Incidental Flooding and Coastal Erosion (England) Order 2011
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 5 September be approved.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 17 October.
Defra: Research and Development
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, the Government continue to invest heavily in research and development in these areas through the research councils, the Technology Strategy Board, Defra and its network and other Government departments. Much of the investment is co-ordinated through large national and international partnerships and is currently supporting world-class basic and applied research to meet the challenge of increasing sustainable food production.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his response, I remind the House of my family’s farming interests. Given the excellent basic research to which the Minister referred, what are the Government doing to get this into practical use on farms?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, my noble friend will know that the Government have taken on board the findings of the Taylor review, which is a commitment of Defra’s business plan. As the Minister responsible for science and research in the department, I can assure her that the issue is high on the department’s agenda.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most vital aspects of effective food production is the success of the honey-bee in this country? Does he agree that the honey-bee is currently under threat in a variety of ways, including from the Varroa mites, which may or may not cause colony collapse disorder, and, now we learn, from the probable arrival of the Asian hornet? Will he reassure the House that research funding into the survival of honey-bee colonies will be maintained and will he also stress, wherever possible, the importance of domestic bee-keeping—I speak as the mother and the daughter of domestic bee-keepers—particularly in cities and towns?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I assure the noble Baroness that this is high on the agenda. Indeed, as she probably knows, the Government are funding a pollinator programme—not just bees but other pollinating insects are vital for the biodiversity that we are seeking to maintain. I have seen for myself the work being done at FERA in York, where not only are the problems affecting bees being looked at, but we are very alert to the Asian hornet and the threat that that poses. I have personal acquaintance with such insects from when I occasionally visit France, so I know that they are a real threat to bee-keepers and honey production.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, my interests are already fully declared in your Lordships’ Register. Does the Minister agree that the number of farmers has declined sharply in recent years, particularly dairy producers? Is there not, therefore, a need for research on higher value crops to be made known to farmers? Perhaps some of these could replace some imports.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I come from a horticultural background so am very much acquainted with the enormous potential for import substitution in these markets. I would like to think that the progress that is being made in yield increases from dairy cows is the sort of thing that we can see sustainably projected across the whole of agriculture. However, we need to be aware that it affects the number of viable herds in this country. That is one of the consequences of this investment in this area. However, the noble Lord is correct that giving farmers the knowledge to achieve these challenges is the most important thing.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, Defra has to make some policy decisions shortly about grass-fed dairy herds as opposed to the environmental and welfare benefits of having intensive indoor dairies. It called for tender bids for research in this area, which resulted in,
“none of the bids fully meeting the Department’s thorough evidence requirements”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/10/11; col. 1399W.]
In that case, will Defra call for bids to be retendered or will it make policy in a vacuum?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is certainly not my intention to make policy in a vacuum. All policy decisions in Defra on the science front are based on evidence. That, indeed, is a principle which we apply to decision-making in general. I would like to reassure my noble friend on that point.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, given the Minister’s personal commitment and expertise in this area, I want to be helpful to him in pressing him on the issue. The Secretary of State Caroline Spelman signed up to the G20 communiqué on food security in Paris last June, which calls on countries to invest more in innovation in food science. On the one hand it appears that her department has plans to encourage more research and development, but at the same time she is cutting the overall research and development budget by 27 per cent. Why does Defra sign up to international commitments calling on action from other Governments which it has no intention of meeting in this country? Why is it saying one thing and doing another?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think the noble Lord is making the mistake of taking a particular aspect of Defra’s activity and not realising that, strategically, the Government have a great focus on the whole need to raise the game. We will need to double world food production by 2050. We shall be able to do that only with science as an ally. The thrust across government, and the whole thrust of the Taylor review, was about leveraging the Government’s investment as a whole in this area. We will be spending £1 billion on R&D in the Living with Environmental Change Partnership and £440 million on global food security.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, given the desperate need for better agricultural extension in the UK, does the Minister agree that this is as much about learning the lessons of environmental best practice—I refer particularly to soil degradation in this context—as it is about agricultural invention? If we wish the growth in the nation’s agricultural productivity to continue, we must better align environmental research with technical research and not treat them as two separate entities, as is currently the case.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, we must do that not only in this country but globally, because the problems of water and soil degradation are universal. We are mindful of this.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior
My Lords, in the promised development of agricultural research, especially in the field of livestock health, will the Minister pay attention to some of the more chronic diseases that are less spectacular than the ones we generally know about—such as foot rot in sheep, mastitis in dairy cattle and parasitism in all production animals?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing to the attention of the House the whole issue of animal health. My right honourable friend David Willetts is going down to Pirbright, where there has been considerable investment. These issues are indeed on the agenda.
Incidental Flooding and Coastal Erosion (England) Order 2011
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Incidental Flooding and Coastal Erosion (England) Order 2011.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, Sections 38 and 39 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 allow the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards to carry out works to manage flooding; coastal erosion or water levels for the benefit of nature conservation, including the conservation of the landscape); and the preservation of cultural heritage or peoples’ enjoyment of the environment or cultural heritage.
These powers were required because the definition of flood and coastal erosion risk management in Part 1 of the Act empowers authorities only to undertake measures to reduce the harmful effects of flooding or erosion; whereas some of the work that is required for environmental and recreational purposes involves the management of flooding, water levels and erosion to gain the beneficial effects of those processes.
Sections 38(8) and 39(12), commenced on 18 January this year, require the Minister to make an order applying the provisions of compensation, powers of entry and compulsory purchase in the Water Resources Act 1991 to Sections 38 and 39 of the Flood and Water Management Act, with or without modifications.
The purpose of the order is twofold: first, to protect the rights of occupiers and property owners who could be affected; and, secondly, to ensure that authorities have the necessary ancillary provisions. The order works by applying relevant provisions in the Water Resources Act 1991 with appropriate textual modifications to Sections 38 and 39 of the Flood and Water Management Act. However, it is important to understand that the provisions of the Water Resources Act are not amended by this order. I will now outline how each of the provisions will work and why they are necessary.
First, the order applies the compensation provisions in the Water Resources Act so that if any loss is suffered as a result of the use of powers under Sections 38 or 39, the relevant authority would be liable fully to compensate the injured party. This is necessary to protect the interests of landowners and occupiers. Before any work was undertaken, all necessary permissions and consents, such as planning permission, would need to be secured. Compensation would then be paid for any loss caused in the course of carrying out the work. Sums would be calculated on a case-by-case basis. If the person affected was not satisfied with the compensation offered, they could appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
Secondly, powers of entry are necessary to provide safeguards for landowners and occupier as well as for the authority, when an operator needs to undertake work on a third party’s land. The local authority or Environment Agency would write to the landowner or occupier notifying him of its intention to enter land. The notification would explain the nature and timing of the works and the entitlement to compensation in the event that any loss is suffered. The order requires a minimum notice period of seven days before entering agricultural land. This is a modification of how provisions in the Water Resources Act apply to Sections 38 and 39 of the Flood and Water Management Act. It makes the minimum notice period for agricultural land the same as that required for residential premises.
Compulsory purchase powers are needed so that an authority can, when necessary, obtain proprietary interests in land in order to protect its investment and ensure that works can be maintained. Powers of compulsory purchase can be exercised only with the express authority of the Minister. In all cases, the authority or agency would try to purchase by agreement before seeking ministerial authority to exercise its powers. The Environment Agency’s powers of compulsory purchase are limited in this order to purchases necessary for the purpose of enabling the United Kingdom to comply with its obligations under specified European directives—the water framework directive, the habitats directive or the wild birds directive.
Landowners and occupiers have rights under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 to oppose the compulsory purchase. This includes provision for a public local inquiry, which may decide whether or not to allow the purchase or modify any particulars. If a landowner is still not satisfied, he may challenge the decision in the High Court.
I commend the draft regulations to the Grand Committee.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I know that that has been done on the Floor of the House by the various Benches, but I wanted to add my personal congratulations. It was an excellent appointment. I am sure that the good work that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has done will continue.
The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the Pitt review. Given that this is a short session, it would be useful to hear just of couple of headlines on how the Government view the Pitt review and whether they foresee any primary legislation coming forward in that area in due course.
