Bill and the LRR Act because of what he describes as the more restrictive matter of the Public Bodies Bill. However, as he knows, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has analysed this and believes that the 2006 Act is narrower in at least two respects when compared with the powers contained in the Bill. In his further discussions the Minister might wish to reflect on his and the Select Committee’s views on that.

The Minister also said that my amendment would change the role of Parliament and he prays in aid the first report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published on 12 November. The Select Committee is well able to respond to that but I believe it is a misinterpretation of what the Select Committee report is saying. My reading of it is that after expressing concern about the lack of scrutiny, the Select Committee puts forward a number of ideas for how Parliament might enhance that scrutiny, one of which is the super-affirmative procedure; another is a procedure which would allow Parliament to amend proposed orders under the Bill; and another is a sunset clause. The noble Lord is guilty of putting together the super-affirmative suggestion and the procedure to allow amendments and to pray them in aid in saying that my amendment falls because it would allow for amendments. I am not aware of any wording in my amendment which states that the House can amend the orders. I have built on the super-affirmative procedure contained in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act. That is why I do not think I am guilty of advancing the powers of Parliament in the way the Minister suggests.

The noble Lord raised the important question of the powers of this House in relation to secondary legislation. He said that, by convention, this House does not vote down statutory instruments. I dispute that interpretation. I refer him to paragraph 10.02 of the Companion which states clearly:

“The House of Lords has only occasionally rejected delegated legislation”.

It then goes on to say:

“The House has resolved ‘That this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration’”.

The Minister may be aware that there has been an interesting discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, and the Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments on this very matter.

The question is the extent to which the Leader now accepts the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Conventions chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham, which were accepted by your Lordships' House after debate. That committee’s report made it very clear that there were circumstances in which it was perfectly proper for this House to seek to defeat secondary legislation; for example, in relation to a skeletal Bill. I am convinced that it is perfectly proper for this House to seek to defeat any order under this Bill as it is now written.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that is a very helpful intervention. The Minister said “by convention”. I am afraid that I interpret that to mean that it is a convention of this House that we do not vote down statutory instruments, which I must refute.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I might change my wording to “custom”.

[Lord Greaves]

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might consider that the relevant statistic is the number of occasions on which the House divides on such instruments rather than the number of occasions on which the Division results in their being voted down. It is clear that the House divides on instruments rather more often than it votes them down, largely as a result of this Liberal Democrat group putting matters to the vote in the previous Parliament. The number of such Divisions is not huge, but there has been a handful of them in my recollection rather than none at all. If the House accepts that it can divide, it must accept that it is capable of voting instruments down.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope that when we come to those clauses of the Bill, we will be able to discuss this and make it clear. I am sure that that is what the Committee would wish. We will have an opportunity to go through this.

The question was raised about the timing of the consultation period. I reassure noble Lords that the 12-week period is a 12-week period of consultation. Amendment 118 covers the process after consultation and states:

“The Minister may not act under subsection (1) before the end of the period of twelve weeks beginning with the day on which the consultation began”.

That means that he cannot present a summary of representations received in the consultation before the 12-week period is over. I hope that noble Lords are reassured on that point.

We want to make the consultation effective. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend Lord Greaves on that. The Government have nothing to fear from being open on the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, went rather over the top with his allegation of a climate of fear across government. I would be prepared to take up any evidence on this that he presented to me. The probable reason that a number of bodies listed in Schedule 7 are not commenting on the Bill is that it is not necessarily the case that anything is going to happen to them. Within departments, any decisions will involve discussions before the public consultation period takes place. The precipitousness that the Opposition ascribe to the decision-making process does not give credit to the way in which the Government perform their public business. I am sorry that the noble Lord has not had critical comments from people in public bodies.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

It is not that I have not had critical comments: I have not had any comments.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That rather proves my point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am also grateful for his suggestion that I am usually very calm. However, I have been concerned because I have made contact with a number of organisations, and while informally I can be told what their views are, they are clear that they do not want to make any formal representations. In the case of some departments, officials have made it clear that the department does not expect the organisation to make any public statement. I am concerned about that. I do not think I have gone over the top. It is very different from the normal process of legislation. We are all used to being inundated—sometimes it is overwhelming—by comments from stakeholders on pieces of legislation. The noble Lord has said that he will seek to investigate individual matters. If I can bring him cases, I will. However, the issue is that when organisations are concerned, they will simply clam up, and I am not in the business of fingering civil servants. That is not something that I would ever do. However, there is a clear view that departments have made it absolutely plain to the organisations listed that they are not to make representations. I express very great concern about that. The Minister may be prepared to reflect on it. It would be very helpful if it was known throughout Whitehall that these organisations were perfectly free to make their views known, and that there would be no recriminations if they did.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is quite difficult for government bodies to speak out against government policy. The noble Lord has been in government. I suppose that he is suffering from the realisation that in opposition things are a bit different.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

