Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Judd and Lord Skelmersdale

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, I understand the rationale behind what the two noble Lords have said on the amendment but I would add a slightly cautionary note. Although we all enjoy walking on footpaths and we get irritated by bicycles, quad bikes, Land Rovers, et cetera, on paths that are not BOATs, there are those, such as disabled people, who are able to enjoy such footpaths only through the use of some sort of propelled vehicle. Although I readily understand that there is a need for control, I do not believe that it should be absolute and I look forward very much to listening to what my noble friend the Minister has to say on the working group that is proposed.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I very strongly support Amendment 17. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for putting it forward. It is constructive, public-spirited, responsible and sensible—just like the old Bradshaw’s timetables.

There is one caveat I want to make. There is an issue that we all have to face. Those of us who are able to enjoy remote and attractive areas must remember that there are very many people for whom this is not a practical possibility because of their physical condition. We all need to get our minds round the issue of how we can improve access for such people so that they are able to share in something that we all regard as precious. Of course, that has to be done by consultation and, if necessary, appropriate legislation and regulations, but it should be done in a sensible way, with the full co-operation and backing of the authorities that are responsible for a particular piece of land.

Having said that, the noble Lord put it in very moderate language but what he revealed is actually a nightmare. At times it can be described only as vandalism—if it were to happen in an urban area, there would be an outcry—despoiling and ruining decent, attractive countryside and making a hell for some people who are trying to enjoy that countryside in a quiet and peaceful way. In fact it can be quite a frightening experience for those who may be able—I count myself among those now—to just about make those areas, but who may have certain disabilities and so on which make them feel vulnerable. That is not least the case for those with loss of hearing, for whom the sudden noise and disturbance of these vehicles can be an unpleasant experience.

The issue is mainly about what is being done to places of special significance, scenically and in other ways. It is also about this “couldn’t care less” attitude—that it is left to somebody else to deal with and clear up, which is utterly selfish as well as being vandalism. We should all recognise that, and wish godspeed to the noble Lord’s amendment, because it is vital. I should of course declare an interest as patron and former president of Friends of the Lake District, and as vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks, but I assure you that the remarks I have made this evening come from the heart in terms of being a resident of one of the areas that has quite a number of beautiful things that can so easily be ruined and destroyed.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Judd and Lord Skelmersdale

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, I was in the happy position, as a humble Back-Bencher, of listening to my noble friend on the Front Bench taking that Act through, and I think she would agree that many of the arguments that we heard then have been repeated today by the noble Lords, Lord Christopher and Lord Rooker, and the right reverend Prelate, and she managed to satisfy them then. It is quite clear to me that what goes around comes around, and that today history—to an extent, anyway—is repeating itself.

As I said, 20-odd years ago I supported many of the things in this Bill, but I also supported an amendment similar to that of my noble friend Lord Borwick. I had better make the same declaration of non-interest as I did then: although a horticulturalist by training and the director of a mail-order firm in the industry, I have never had anything to do with garden centres other than as a student when I spent three weeks weeding plant pots. We do not even sell to garden centres, so to that extent I have no interest.

The reason why I supported an amendment then, and now, is that I am told by the Horticultural Traders Association that, in the past 20 years, by not allowing garden centres to be totally deregulated, my industry, which employs 28,400 people and contributes £9 billion to the UK economy, has missed out on a vast earning capacity that today amounts to £75 million, which, by virtue of the VAT element of such sales, means a loss of £15 million annually to the Exchequer. At a time when necessary cuts are made every day to public services, I have no doubt that another £15 million would come in very handy.

Tempting though it is, I will not repeat the facts that my noble friend stated in moving his amendment, but I will briefly outline what happened some 20 years ago. The amendment that I supported, and which was passed by your Lordships’ House, was to totally deregulate both garden centres and DIY shops. The Members of another place produced a very short reason for disagreeing with your Lordships: they did not consider it,

“desirable to exempt shops of the kind described in the amendment from restrictions on Sunday opening”.

It is clear from rereading Commons Hansard that MPs of those days believed that the amendment went too far by including shops that sold,

“materials and tools suitable for use in the construction, maintenance, repair or decoration of buildings”.—[Official Report, 30/6/94; col. 926.]

So Lord Hacking, who moved the original amendment, tabled another applying only to,

“trees, shrubs, plants, bulbs or seeds”,

or, “garden supplies or equipment”.

In the debate, the House again divided and the amendment was defeated, I believe for the following reasons: first, that on that day your Lordships had lost the opportunity for ping-pong; and secondly, that shops selling those products also—as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, just pointed out just—sell a whole range of other products, such as books, furniture and paint, to name but a few. It would have been an enormous job for local authority inspectors to ascertain whether the shop in question was “wholly or mainly”, to use the words in the Act, selling the products in question.

As I said, all that was 20 years ago. Membership of your Lordships’ House has changed drastically in that time and, after several general elections, so has the composition of another place. It is certainly time to ask the Commons once again. I hope that my noble friend will pursue this through to Report. He may well be successful in this House, but I would caution him quite seriously, as noble Lords opposite have done, not to use such a broad term as garden centres. To my mind, the term needs to be refined.

While I am on my feet, I have are two things that I should like to pick up. First, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, appreciated that the words “wholly or mainly” are actually in the Act, so will cover such exemptions. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that, under the Act, shops are allowed to open for only six hours between the hours of 10 am and 6 pm. If I were a gardener, it is quite likely that I would like to go and buy my bulbs, seeds or whatever at 8.30 am or 9 am on a Sunday. That is one of the reasons why deregulation should at the very least be considered in this area.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. One of the things that strikes me forcefully is that the existing legislation was introduced in the context of a lot of controversy, argument and differing points of view. It has prevailed, to good effect, for a good number of years now, and those who crafted the Bill, introduced it and took it through the House should be commended. It represents the fruitful outcome of consensus-building in an open democracy at its best. We should be very wary of beginning to unpick that consensus and agreement, which involved a lot of hard work, by seemingly innocent little steps in this direction or that. The fact is that the proposed amendment is a breach in the existing law and the principles and understanding that lie behind it.

My second point refers back to my noble friend Lord Christopher. In his significant office and responsibilities, Vincent Cable used very specific words. At the very least, I would expect from the Government in their reply to this debate, in words of one syllable, a statement about whether they are now repudiating the work and undertaking of Vincent Cable on whether coalition policy applies in this sphere. It is quite simple: a Secretary of State has given a solemn and firm undertaking and this Bill runs against that undertaking. From that standpoint, we need a very specific and clear response from the Government in their reply.

For all sorts of reasons, I find myself in line with the thoughts of the right reverend Prelate. But you do not have to come from his position, or indeed mine, to see the social significance of the prevailing legislation. We live in a society that is becoming increasingly boring in the sense that everything is the same all the time and there is a feeling of playing to the lowest common denominator all the time. In the richness of life, the principle of contrast between the six days and the seventh day is very important, whether you are religious or not. It introduces a rhythm into life, which is terribly important for the fulfilment of people psychologically as well as physically.