The order makes a lot of sense, because it is clear that certain flooding is good for the environment. If flooding was prevented, there would be environmental and ecological degradation. Given that Sections 38 and 39 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 can be implemented only in relation to the powers of compensation, access and compulsory purchase, is the Minister satisfied that the right balance has been struck between there being a heavy responsibility on the authorities to undertake this work and the power of the landowner?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for the clarity with which he set out the order. That was most helpful given that it is very difficult to get any clarity from reading it. That is why we have an Explanatory Memorandum—I thank the Minister’s officials for the clarity with which that has been set out. I also congratulate the Government on listening to the concerns expressed by the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association in bringing forward the order, which I certainly support.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I was interested in paragraph 7.6, on consolidation, in the Explanatory Memorandum. I would be interested in any news on when that consolidation of the Act might happen in response to the Pitt review.
I tried to work out the taxpayer liability from the impact assessment. I understand that a notional 100 hectares is being discussed in the Explanatory Memorandum because it is difficult to predict how much land will be affected by erosion. Am I right in calculating that 100 hectares—the equivalent of one square kilometre—would generate a cost of £2,000 per annum, or have I misread the way the sums work? With that question, I am very happy for the order to go forward.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank noble Lords for their comments. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his pleasant greetings. He asked how the legislation related to the Pitt review. He and I were both around when the Act on which the statutory instrument is based went through this House. He will know that it was a foreshortened Bill; the water provisions were relatively limited within it. The Government, however, have made it quite clear that there will be a water White Paper shortly—it is likely to be published within the next six months. We will bring forward a Bill, probably within this Parliament, to legislate in the whole area of water and water management. It is important not just for issues raised by Pitt but also for the consumer interest in water.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked me about the cost of the provision. I can assure him that his estimate of £2,500 per annum is about right. He also asked whether the whole business of consolidation might be considered. The Government are still committed to this, but he will know how difficult it is to get legislative time. However, this is something the Government will seek to do, if at all possible, within this Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked me if the balance was about right. He would expect me to say, and I do, that I think the balance is about right. This is a question of a balance of differing interests, and the statutory instrument has got it about right. It does contain the necessary provisions to protect the interests of those who would be affected, and the minimum required to allow local authorities, internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency to use, where appropriate, the powers provided by Sections 38 and 39 of the Water Management Act.
I hope that I have managed to cover all the points raised. I am particularly happy to present this order. I beg to move.
Proposed National Policy Statement for Hazardous Waste
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the proposed National Policy Statement for Hazardous Waste.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, I welcome this debate on the Government’s Draft National Policy Statement for Hazardous Waste. Hazardous waste still arises in significant amounts. Even in the current economic situation, almost 3.8 million tonnes was produced in 2010. Arisings may increase further as the European Union introduces new definitions that may mean that more wastes are classified as hazardous in future. As hazardous waste can cause harm to human health or the environment if not effectively managed, it is vital that we have sufficient facilities to manage it safely and sustainably.
Our main objectives for the management of hazardous waste are to protect human health and the environment from the risks that may be posed by inadequate management of hazardous waste, and to encourage the development of facilities that allow the management of hazardous waste in a safe and sustainable manner. There is scope to recycle or recover more hazardous waste than we do at present. For example, used lubricants can be converted back into base lubricating oil if processed to a very high level, and some contaminated soil can be treated to extract oils and other useful substances. However, there remain hazardous wastes such as asbestos where there is no viable recycling or recovery option or where the substances in the waste are potentially so dangerous that sending them for final disposal is really the only option.
It is a matter of policy as well as a legal requirement that England should have a range of facilities and plant for the recovery of hazardous waste to help meet the country’s needs. We believe that the market provides the best means of ensuring that adequate waste infrastructure develops, as it is industry, spurred on by the market, that has the expertise required to consider where facilities are needed and the appropriate technologies to use. Our role as a Government is to provide a clear steer on the types of facility needed and the framework within which the infrastructure is to be provided. We want to ensure that within this framework there is scope for innovation—an approach welcomed by industry.
The economies of scale needed to be viable mean that they are more likely to serve national need than facilities for other types of waste. Nationally significant infrastructure such as larger hazardous waste facilities has historically encountered some difficulties in obtaining planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act system because there will inevitably be a conflict between local concerns on the possible impact of the development and the national interest.
Applications for nationally significant infrastructure run a high risk of being refused by the local authority and being referred to a planning inquiry. These inquiries can go on for many months while the need for the facility is established and this can deter the waste management industry from putting forward proposals for the nationally significant infrastructure we need. It is for this reason that the Planning Act 2008 has established a new planning system for the determination of applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure. Under this system, decisions will be taken centrally for infrastructure serving national need. National policy statements are an integral part of this new planning system and the national policy statement for hazardous waste will provide a framework document for planning decisions on nationally significant infrastructure for hazardous waste. Although decisions will be made centrally, there will still be many opportunities for local concerns to be taken into account. Applicants are required to consult the local area before submitting any applications for development consent. The decision-maker will refuse to accept an application if it considers that the consultation has not been adequate. There will also be opportunities for the local community and other key groups to make their concerns known while the application is being assessed. The system will therefore allow the views of local communities to be well represented and properly taken into account, while decisions will be taken by elected Ministers, taking account of both local concerns and national needs.
When we talk about nationally significant hazardous waste infrastructure, we mean very large facilities. The Planning Act 2008 covers new facilities with a total annual capacity to manage more than 30,000 tonnes of hazardous waste and more than 100,000 tonnes for landfill. These thresholds are set out in the Planning Act 2008. The Act will also cover expansions to existing facilities where they increase capacity by more than these amounts. The Draft National Policy Statement for Hazardous Waste reflects our objectives for the management of hazardous waste. It will both guide the decision-maker on how applications for development consent for such projects should be assessed and provide real clarity to potential investors on the sort of facilities that the Government would like to see being developed. It will apply only in England. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland planning consents for all nationally significant hazardous waste projects are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively and therefore do not form part of this NPS.
Many potential benefits could be realised through the development of the hazardous waste facilities set out in this national policy statement. The decision-maker will need to take these into account, while still taking full account of any potential adverse impacts. The planning system operates in the public interest to ensure that the location of proposed development is acceptable. In considering applications for development consent for nationally significant hazardous waste infrastructure, the decision-maker will need to take account of a variety of environmental, social and economic impacts at national, regional and local levels. Modern, appropriately located, well run and well regulated waste management facilities are operated in line with current pollution control techniques and standards and should pose little risk to human health and the environment.
The NPS has been subjected to an appraisal of sustainability. The appraisal has assessed the potential impacts of the policy set out in the national policy statement and has concluded that, overall, the national policy statement would have a broadly positive effect on the sustainability issues identified. We have worked closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that the statement is fit for purpose and consistent with other national policy statements.
The NPS for Hazardous Waste is out for public consultation until 20 October and is undergoing scrutiny by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. We will carefully consider any recommendations made by that committee, the outcome of consultation and the issues raised in this debate before revising the policy statement prior to what is called “designation”—the final publication of the NPS.
This debate is to discuss whether the Draft National Policy Statement for Hazardous Waste fulfils its requirements under the Planning Act and is fit for purpose. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this may have been a concise debate but it has been very thorough. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord Addington, for their contribution. I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as a stand-in for anyone, but if I appeared to choke at a particular moment it was when he referred to policy wonks and I happened to look up at the Annunciator and see that my noble friend Lord Greaves was speaking in the Chamber. My noble friend Lord Greaves has long been by my side in debates on these sorts of subjects, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Addington would not seek to represent himself as a stand-in for him.
I have listened with interest to all that has been said. I said at the beginning that this matter is in consultation at this moment. This debate will form part of that consultation, in the sense that we are determined to make this into as good and effective a document as we can. It is an important part of our commitment to sustainability in managing hazardous waste. It will provide the clarity on the Government’s intentions for the management of hazardous waste that the industry needs in order to bring forward proposals for the development of facilities that will allow us to drive the management of hazardous waster up the waste hierarchy. The detailed guidance set out for both applicants and decision-makers will help to ensure that decisions for applications for development consent for all these major facilities are undertaken in a way that properly takes account of both potential benefits and potential adverse effects, are sustainable and are in line with government objectives.
I shall address some of the points made by noble Lords in this debate, and I thank them for the opportunity to clarify some matters. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, sought an explanation of how materials were defined as being hazardous. He correctly pointed out that the list is EU-wide. It is not the Government’s intention to add to it on a voluntary basis because that could indeed disadvantage UK industry to the benefit of our European competitors. A level playing field is the whole point of having a Europe-wide procedure. However, there is nothing to stop the processing of identified hazardous materials at a hazardous waste site. For example, the noble Lord mentioned the issue of lithium batteries.