With great respect, perhaps we may go back to the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. We spent six happy months debating it. In that time, representations were received from a considerable number of public bodies. I am not sure if the noble Lord is right to describe them as government bodies; we should call them public bodies. Yes, it irritated me enormously—how I wished for something like this Bill, because then I could have shut them up. However, I could not, it was right that I could not and it was right that those bodies expressed their views. This matter cannot simply be dismissed. This is a very serious matter of constitutional practice. There is clearly a feeling throughout the public Bills land that people are not able to express their views publicly. That is a matter of legitimate concern.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord has expressed his point of view and I have given him the point of view from the Dispatch Box. It would be useful if he were able to provide instances that he feels show an abuse of government. I would be grateful to receive them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not saying that at all. I do not suppose that any Member of this House will be able to say that they have had difficulty in getting that sort of factual information from public bodies or from government departments because that is a prerequisite of parliamentary responsibility, and I accept that. I think I should have made it quite clear that we recognise that it is beneficial for government to work with organisations and public bodies but it is not the job of public bodies to lobby in relation to government policy. I think that is a fair position to state and I think that is where the Government stand on this matter. If noble Lords disagree with it, fine, but that is the position that the Government take at the moment.

Government Amendment 114 echoes many of the proposals of my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and of the Opposition Front Bench, but we believe that it goes further in some regards: for example, by stipulating a requirement for a 12-week consultation period, and by requiring Ministers to consult the Lord Chief Justice where a proposal relates to the administration of justice. I am pleased to note that paragraph 2 of yesterday’s report of the Delegated Powers Committee has welcomed this amendment.

I note the emphasis of my noble friend Lord Lester on the role of the public in any consultation process. In the same spirit, I note my noble friend Lord Greaves’s amendments to the government amendments on consultation, which would require that the Government publish a notice of the proposal to make an order under the Bill on the Government’s website and other places considered appropriate by a Minister, and to publish a summary of responses and the Minister’s response to them in a similar fashion.

I fully appreciate that in some circumstances, a public, properly publicised consultation in accordance with the Government’s existing code of practice will be appropriate. However, I also believe that there is a need for some flexibility here; it is important that the Government should be able to carry out proportionate, value-for-money consultations that minimise the burden on those consulted as well as on the Government. Indeed, such a consideration forms criterion 5 of the current code of practice on consultation, which was produced under the previous Administration.

Therefore, although I agree with the intent behind these amendments, in appropriate cases, I do not believe that they should be placed on the face of the Bill. The requirements in our proposed amendments mirror those in other legislation and do not preclude a public consultation in accordance with the Government’s code, if appropriate. It should be for Ministers to decide how to consult and for Parliament to hold them to account in this regard.

I hope, therefore, that noble Lords across the House will feel able to support government Amendments 114, 127 and 169, which create a parallel procedure for the other order-making powers in the Bill. I hope that, in the light of my comments, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and to support the Government’s proposals when they come forward.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his extensive response to the points raised in the debate. On the general point, I think the question still arises as to whether it would give comfort if the words “public consultation” appeared in the Bill. I believe, and I would pray in aid the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Maclennan, that it would give reassurance if we could see in the Bill when it eventually leaves your Lordships' House some reference to public consultation. I am sure that we shall return to this on Report. I certainly acknowledge that the government amendments move us into a better situation. I am also very grateful to him for the point he raised in response to my noble friend Lady Andrews about the 12-week period, which encompasses the actual consultation with outside bodies and organisations. That is very reassuring.

On what public bodies can and cannot do, clearly I shall not be able to bring to him any evidence that officials have acted improperly because it is quite clear that what officials have been doing in departments is simply enunciating the policy that the Minister has laid down tonight which is, very simply, that public bodies should not comment on public legislation. I am gobsmacked because, frequently in debate, noble Lords opposite, when in Opposition, commented and quoted public bodies which have commented on legislation. Looking at the list, I can pick out organisations with which I have had some dealings: the Committee on Climate Change is not able to comment or the Environment Agency, or Ofgem, or the Health and Safety Executive or Natural England. Goodness me, how I wish Natural England—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Natural England has been very keen to comment at certain stages of the legislation and the noble Lord is quite right to single it out. What I said was “comment on legislation”; I did not say that they were not in a position to comment on those areas of their responsibility. Of course, Governments set these bodies up with the idea of seeking their advice on these matters, but Governments have to have the responsibility for bringing legislation before the House and it is for Parliament to advise the Government through its procedures on what it thinks of the Government’s legislation.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, in my remarks I very advisedly quoted public legislation. I think it is a very rum do indeed that the organisations listed are clearly not being permitted to comment on this legislation. This raises huge matters of concern. In fact, looking at noble Lords, it adds to the concern that we feel about this legislation. Clearly, we will return. I am grateful to the Minister for the amendments that he will move. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Non-departmental Public Bodies