The needs case is fundamental to the NPS. We believe that the needs case set out in the NPS is robust and fully takes account of our expectations for hazardous waste arisings during the shelf life of this NPS. I made it clear yesterday that this will be reviewed after a five-year period. The industry has also said that it is about right. It is of course possible that an unexpected need will emerge, and we will have to consider the scope of the NPS by making some provision for that in the statement.
The thresholds, of course, must be set at the right level. There have been some suggestions that 30,000 tonnes is too low and that 50,000 tonnes might be better, but we need to get an infrastructure that serves a national rather than a more regional or local need. The thresholds are set out in the Planning Act and have of course been considered and agreed by Parliament. The levels chosen were based on an assessment of the capacity of a typical treatment plant for hazardous waste serving more than simply a regional need, and were right at the time. They were put into the Planning Act. However, we will take note of any concerns about levels chosen and it is open to us to amend them by order if this proves to be justified.
There will be concerns about the potential impacts of these facilities, and my noble friend Lord Addington drew attention to the sensitivity of considering the location of these plants. However, modern, appropriately located, well run and well regulated facilities that are operated in line with current pollution control techniques and standards should pose little risk. The NPS has been subject to an appraisal of sustainability. This shows that the policy set out in it has the potential to provide an overall positive impact. There will clearly be many benefits from the provision of new facilities that allow the more sustainable management of hazardous waste. There is also the potential for some negative impacts, depending on the exact location and technology used, but individual projects will be subject to further assessment, and the NPS will guide the decision-maker on how to weigh these impacts against any potential negative impacts in order to be able to take sustainable decisions.
There has been some concern that the system set out in the Planning Act whereby decisions for nationally significant infrastructure are taken out of the town and country planning system and decided centrally will not sufficiently take account of local interests. Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Knight, because he asked me to define this. I have some text here that would be useful in terms of definition. The Planning Act system nevertheless offers the opportunity for local concerns to be taken into account. Under the Planning Act, applicants are required to publish a statement setting out how they will undertake consultation in a local area, and do so on that basis before they submit any applications for development consent. They must tell the decision-maker the results of the consultation, and the decision maker will refuse to accept the application if it considers that the consultation has not been adequate. There will also be opportunities for the local community and other key groups—we are thinking of neighbourhood planning forums and neighbourhood plans—to make their concerns known while the application is being assessed. All interested parties will be invited to a preliminary meeting and invited to attend a hearing where they will have a further opportunity to make their views known. The system will allow the views of local communities to be well represented and properly taken into account. It forms part of the process on which the decision-maker has to be satisfied.
It is absolutely right that decisions for infrastructure that will benefit the nation are taken centrally, and I welcome the general agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on that. However, local issues are very important and potential developers will need to undertake the sort of comprehensive consultation that I have indicated prior to submitting their applications, and they will have to report the outcome to the decision maker. There will be opportunities for local interests to make their views known while the decision-maker is considering an application, and for them to attend relevant hearings. Local interests are key to trying to ensure that local communities can buy in to a decision made in the national interest.
As to why it will ultimately be Communities and Local Government Ministers who take decisions on hazardous waste infrastructure rather than my own department, this merely maintains the status quo. Historically, where applications were made under the Town and Country Planning Act system, they would be referred to the Planning Inspectorate, and CLG Ministers would make the decisions. We considered making a change, because hazardous waste is in effect a Defra responsibility, but it was concluded that there was merit in final decisions being taken by CLG Ministers since CLG has lead responsibility for planning issues. CLG Ministers would therefore be in the best position to make an impartial judgment on whether a proposed facility was an acceptable use of the land, taking into account all planning considerations. Other departments may do things differently for perfectly legitimate reasons. It is not a case of one size fits all, so there might be circumstances where another department took a different view from that of Defra.
On compatibility with the national planning policy framework, the principles of NPS and the NPPF are broadly compatible. Both have a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy in the NPS on how the impacts of development should be assessed and taken into account in decision-making has been based on relevant planning policies set out in planning policy statements and older-style planning policy guidance. The draft NPPF streamlines existing planning policy into a consolidated set of priorities. It sets out the Government’s requirements for the planning system only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. However, it remains broadly consistent with current planning policy and with those elements of the NPS dealing with planning policy on the impacts of development. Of course, detailed waste planning policies are not included in the draft NPPF and instead continue to be addressed by Planning Policy Statement 10. The policies in the NPS remain broadly consistent with that pre-existing document.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, said that we could have taken the opportunity here to merge the planning and permitting systems. However, the two systems have different objectives. The object of the planning system is to consider whether the proposed use or development of the land is in the public interest and the potential impacts of it. It will also consider wider impacts such as that from increased traffic, the potential loss of any other amenity from the land and the visual impact of the facility. The objective of the environmental permitting system, on the other hand, is to protect human health and the environment by controlling emissions and discharges throughout the lifetime of the facility, through its design, operation, decommissioning and closure phases. It addresses other matters not germane to the planning function such as the nature and competence of the operator, the technologies employed, pollution monitoring requirements, record-keeping and other requirements emanating from a wide range of EU directives. Given these different objectives, it is entirely appropriate that the processes are kept separate, although it is recognised that there are matters of common interest. We will look at the noble Lord’s suggestions on matters such as consistency of language, and we are committed also to looking at timing and synchronisation. The noble Lord made the point that, for the sake of applicants, there is a lot to be said for the synchronisation of the procedure, with the two channels running together.
The decision-maker will need to be assured that development consent can be granted, taking full account of environmental impacts. The IPC and its successors—as the noble Lord pointed out, the Secretary of State—will therefore need to work closely with the Environment Agency and other relevant bodies. This happens now under the Town and Country Planning Act system and we are not aware that it causes any difficulty.
This NPS is only at the draft stage. It is still up for consultation and is undergoing scrutiny by the EFRA Committee. We will need to consider the committee’s recommendations and the results of consultation before preparing the final version of the NPS for approval by Parliament. And, of course, we will consider the points that have been made during this debate.
Rural Payments Agency
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare an interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, the RPA undertakes a number of important regulatory functions, including livestock tracing and inspections, as well as making payments totalling £2.2 billion each year to farmers and traders, supporting sustainable agriculture and the countryside. Over the past year, important steps have been taken towards turning the RPA into the customer-focused agency we all wish to see. Costs have been reduced while customer satisfaction scores have increased, and good progress has been made in tackling some of the legacy issues.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that. I agree with him that the Rural Payments Agency, which used to be chaotic, is a good deal better and more sensible now than it was then. One could go further. Perhaps I could suggest to him that the big question now for the RPA and for Defra should be: how will British farmers be affected in the common agricultural policy reform that will happen in two years’ time, when the new EU budget comes into force? Doubtless, there will be a lot of struggling at that moment as to who gets what. France is likely to end up with much more than England. Is this not an area where first-class thinking and planning should start now if our farmers are to be paid anything like the Rural Payments Agency money that they get at the moment?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I would like to think that I can reassure my noble friend that of course we shall bring first-class thinking to the challenge of this issue. This is not the listed topical Question, but it has certainly turned out to be topical because the Commission published its proposals for the reform of the CAP this morning. We are certainly going to be very much engaged in the negotiations and discussions that will take place around these proposals. Our priority will be to ensure that reform encourages competitive and sustainable EU agriculture through a system that is simple and transparent for both farmers and the RPA to operate.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to his much deserved ministerial appointment. In this House, we knew him to be a flexible listening Whip, and we look forward to more of the same in his ministerial guise. I also want to record our thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as he moves on to the Home Office.
The Rural Payments Agency has had its ups and downs over the past few years, but it performs a crucial role in getting payments from the common agricultural policy to farmers. Your Lordships have just heard that the EU Commission announced reform to the CAP this morning. Like the NFU and the CLA, we on this side are disappointed that these proposals from the Commission are a missed opportunity. The rhetoric of radical reform has turned into a tired compromise, letting down both UK farmers and our natural environment. Given that consensus, what promises can the Minister make to farmers, and to others concerned about the natural environment, that the Government will use what influence they can muster from the margins of Europe to improve this reform as it goes through the Council of Ministers?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I am afraid that, as a departmental Minister, the room for flexibility is perhaps not as great as it was, but I shall do my best. We have been building alliances within the European community on CAP reform. I think many other countries will be just as disappointed as we are with what appears to be a very retrograde and regressive proposal from the Commission at this stage. Our job is to negotiate, as the noble Lord rightly said, to try to build alliances and to place not just the farmer or the countryside but even the consumer interest at the fore. That is certainly our position. That is what we intend to do, and I hope we have the support of the whole House in achieving that.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Taylor on his accession to the portfolio which he dealt with in opposition with such competence and in his usual friendly manner. I look forward to him holding this job for quite a long time because he will do a very good one.
Because of other things going on this morning, I have not had a chance to look in detail at the proposals from the Commission, but does the Minister agree that it is very important to prevent the opinions and forces in this country that would like to abolish the common agricultural policy and the payments altogether? They are not the way forward. Without a reasonable level of support to British farmers, combined with the cross-compliance conditions on the environment and animal welfare and the Pillar 2 schemes, such as the environmental stewardship schemes, the British countryside would be a much worse place.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Undoubtedly my noble friend is absolutely right. That is the purpose of our discussions, that is what our focus will be in negotiations, and that is why we are going into the negotiations in a positive frame of mind: to try to achieve the changes to the CAP which we think are in the interests of the people of this country.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Minister on his appointment. We on these Benches have found that he has always been very helpful and flexible. I was encouraged by his initial Answer to the Question but, as he will know, difficulties with the Rural Payments Agency have led to significant levels of stress. I gather that the Farm Crisis Network estimates that 55 per cent of its cases of problems and issues have come from the single farm payment. What lessons have been learnt from these experiences to ensure that these problems are not repeated?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We have treated this from the beginning as a very serious focus of interest. My right honourable friend Jim Paice has headed up the oversight board, which meets every six weeks and monitors progress, and there is no doubt that the performance of the RPA has improved remarkably. It is not perfect, but it is getting there, and I hope that people will acknowledge that.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, what has been the principal factor in securing this higher efficiency within the agency? Has there been a contribution from Workington?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
From Workington? I am sorry; I should have realised the noble Lord’s connection, and I apologise for not picking that up. I am sure there has been a contribution from Workington, but there has also been a contribution from many other people involved in making this body a more responsive, speedier and easier-to-use organisation for farmers.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(1) A Minister may make an order under sections 1 to 5 only if the Minister considers that the order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions, having regard to—(a) efficiency,(b) effectiveness,(c) economy, and(d) securing appropriate accountability to Ministers.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, government Amendments 60A, 69A and 69B in this group are an important contribution to the Bill. They are designed to respond to the criticism of the Delegated Powers Committee that the Bill as drafted did not sufficiently define the purpose for which orders might be brought forward. In challenging the Government to provide such purpose, the committee sought a safeguard against the abuse of the powers that the Bill would grant to Ministers. I am happy to be able to respond to that challenge.
Amendment 60A establishes a purpose for the use of the main order-making powers of the Bill by amending Clause 8. If the amendment is accepted, Ministers will be able to make an order only if they consider that it,
“serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions”.
In making that assessment, a Minister would be required to have regard to the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the amendment.
While I appreciate that the purpose as defined in Amendment 60A is relatively broad, I trust that noble Lords will appreciate why this is the case. During the numerous debates in Committee and on Report on the bodies listed in the Bill, the Government have demonstrated their intent to take forward a wide range of reforms. These include the cessation of unnecessary functions and bodies, the mergers of bodies to improve efficiency and the delivery of some functions outside the state sector, including through charities. What links these otherwise disparate reforms is the Government’s clear imperative to create a rationalised public bodies landscape in which necessary functions are delivered in an appropriate and effective manner. The purpose of Amendment 60A is to articulate this goal and to ensure that an order cannot be brought forward for a purpose outside the intended scope of the Bill as debated fully in Parliament.
Amendment 61ZA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart, would require that Ministers could bring forward an order only if they were satisfied that it met one of the objectives in subsection (1). I am not able to support this amendment because, as I have described, there is a single overarching objective in that subsection. However, I can assure my noble friend that Ministers will be required to have regard to each of the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the subsection when making an order.
Amendment 60B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would remove efficiency from the list of matters to which a Minister must have regard when considering whether an order would meet the purpose specified in Amendment 60A. I understand the noble Lord’s argument that, in practice, efficiency and economy are closely linked. None the less, the Government envisage circumstances in which an order might increase efficiency in the exercise of functions while not producing a significant economy. For example, the merger of the Pensions Ombudsman and the ombudsman for the board of the Pension Protection Fund will not produce a significant cost saving, as the bodies already to all intents and purposes operate as a single entity. However, their formal merger in statute will support a more efficient public bodies landscape by streamlining the legislative basis for their retained functions.
Amendments 69A and 69B provide a mechanism through which the Government would be held accountable for meeting the requirement in Amendment 60A. They add a requirement to the procedure set out in Clause 11 that will require the Explanatory Note accompanying any order to explain why and how the Minister considers the order to meet the purpose described in Amendment 60A. I hope that these amendments will assist the committees of both Houses in considering whether the orders made under this Bill fit the criteria that the Bill now describes.
Amendment 60AB has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree. I am afraid to say that my noble friend is not very well and cannot be with us today, but I hope that the House will excuse me if I address the issues that he raised because I am sure that he wants to know the Government’s reactions to his amendment. The amendment’s intentions are laudable and, as the noble Lord pointed out in Committee, at the heart of the coalition Government’s approach. The amendment would add fairness, openness, transparency and justice to the list of matters to be considered under Clause 8(1). I remain unable to support the amendment’s inclusion in the Bill simply because we believe that it would add an additional and, for the purpose of legislation, quite abstract evidential burden.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I did not want to object to my noble friend contributing to the debate but I felt like asking him whether he was going to be helpful. However, he has been helpful, and so have all noble Lords who have spoken. This debate has been illustrative of the discussions we have had on the Bill and gives me an opportunity, in winding up, to answer some of the questions that have been raised. I am pleased with the general welcome that has been given not only to changes made to the Bill, for which I am extremely grateful and modestly so, but also to the amendments that we are considering today.
The Bill team has been much exercised about the changes to Clause 8; it has not been an easy thing to get together. There is always a gap between precision on the one hand and abstract concepts on the other. We do not want the clause to be a prison which makes it difficult for the Bill to be used to reform public bodies, which I think is desired across the House, nor do we want it to be open to challenge. I have a slight interest in music. I always like triplets; they add something to things. This triplet of alliterative words can be seen as being a duplication of meaning or as being an extension of meaning across a range of measurable indicators to which Ministers will have to have regard. That cannot be said of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree, in which he introduced his more abstract concepts. There is a difficulty in that sense in that the definitions would be harder to pin down and more open to challenge than would be the case with those enshrined in Amendment 60A. It is true to say that even these are broadly defined precisely because the Government are proposing a wide range of reforms. However, the important point to note is that Ministers will be required explicitly to set out in an explanatory document accompanying any order why they believe the order will improve the exercise of public functions. I think the House agrees that that is very important and a great step forward.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was disappointed that we were not seeking to adopt my noble friend’s amendment but the breadth of the definitions involved would complicate the exercise of functions under the Bill. The most important thing is to ensure that, in exercising functions, we have the right checks so that Parliament can judge the issue using more measurable indicators. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, that the measure does indeed impose an abstract evidential burden. However, there is a discipline on Ministers, and that is very important. The key here is the explanatory document in which a Minister must justify why he considers that the order meets the objective in Clause 8.
I hope that I have explained to my noble friend Lord Phillips why I would like to keep in all three words. They merge and blur into each other. The English language lacks precision in relation to things such as economy, efficiency and effectiveness but, like most things, we know them when we see them. They can be defined by an observer who is skilled at looking at them. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will accept that I am not able to accept his amendment.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Maclennan that we do understand that he believes that any one of these things is sufficient. However, the fact that the three together have to be accounted for to Parliament in any order is the key to why we believe that Amendment 60A is sufficiently highly defined to assist Parliament in judging the orders when they come along.
I think the most interesting amendment to debate is the one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Indeed, I, too, received the briefing from the World Wildlife Fund. I have been on its mailing list ever since I challenged the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and, before that, on the Climate Change Bill. He and I know all about the Marine Management Organisation. It was something very close to my heart. Were the Marine Management Organisation to make an unreasonable decision that was not consistent with its aims and objectives—for example, if it showed bias—like any public body it would be subject to judicial review. My noble friend Lord Henley is here with me. I know that Defra does not propose to make sufficient changes to the basis of the MMO’s funding. Any changes made would be subject to the processes that the Bill sets in place. This would include, for example, any changes to the MMO’s funding.
The noble Baroness asked about functions in connection with Consumer Focus. Public functions are defined in Clause 25 as the statutory functions or functions under a royal charter. The order on Consumer Focus under Clause 1 will relate to its functions, including its statutory functions. Therefore, the purpose set out in Amendment 60A will apply. The Minister must consider,
“that the order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions”.