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Minister says that the reduction in number of public bodies is not driven by savings, but can I refer him to the statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office on 25 May which said that the savings resulting from the reduction in number of public bodies were anticipated to be £1 billion year on year? Will he admit to the House that the Government have found that enormous costs are associated with getting rid of the bodies? Why will he not answer the Question asked by my noble friend; namely, what is the actual figure for savings that the Government have come to?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I was asked a Question about the next spending review period, not about year on year. That is an important point to bear in mind. The Government have already announced that they will make £6 billion-worth of savings across departments. This has been outlined for the next spending review period. We will hear how it is worked out in the spending review tomorrow, when the Government will announce the tough decisions which need to be made. Reducing spending on quangos will contribute both to this year’s savings as well as those that will be announced tomorrow.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 11th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing forward this short debate and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been a good debate containing a great deal of wisdom, distilled and concentrated through the pressure of time. It is perhaps a good thing that it was moved from the dinner hour business, so that therefore we have had a little longer to speak. I shall just explain to noble Lords that the time constraints are laid down in the Companion. I hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss these matters at greater length on another occasion because the content of the debate has shown how justified that would be. After all, most noble Lords have an opinion on this subject and views are held with passion and conviction. I shall do my best to do justice to the speeches and hope that I shall be forgiven if I fail to cover every contribution and point raised. However, a number of specific ones were made and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy noble Lords opposite on them.

Several Members raised issues that might be described, as my noble friend Lord Elton observed, as commenting on the nature and character of the House and the style and manner in which it fulfils its purpose. Although not strictly speaking the terms of the debate, I understand why noble Lords consider those issues important and hope to be able to refer to them if I have time. The debate is on the purpose of the House of Lords, and many Members have given examples of what they think that is. The Government believe that its purpose can be summed up as threefold: first, to scrutinise legislation; secondly, to hold the Government to account—exactly the words used by my noble friend Lord Higgins; and, thirdly, to conduct investigations. I hope that this tallies with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. Indeed, I think that all noble Lords have shown agreement with those three principal purposes of the House.

I will say a little more on each of those in turn, but I will do so in a constitutional context which recognises the primacy of the elected House of Commons. That is the cornerstone of this country’s parliamentary system. The work of this House should complement that of the House of Commons. That was widely recognised by noble Lords. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that it is increasingly important that the two Houses work closely together, whatever the shape of this House.

Let us turn to the purposes in more detail. First, there is scrutinising of legislation. This House shares the role of law-making with the other place. However, this House, rightly, has a reputation for thorough and detailed scrutiny of legislation line by line. In the 2008-09 Session, Members spent 60 per cent of their time debating and scrutinising legislation. We made 1,824 amendments to Bills. It is a matter of pride in which all noble Lords will share that legislation leaves this Chamber much improved as a result of the thorough consideration it receives here.

I should like to tackle the canard laid by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Bach, about the arithmetic of this House. The arithmetic of this House has not been fundamentally altered by the existence of the coalition. After all, those on the Benches opposite greatly outnumber that of any other single party in this House. An argument will be won by winning the support of noble Lords across the House. It always has been so. Indeed, the Cross-Benchers are there to be influenced and their opinions supported. No Government have a majority in this House, even in coalition. It is argument that is sovereign, I like to think, in your Lordships’ House.

The second purpose is described as holding the Government to account. In their speeches, many noble Lords considered it to be key to the House to hold the Government to account. I guess that that is what is happening at the moment. In the Chamber, about 40 per cent of time is spent this way. Through Questions and debates, this House challenges the Executive and holds it to account. In the 2008-09 Session, noble Lords asked 484 Oral Questions and more than 5,500 Written Questions. Many noble Lords have stood at this Dispatch Box and can testify to the rigour with which noble Lords hold the Government to account. The partially reformed House has no doubt become more assertive, defeating the Government on average on 50 occasions per Session. Outside the Chamber, in the Grand Committee Room, a further purpose is conducting investigations. The Committees of this House are one of its great resources. Their membership draws on a wide range of experience, and their reports are influential and well respected.