I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords on the matters that have been raised. I beg to move Amendment 60A.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
The amendment before the House at the moment is Amendment 60AA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
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.
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.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been an important debate and probably gets to the nub of how this particular Bill can be handled by Parliament and how the secondary legislation which it empowers can be properly scrutinised. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it.
In particular, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the bespoke scrutiny process that the Bill provides for is the proper one for Parliament, giving Parliament proper input into the shape of the secondary legislation. As noble Lords will know, it has been specifically designed for the Bill and included in government amendments. I am grateful for the support of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who has been prepared to give advice on the Bill and the particular constitutional challenge that it has presented, and for the support of my noble friends Lord Blackwell and Lord Eccles for the way in which they have recognised that the process that now exists in the Bill provides for a proper scrutiny process.
I start with Amendment 69, which was first debated in Committee on 9 March. I do not apologise for in effect repeating my remarks from that debate as this amendment is quite technical in nature. It would 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. While Clause 11 states that a Minister “may” lay a draft order and explanatory document, it would in practice not be possible to make an order without following this procedure. Our current drafting reflects the fact that, following a period of consultation, the Minister is not obliged to proceed with the proposal. To my mind, this appears right and proper. I think my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill indicated that this was his interpretation of the current wording.
On Amendment 69AA, tabled—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and sorry to interrupt. I was trying to grasp why one needed a discretion, and the Minister has indicated that one needs one because not every order will be required to go through this procedure. That is why it says “may” and not “must”. If that is the position, then I understand it.
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”.
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.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
As it is Report and we are not supposed to be arguing in this way on these matters, I hope the House will accept what I said. This is the advice that I have received and, indeed, the House has received from a number of noble and learned Lords—well, one noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords who might also be learned, but not in the parliamentary sense.
I move on—I will be on safer ground, perhaps—to look at Amendment 69AA, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It would require an explanation of why a Minister considers the order to be compatible with Clause 16(3), which refers to the need for an order to be proportionate to the reasons for it. We have not included such a provision within the Bill on the grounds that the explanatory document accompanying an order will set out the reasons for that order as a requirement of Clause 11. It will then be for Parliament to decide whether to approve an order and, if necessary, for the courts to assess subsequently whether an order is proportionate in relation to the reasons given.
As we know, my noble friend Lord Newton is not here, but I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke to my noble friend’s amendment, because Amendment 69D would require a Minister, when bringing forward an order under Clause 1, to set out whether any of the functions of a body to be abolished would continue and if so, where they would be exercised in future. I consider this amendment to be unnecessary as such information would as a matter of course form part of the consultation on the proposal required under Clause 10 and the reasons for the order required by Clause 11(2)(a), so we are back to the process of consultation and the explanatory document providing for that.
In connection with Consumer Focus, I remind the noble Lord that Clause 1 allows for the transfer of functions. We will be consulting on our proposals specifically in respect of Consumer Focus, as I have explained, later this year.
The effect of Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would be to clarify the date at which an order made under the Bill, if amended by Parliament, would come into force. I remind the noble Lord that there is currently no facility in the Bill for orders to be amended by Parliament, and I do not propose that such a facility should exist. However, I remind him that, under the enhanced affirmative procedure contained in the Bill, a Minister is at liberty to lay a revised order following the 60-day period. The Minister can take account of representations from Parliament and elsewhere in considering the form of the order as it proceeds.
The wording of Amendment 96 appears to be drawn from the Civil Contingencies Act—that was well spotted by someone, but not me—which was designed to create a framework for dealing with emergency regulations that necessarily circumvent the usual channels of parliamentary scrutiny. In such a specific circumstance, the argument for the amendability of orders is of a different order, but I do not believe that the Public Bodies Bill is of a comparable nature.
I turn to the question of the mechanism by which Parliament will scrutinise these orders, and specifically to whether the very unusual form of super-affirmative procedure proposed by Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is an appropriate mechanism for the Bill. When we last debated this matter in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, noted that I had been “forthright” in rejecting this proposal. I would not take issue with that assessment; I have told him privately of the red line that I see on this issue.
I am sure that by now the noble Lord is fully aware of the reasons why the Government will not accept this amendment. Accordingly, I ask the noble Lord to reflect on how far the Bill has come since we first debated this issue during the first Committee session. Since that time, a combination of the expert scrutiny of the committees of this House and a genuine willingness on the part of the Government to engage have led to a series of changes that have significantly restricted the scope of the powers that the Bill gives to Ministers. Government amendments on consultation and procedure have been accepted and now form part of the Bill, ensuring a robust and thorough scrutiny process. Clause 16 now firmly and objectively protects the necessary independence of some public functions—precisely those functions that had caused this House such concern during the early debates on the Bill. Schedule 7 and Clause 11, as was, have of course been removed, dramatically reducing at a stroke the scope of the Bill. The entries in the Bill’s schedules will now be sunset after five years, ensuring that bodies do not remain subject to the Bill’s powers in perpetuity. Lastly, and I take this to be most crucial, this House has thoroughly debated, in primary legislation, whether it is appropriate for each of the bodies in the schedules to be subject to the powers in the clauses to which those schedules apply. In some cases, this House has exercised its right to remove bodies from the schedules.
“(i) the order serves the purpose in section 8(1), and”
“(b) the Welsh devolved functions of the Environment Agency,(c) the Welsh devolved functions of the Forestry Commissioners, or(d) the functions of a Welsh Flood and Coastal Committee.”
“Powers relating to other bodies
(1) The Welsh Ministers may by order abolish any of the following—
(a) an agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee for an area in, or consisting of, Wales;(b) an agricultural wages committee for an area in, or consisting of, Wales;(c) the Environment Protection Advisory Committee established pursuant to section 12(6) of the Environment Act 1995 (Wales);(d) the regional and local fisheries advisory committee established pursuant to section 13(5) of that Act (Wales);(e) a regional advisory committee maintained under section 37(1)(b) of the Forestry Act 1967 for a conservancy in, or consisting of, Wales.(2) An order under subsection (1) may include provision transferring functions from the body being abolished to—
(a) the Welsh Ministers, or(b) any other person exercising Welsh devolved functions.(3) The Welsh Ministers may by order modify the funding arrangements of inspectors appointed by the Welsh Ministers under section 86 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (assessors for the enforcement of water quality).
(4) In subsection (3),the reference to modifying funding arrangements has effect as if the reference in section 4(2)(a) to a Minister were to the Welsh Ministers.
(5) The Welsh Ministers may by order do any of the following in relation to an internal drainage board for an area wholly or mainly in Wales—
(a) modify its constitutional arrangements;(b) modify its functions;(c) transfer any of its functions to—(i) the Welsh Ministers;(ii) any other person exercising Welsh devolved functions;(iii) a company limited by guarantee;(iv) a community interest company;(v) a body of trustees or other unincorporated body of persons.”(6) The Welsh Ministers must consult the Secretary of State before making an order under subsection (5) relating to an internal drainage board not wholly in Wales.”
“(1) A person to whom this section applies may make arrangements with another such person for—
(a) a Welsh devolved function relating to the environment exercised by one to be exercised by the other;(b) co-operation in relation to the exercise of their respective Welsh devolved functions relating to the environment;(c) the provision of administrative, professional or technical services by one to the other for purposes relating to the exercise of functions in or as regards Wales.(2) This section applies to—
(a) the Environment Agency;(b) the Forestry Commissioners;(c) any other person exercising Welsh devolved functions relating to the environment.”
“Purpose and conditions for orders made by Welsh Ministers
(1) The Welsh Ministers may make an order under section 12 or (Powers relating to other bodies) only if they consider that the order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions having regard to—
(a) efficiency,(b) effectiveness,(c) economy, and(d) securing appropriate accountability to Welsh Ministers.(2) The Welsh Ministers may make an order under either of those sections only if they consider that—
(a) the order does not remove any necessary protection, and(b) the order does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.”
“Consent of UK Ministers
(1) The Secretary of State’s consent is required for an order under section 12 or (Powers relating to other bodies) which transfers a function to, or confers a function on—
(a) the Environment Agency,(b) the Forestry Commissioners, or(c) any other cross-border operator.(2) The Secretary of State’s consent is required for an order under section 12 or (Powers relating to other bodies) made by virtue of section 13 which in any other way modifies the functions, other than Welsh devolved functions, of a person referred to in subsection (1).
(3) A Minister’s consent is required for an order under section 12 or (Powers relating to other bodies) which transfers a function to, or modifies the functions of, the Minister.”
“Consultation by Welsh Ministers
(1) Where the Welsh Ministers propose to make an order under sections 12 to 14 they must consult—
(a) any body or person exercising public functions to which the proposal relates,(b) such other persons as appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal, and(c) such other persons as they consider appropriate. (2) If, as a result of consultation under subsection (1), it appears to the Welsh Ministers appropriate to change the whole or part of the proposal, they must carry out such further consultation with respect to the changes as seems appropriate.
(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether consultation is carried out before or after the commencement of this section.”
“(1) An order under the preceding provisions of this Act may not transfer any function to—
(a) a charity, or(b) a person not otherwise exercising public functions who is not a charity,unless the charity or person has consented.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this final group of amendments of what has been an excellent Report stage. In moving Amendment 91 I shall speak to the remaining amendments.
Noble Lords will know that considerable concern has been expressed in debate about the relationship between the Bill—and the proposals arising from it—and charities. I am pleased to be able to confirm that the amendments mean that the consent of charities to receive functions as a result of activities under the Bill will have to be sought under the legislation. The amendments are designed to effect that change and I hope that the House will be prepared to accept them.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I thank the Minister for responding to the concerns that we have expressed throughout the Bill about charities. We think that these amendments fit the bill.
““charity” has the meaning given in section 1(1) of the Charities Act 2006;”
Agriculture: Regulation
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and to welcome her return to your Lordships’ House following her recent illness. We have missed her contributions, and once again she has demonstrated her acumen by securing this important debate tonight, as also illustrated by the number of speakers it has attracted.
Reducing the regulatory burden on agriculture has been a challenge to all Administrations and each has initiated programmes to tackle the problem. It was unfortunately inaccurate of her, in her opening remarks, to try to single out the previous Administration in this respect. The impact on agriculture cannot be overstated. The noble Baroness referred to the recent NFU farmer confidence survey, where regulation was cited, at 64 per cent, as the highest negative impact on business. Anecdotally, one of my neighbours cited it as the reason behind his decision to quit farming.
I declare my interest as a dairy farmer in Cheshire. One part of my business was the import and export of cattle, which was brought to an end over the winter of 1995-96, and finally on 20 March 1996, by the announcement from Stephen Dorrell, Secretary of State for Health in the other place at the time. The effect and cost of that announcement was immeasurable. This present Government’s recognition of the problem was immediate, and demonstrated by the establishment of the Task Force on Farming Regulation, led by Richard Macdonald. It is due to report this summer. For the farming community, nothing short of a fundamental reanalysis is demanded. This must start with the analysis of the scope of each EU directive, policy initiative and UK programme objective. In this review, the influence that can be brought to bear by the supply chain, and especially the retailers, must be harnessed. I refer here to the various sector assurance schemes, freedom food initiatives and other marketing ploys that are demanded of agriculture. Mention should also be made of the proposed supermarket ombudsman.
Both government and industry should turn the telescope round and look at the regulation from agriculture’s point of view—the compliance costs, the information that has to be researched and retained, the added load on the business agenda and the incentives and benefits to be derived. Agriculture needs to be able to identity the relevance of the activity to operational improvements, business development and value added. Tackling regulation is often to tackle the symptom, when we really need to tackle the cause. Cutting red tape by introducing a one-in one-out rule is a case in point. Rather, I ask the Minister whether there should be a sunset clause imposed on each regulation, so that the need and relevance of each is systematically reviewed—I suggest five years as a suitable length.
The Conservative-led Government define their objectives in terms of cutting the deficit. I suggest to the noble Lord that nothing less than the effort that is put into that is demanded from agriculture to cut red tape. Has the noble Lord’s department interpreted activities in relation to deficit reduction by focusing on the costs of implementing regulations to government, of complying with regulation to industry and interpreting regulation to consumers? I very much look forward to the task force review and whether it can rise to the challenge of remapping the landscape.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I apologise to the noble Lord but we are under a lot of pressure for time. Three minutes is the limit, and we are now well in to the third minute.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this group of amendments represents a set of minor and technical changes to the Bill. The amendments tidy up the drafting following the addition of new Clause 16 at Committee stage. It may be helpful for me to remind the House that this clause, which was the product of extensive collaboration between the Government and noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, imposes restrictions on the use of the powers in the Bill by Ministers.
Amendments 1, 22, 28, 35 and 42 remove the paving references to Clause 16 in Clauses 1 to 5, which are no longer necessary and, as the powers in Clauses 1 to 5 are subject to other restrictions in the Bill, are potentially misleading. Amendments 90A and 90B make minor amendments to Clause 16, making it explicit that the clause applies to the main order-making powers contained in Clauses 1 to 5. As the Government now intend to remove Clause 6 and Schedule 6 from the Bill, our adjustments to Clause 16 do not apply to that clause. Amendment 90C is a drafting amendment, which will place Clause 16 directly after the main order-making powers in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it is fortunate that I have an opportunity to respond to my noble friend so quickly. He has drawn a portrait of the Bill that I scarcely recognise. There are a number of bodies that we reflected on and considered in Committee, but we are still on track for the reform of the public bodies sector and we have, I think, the support of the whole House on the general terms in which that project is being undertaken.
My noble friend’s Amendments 3 and 23 are designed to amend Clauses 1 and 2 to make it clear that an order made under those clauses would transfer a function to another body regardless of whether that body was listed in the Bill. My noble friend is right to assert that, in many cases, it may be desirable that functions are transferred to an existing public body from a body that is abolished or merged. However, I can confirm that this is already provided for in the Bill. As Clause 1(3)(b) makes clear, the definition of “eligible person”, to whom a function can be transferred, includes,
“any other person exercising public functions”.
I assure my noble friend that this definition has been drafted to include public bodies both within and outside the scope of the Bill—bodies that, by their very nature, exercise public functions by virtue of statute or royal charter.
Noble Lords will be aware that some public functions are carried out by non-statutory bodies, such as most advisory NDPBs, many of which are Crown bodies and legally part of their parent department. It would be possible to transfer statutory functions to such bodies by two mechanisms. First, the function could be transferred to a Minister under Clause 1(3)(a), provided that such a transfer was permissible within the restrictions set out in the Bill, such as those in Clause 16 concerning the independence of certain functions. Secondly, a function could be abolished in statute but replicated using existing prerogative powers. This is the process envisaged for the Valuation Tribunal Service, for example, the functions of which will be replicated by the Tribunals Service as an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. In each case, the Government expect that the explanatory document provided with the draft order will provide clarity regarding any changes in the exercise of public functions. In the light of this explanation, I trust that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Newton of Braintree
Unless the opposition Front Bench wishes to come in, I will give an immediate demonstration of my docility and deference by endorsing entirely my noble friend’s comments about the Valuation Tribunal Service, which belongs in the unified Tribunals Service—anybody who is harbouring hopes of my support for leaving it out of the Bill had better abandon them. Meanwhile, in light of the charming reassurances that my noble friend has given me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and claim another little round of brownie points.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I support that. The noble Baroness and I have not conspired on, but discussed, various matters of interest to us both on the Bill. She has a point and I hope that my noble friend will respond constructively.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I would never wish to do other than respond constructively to an amendment from the noble Baroness. I thank her for tabling these amendments and for giving us a chance to debate them. As she will know, the Government have indeed tabled their own amendments to Clause 8. They address the problem that her amendments seek to address.
These amendments to Clauses 1 to 6 specifically require a Minister to,
“have regard to the aims, objectives or functions of the body where these are specified in legislation”,
before making orders. I recognise the motivation behind the amendments, because they speak to the very considerations that form part of the decision-making process during a review of public bodies. In considering whether a public body is required, the Government must first consider whether its functions are needed, and then consider whether those functions should be exercised at arm’s length from government. This process lies at the heart of the public bodies review to which the Bill relates.
However, I do not believe that these amendments would add any protection or clarity in practice. In this context, I note that your Lordships’ House has recognised that the Bill has moved on. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, commented on the way in which the Bill moved on a great deal at the Committee stage and since then in the amendments that the Government have tabled, particularly since amendments of this nature were first debated in late November. It seems a long time ago.
For example, the removal of Schedule 7 and Clause 11 has greatly reduced the scope of the Bill and a number of important restrictions on ministerial powers have been introduced. In this new context, these amendments are not necessary. The Government envisage that the purpose of the Bill is to support the improvement of public functions by making changes to public bodies. This is captured in our new amendment to Clause 8, Amendment 60A. In deciding whether to make an order for this purpose, it is not conceivable that a Minister would not have considered the aims, objectives or functions of that body, including whether they remain necessary or whether any improvement could be made in their delivery.