While respecting tradition, the House of Lords has also been prepared to embrace change and look forward with a renewed purpose. We need procedures which will help us to continue to fulfil our purpose. Over the past 18 months, this House has made a number of changes to improve its ability to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Government to account—for example, the new approach we have adopted to scrutinise Law Commission Bills. I am sure that the Leader’s group chaired by my noble friend Lord Goodlad will look into the working practices of this House and will propose further improvements. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, considers that we should be clear about the purpose of the second Chamber before we consider further reform. I reassure him that the cross-party committee on which served my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will consider this issue with their colleagues. As part of their remit, they are considering the function and powers of a reformed second Chamber. There is no reason to suppose that their recommendations will impact on the conventions of the House without them being fully considered by that cross-party committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked about the working group to consider the constitutional implications of reform. I can confirm that it will be necessary to put the conventions on a statutory basis to reduce the powers of the second Chamber. A reformed second Chamber should have the powers that this House currently holds. The Government are not setting out to reduce the powers of this House. The cross-party group will be considering the conventions and codification as part of its deliberation. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who also asked about that issue.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Can the Minister confirm that on that basis the House after reform will be left with the powers as in the Parliament Acts, as opposed to the codification of the conventions?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not a member of the joint cross-party committee, but the advice I have is that that is the case, that the Parliament Acts will not necessarily be changed as a result of this and that the conventions under which the House currently operates will continue to be the framework in which a future House will operate. I hope that satisfies noble Lords’ curiosity on that point.

A further matter for the cross-party committee will be how to handle the potential risk to the expertise of the House in the independent Members. The committee will address outstanding issues, including the proportion of Members who should be elected. If the reformed second Chamber were mainly elected, there would still be a role for Cross-Benchers. As with the current House, Members of a reformed second Chamber could access expertise and experience in a number of ways, including via the committee system. The noble Baronesses, Lady Boothroyd and Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, asked what role there would be. If there is a mainly elected House, there would be a role for the Cross-Benchers.

Several noble Lords suggested that only an appointed second Chamber could continue to fulfil the functions and purposes of the House as the Government have described them. The Government do not accept that. We believe that elections will not undermine the ability of the House to fulfil its functions but will enhance it. There is no doubt that this House will continue to develop its role during its transition to a wholly or mainly elected Chamber. The Government recognise the need for an orderly process of transition from the current House to a reformed second Chamber. The Government are clear that this House performs its role well and can be proud of the work that it does. We strongly believe that there is not a noble Lord, whatever his or her views, who does not want the best for this House. The Government share this view and hope to have a constructive debate when we publish a Bill in draft early next year. I can assure noble Lords that there will be no pressure to rush pre-legislative scrutiny of this draft Bill. I can almost hear my noble friend the Leader of the House saying it in those terms. Indeed, I am sure that there will be many further opportunities to debate this issue, and I look forward to them.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, perhaps I may take the noble Lord through the timetable. Before the Summer Recess, the Government published a programme showing that they hoped that the Bill would go to the other place by November 2011. There is not much time between November 2011 and April/May 2012 for a Bill to go through both Houses. Can I assume from what he has said that the intention is that the timetable will be lengthier than that?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can assure the noble Lord that the pre-legislative process is extremely important. We cannot get a satisfactory resolution of this issue unless all parties to the discussion feel that they have a proper opportunity for debate and for giving their input. At the moment, a relatively small group of people is setting about the task with a purpose. The all-party committee is representative of the senior figures of this House and of the House of Commons. Its draft Bill is the material with which Members of this House will be able to debate and the whole process of pre-legislative scrutiny is vital if we are to get a proper solution to something for which I think that many Lords have indicated their support—that is, the reform of the House of Lords and the bringing about of an elected Chamber.

Government Efficiency

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 7th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Sir Philip Green’s review of government efficiency will include HM Revenue and Customs.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, Sir Philip Green has been appointed by the Prime Minister to lead an external efficiency review into government spending across all central government departments. Sir Philip will report before the end of the spending review to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Conservative Ministers have been very loud in their condemnation of benefit cheats but rather quieter about tax avoidance and tax evasion. Does the Minister really think that Sir Philip Green is the right man to study the efficiency of HMRC? Will he assure me that if there are to be cuts in HMRC’s expenditure, they will not impact on that department’s tax evasion and tax avoidance machinery?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, Philip Green was appointed by the Prime Minister on 13 August to review spending inefficiencies across all departments, not specifically HMRC, but of course HMRC is included in the sort of areas of government that he might be looking at. There is no question of Sir Philip Green having access to personal tax information or data. The view of the Government is that he is the right man for the job.