The requirement to lay an explanatory document setting out the rationale and justification for the order will require a Minister clearly to account for his reasoning in this regard, and the capacity of Parliament to select an enhanced scrutiny procedure for the order will give both Houses the opportunity fully to consider the Government’s assessment. Furthermore, the addition of Clause 16 places significant restrictions on the capacity of Ministers with regard to the independent exercise of some public functions.
I hope that this provides significant reassurance to the noble Baroness in relation to some of the bodies to which she referred in Committee. The matters and purpose in the revised Clause 8—the requirement to justify in an explanatory document why an order is being brought forward—and the revised restrictions in Clause 16 represent an effective and comprehensive way to limit ministerial power and require a clear explanation of the reasoning for orders in relation to the existing functions and objectives of a body listed in the schedule. This is done in a way that also protects ministerial discretion on how functions are delivered. The amendments do not add to this. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, for introducing this amendment and for the discussions that we had between Committee and this item coming up at Report. They were very useful and focused the Government’s mind on the importance of disability. All Members of the House will, I think, share the view that while much has been achieved in making the world a better one for people with disabilities, so much more remains to be done. I hope in responding to this debate that I can convey how the Government intend to approach this task and give an example of how the process of abolishing DPTAC is an opportunity for the Government to focus in future on tackling the task of the world of the disabled.
It was really very useful to have the contributions from all noble Lords from around the House on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said that there needed to be a new focus not only on the physical world but on the behavioural world in which disabled people had to live. While disabled people make use of the facilities that may be there, operatives and members of the public may not be aware of the necessity for behaviour also to adapt to others’ disabilities. I am grateful for the involvement of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree, because I think in the Ipswich model he shows that there is so much still to be done—albeit the lifts are there. There is a huge task in making the world of the disabled less disadvantaged than it is for others, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, pointed out when she graphically drew the attention of the House to the contrast between the world of the able-bodied and the challenges facing those with a wide range of disabilities.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I had not really thought about mentioning Ipswich until I got up, but it is not just disabled people who are affected. I once stood on one side of Ipswich station with a lady with a baby in a pushchair who could not use the stairs and a woman with a suitcase nearly as big as she was who could not use the stairs, either. I do not think that the other two wanted to go to London, but I did—and I stood and watched the London train come in and I stood and watched the London train go out. This is just not sensible in this day and age. It is not just disabled people who are affected.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Well, I think that Members of the House would acknowledge that and would acknowledge from their direct experience of their own family and friends how difficult sometimes the physical world can be.
I acknowledge the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the role of veterans. They are individuals to whom we owe such a great deal and who find themselves, through their sacrifice, in the world of the disabled. Often the fittest and most robust of individuals find themselves having to cope with the world of the disabled and the contrast of that world.
I want to demonstrate that the Government's approach to disability has moved forward substantially since 1985, when the DPTAC was established, and the important issues of disability equality are now a core element of departmental policy and delivery. This covers all departments, but particularly the Department for Transport. At a practical level, although there is much more that still can be done, access to all modes of travel has been transformed over the past two and a half decades. That is not to say that it was very poor before. Rather than seeking access for disabled people as a specialist topic, transport operators across the sector are now expected to incorporate their needs into the mainstream of their transport planning and delivery. Against this background, and while recognising the valuable work that the committee has done for the department in areas such as accessibility and mobility policy, there is scope to reform the way in which disability advice is delivered.
The Department for Transport intends to issue a discussion document before the summer to inform its proposals in this regard. This will enable the Government to take the concerns of stakeholders into account in the development of successor arrangements. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Low, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, are concerned to ensure that the details of successor arrangements, supported by relevant stakeholders, are in place before an order to abolish DPTAC is laid before Parliament, and I was grateful for the opportunity to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree prior to Report to discuss their concerns. I am delighted that this proposed amendment gives the Government the chance to put on record the fact that the Department for Transport does not intend to bring forward an order to abolish DPTAC until, following a substantial consultation process with a wide range of stakeholders, the department has a clear proposition as to the successor arrangements that will be put in place.
I can further assure noble Lords that, under Clause 10, the explanatory document laid with any draft order will need to set out how a Minister considers that the considerations in Clause 8(2) have been met. These considerations, alongside existing legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, will require Ministers to consider equalities issues when bringing forward an order under the Bill. Until those successor arrangements are established and firm proposals are in place, there is no question of abolishing DPTAC. Given this, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
“Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal.”
Marine Licensing (Licence Application Appeals) Regulations 2011
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on producing what I think is a very workable set of proposals. Indeed, this is an opportunity to pay tribute to the former Government for introducing the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. I think that I remember there being 17 sessions. My noble friend Lord Taylor may recall how many there were.
Lord Tyler
I think that we had 17 Committee evenings on that Bill. Some of them went long into the night but on the whole they were extraordinarily amicable, in contrast to some of our recent debates on other matters.
This is a very neatly designed scheme. It seems to be streamlined yet still transparent in terms of licensing and appeals under Part 4 of the Act. Of course, it is extremely important not just that there is a transparent process for licensing but that the appeals procedure is open to everyone to see how it works. In that context, and inevitably with a new system, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It will not be until we have seen some case law and have had some experience of the system that we will know whether it is as fool-proof as one would hope.
Perhaps I may take up one point that my noble friend made. The Planning Inspectorate will decide whether the appeal is to be heard by means of written representations, a hearing or an inquiry based on the complexity of the case. The definition of “complexity” is obviously a matter of judgment. That is inevitable; we cannot prescribe it in advance.
I am sure that anyone who was involved in the long process of the legislation’s gestation through your Lordships’ House will remember that there were a great many interested parties, all of whom had an amazing array of expertise. I hope that, together with the consultation that has already taken place, experience over the next few months and years will show that the amicable, united spirit that we set in place is maintained. This is a very important new framework for the management and conservation of our coastal and marine neighbourhood. This set of detailed proposals looks relatively straightforward. I am happy to support them and to commend all those in both Administrations who have been involved in producing them.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Perhaps I can start by reassuring the noble Lord that we will be able to debate both the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority later this evening. I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for probing several issues through the procedure of whether the clause should stand part. It gives me an opportunity to address those issues, for which I am very grateful. This group of amendments deals with powers in the Bill to transfer functions and the question of public accountability, particularly in relation to data and freedom of information. I accept that it is important to provide reassurance on these issues and thank noble Lords for the opportunity to do so through these amendments.
Clause 5 gives Ministers the power to make provision, by order, to transfer or modify the functions of any body or office listed in Schedule 5. This includes the conferral of new functions, the abolition of functions or changes to the conditions or purpose under which functions are exercised. When we talked about Clauses 3 and 4, I gave examples of such changes, so perhaps I could give the example of the body that we will debate next. The Government intend to use the Bill to transfer the functions of the British Waterways Board to a new mutual body, removing powers from Ministers and giving the users of waterways a far stronger voice in the management and development of the system.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Lord on one point. I am very appreciative of what he said in his response about Clause 8, but the example he gave of what the powers would be used for was interesting. The example related to the British Waterways Board’s transfer from the public sector to the charitable sector. The list of 14 bodies in Schedule 5 involves very specific uses of powers. Given the mystery—and, frankly, slightly sinister nature—of Clause 5, which we have addressed in different ways, can the Minister publish some sort of schedule that identifies the powers to be used in relation to those bodies? I do not think that that would be onerous, although it would certainly have been onerous if Clause 11 and Schedule 7 had survived. That would go a long way to meeting our concerns. I do not speak on the committee’s behalf, but I suspect that such a schedule would help the committee and those who will read and use the legislation—as well as the public bodies listed in the Bill.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention, because it reflects outside conversations and my discussions with the chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee on this matter. I should emphasise that we have found it possible—and I hope noble Lords will agree that it has been helpful—to produce the A4 briefing sheets that more or less provide a background for the changes we have been discussing. Those briefings have been explicit in describing the framework of the changes—not the detail, only the framework. To include such details in the legislation, given the large number of bodies involved, would lead to an extremely large Bill and would not necessarily be the way to deal with this matter.
We are discussing these bodies in principle in primary legislation because of the way that the debates and this Committee have taken the Bill. We know, because of the exclusion of Schedule 7, that there can no longer be the “stroke of the pen” that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, eloquently described when she expressed her anxiety about these issues. We know that that cannot happen and we know what the nature of the changes that will occur under the Bill will be. It is important to emphasise that no Minister can act under the Bill without a period of consultation or without explaining in detail the reasons for the change, its nature and consequences, in the explanatory document that will be provided alongside the statutory instrument that will effect change under any of these schedules. That is an effective way to ensure that Ministers do not act precipitately. If we are to try to meet the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we need to focus less on that than on the wording of Clause 8.
However, I make no promises—and I do not want to make promises—on this matter because it may be that I have stretched my run of good luck too far already. However, I believe that an explanatory document is a much more effective way of answering the Committee’s concerns and those of the noble Baroness.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, described the amendment as a probing amendment. In fact, I am in a position to accept one of the amendments so it is rather different from how the noble Lord might have perceived it. This is a concession on the hoof, so to speak. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, for his intervention. I am not an expert on banking. My noble friend Lord De Mauley is and has apparently just written a letter on this very subject which he is going to bring to me so that I can give some authority to the answer. Otherwise I think I would be waffling when I came to tackle the answer—waffling more than usual.
As the Explanatory Notes state, the Government are proposing to merge the competition functions of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission and are minded to transfer most of the consumer enforcement functions and resources of the Office of Fair Trading to trading standards, and advice, information and education functions and resources to Citizens Advice. Merging the bodies will eliminate duplication of effort in the competition regime, while transferring the consumer functions will improve consumer empowerment and protection by simplifying the bewildering array of overlapping bodies faced by consumers when they have a problem. I can assure the House that our proposals would remove no substantive consumer protections.
A merger between the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission would create a single, powerful competition and markets authority with a dynamic competition culture and more flexible use of competition tools. It would eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort for business, as well as for the authority. It would be able to attract the best competition skills and would create a powerful and unified advocate for competition in the UK and internationally.
Competition enforcement is an important element in the growth and productivity of the economy. While the UK’s competition regime already has many strengths, the Government believe that it is only right to consider where it can be further strengthened and rationalised in some way.
On the consumer proposals themselves, the transfer of most consumer enforcement functions will target resource where it is most needed—to support trading standards services, which the Government believe are best able to ensure robust enforcement against rogue traders, scams and businesses which abuse the law and their relationship with consumers. The resources that were available to the OFT would be transferred to trading standards. I assure the House that our proposals, on which we will consult, will include a range of options for keeping flexible powers for the new competition and markets authority to use consumer enforcement tools where they are the most appropriate remedy to cure a competition problem.
The transfer of the OFT’s advice, education and information functions, including the Consumer Direct helpline, to Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland, along with the functions of Consumer Focus, would place all these functions in a single organisation well-equipped to represent the consumer. The appropriate resources would accompany this transfer of functions.
The Government believe that trading standards and Citizens Advice provide a first-class service and operate much closer to the public. Transferring functions to them would be wholly consistent with this Government’s support for action and decision-making at local level. In particular, devolving key elements of consumer enforcement to a local level would target resource where it is most needed. It would reduce the potential for gaps and empower local authorities to find ways to address all threats which have a combined local and national dimension. Trading standards services already have experience of handling complex cross-authority cases successfully. We need to build on that and develop a body with the right capabilities, resources and prioritisation mechanisms.
Perhaps I may address this whole business of consultation. I think my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree might have had an outdated briefing because the information on the local briefing makes clear that we are commencing a consultation process fairly soon. In fact, the consultation document may be available shortly, in the next 10 days or so, which means it will probably be available by the time we reach Report. The idea is that the consultation period should be completed within this year. The whole point of consultation is to address the detail of these proposals because it is in the mechanics of making this work that it happens.
We will consult on a model that ensures that money is targeted onwards towards national enforcement priorities, set and co-ordinated by a trading standards policy board made up of chief trading standards officers for England and Wales, with similar arrangements for Scotland. National threats could be addressed on the ground through one or more dedicated expert teams, either following the existing Scambusters model or through lead individual local authorities. The Government’s consultation will also address the most economically complex consumer enforcement cases and will consider the case for the newly merged competition authority to retain some consumer law powers to supplement its competition work.
Given that the Government’s proposal is to merge these bodies, noble Lords may query why they are listed in Schedule 5 to the Bill. I am happy to clarify the matter. At the time of the Bill’s introduction, there was a proposal to use Schedule 5 to transfer some functions from these bodies and consequently to use Schedule 7 to move the bodies into Schedule 2, facilitating the proposed merger. Given the removal of Schedule 7, this is no longer possible. I therefore confirm that the Government intend to bring forward an amendment at a later stage of the Bill’s passage to move these bodies into Schedule 2 to facilitate the merger.
The Office of Fair Trading will need to remain in Schedule 5, in order to facilitate the transfer of its consumer functions prior to the expected order to merge. Therefore, I cannot accept Amendment 97. However, the Government have concluded that it is no longer necessary to list the Competition Commission in Schedule 5, and on that basis, I am pleased accept Amendment 89 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
I have received quite a lot of briefing on a number of issues raised by noble Lords and I will try to go through them. As we approach the dinner hour, I hope that the House will forgive me for doing so, but this is an opportunity to clear up some of these questions. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about consumer credit. It is subject to a separate consultation. In December, the Treasury and BIS issued a joint consultation on transferring the regulation of consumer credit from the OFT to the new Financial Conduct Authority. He also asked about trading standards resources, which of course will be addressed at the local authority level. But we are aware of the pressures on all services, including local authority trading standards. How local authorities allocate resources according to local priorities is a matter for them, but it is essential that any new money must be targeted on broader projects that respond to a national threat. It must complement work that is already being done rather than be seen as new funding for current projects. Nevertheless, there may be some positive benefits in the form of greater co-ordination and capacity building that would arise from these changes. Specifically as regards the future of the Local Government Group, it is our view that a board of chief trading standards officers, either as a successor to Local Government Regulation’s Trading Standards Policy Forum or the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers, would in practice lead on the co-ordination work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about economically complex cases. As I mentioned in my main text, trading standards departments have demonstrated their ability and professionalism over many years, and I hope that I have indicated, by the construction of national co-ordination within the trading standards world, that we are looking to build them up in order to be able to tackle the more complex activities that not only have local impacts but are of national significance. It is important that any changes can be addressed. In the same way, the noble Baroness asked about super-complaints. Competition elements would be part of the new Competition and Markets Authority, but the consumer, being sure of the issue, would go to the new authority for mixed market analysis. Where it is solely a matter of consumer interests, it would need to be part and parcel of the new co-ordination body within trading standards, as has been suggested.
The Government intend to consult and the proposed consultation will begin soon. No date has been set for the consultation to be concluded, but it is expected to be finished during the course of the year. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, I am pleased to be able to say that as a result of the question that my noble friend had to answer, the Government’s wider financial services agenda, the Independent Commission on Banking, chaired by Sir John Vickers, has been asked to look at the structure of banking in the UK and will consider how to promote financial stability and competition in the industry. This will include examining the complex question of separating investments from other matters. As regards the ICB, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the House of Commons on 9 February and my noble friend Lord Sassoon said in this House that the Government will not interfere with its independent remit.
I hope that I have managed to tackle the questions raised in the debate. I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing these issues to the attention of the Committee and I am happy to support Amendment 89, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I am delighted that he has accepted one of the amendments, although I am not sure that it is because he has accepted the full thrust of the argument. I think that he has done so for a slightly more technical reason, but nevertheless one should take one’s victories where one can get them. I am also grateful to my noble friends for the contributions they have made to this debate.
The Minister said that at a later stage the Government would be coming forward with further amendments. I hope that they will be tabled in this House. It would mean that I could say much less now than I would otherwise say if the amendments were not going to be introduced here. Does he know whether they will be brought forward in this House or in the other place?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
There have been early discussions on this matter and I should like to be able to bring the amendments forward at the Report stage in this House.
Lord Dubs
I am most grateful for that helpful response. There is only one issue that I am not clear about. The present process for referrals to the Competition Commission is quite complicated, and as I indicated, referrals can come from a variety of sources. Will the new Competition and Markets Authority be able to investigate issues on its own initiative or will it depend upon referrals? Will those referrals come from the existing arrangements or will they come from elsewhere? I am not totally clear about this.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that I can reassure the noble Lord. The authority will not be entirely dependent on referrals. It will have the capacity, as does the current Competition Commission, to initiate investigations. This will be part and parcel of the consultation, which I hope will make the position clear for the noble Lord.
Lord Dubs
In which case, all I would say is that I still think it is too complicated an issue to be dealt with in this way. I understand that it is not of the Minister’s own choosing, but if we had been having a Second Reading debate today on a proposal to merge the two bodies and deal with other consumer protection and competition matters, it would have been much easier for us to handle it. It is not for us to change the Government’s approach, but I do regret it. However, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and I commend Amendment 89 to the Committee.