Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL]
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Faulkner of WorcesterFriday 21st April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for bringing this debate to the House for the fourth time, for which he is to be applauded. I agree with him that it is important to protect heritage railways for future generations.
Modern health and safety legislation—in particular the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and relevant secondary legislation—does not prevent children and young people volunteering on heritage railways or tramways. The current legislative framework already allows for this to happen. However, it is important that such activities are carried out in a safe way with employers, organisers and those supervising the activities making sure that any risks are properly controlled.
The Government support volunteers and volunteering; to that extent, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Forsyth. It can be a rewarding experience for young people, and it allows them to gain new skills and make a difference in their community. Volunteering is vital for the future sustainability of the heritage rail sector, with more than 22,000 people, 800 of them young people, giving their time to support heritage railway organisations across the country.
At Second Reading, my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, offered to bring officials from the Health and Safety Executive, the Office of Rail and Road, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, together with the Heritage Railway Association to discuss how its guidance can be further strengthened. Unfortunately, unforeseen circumstances prevented this meeting happening, but I would very much like to make this offer again.
Under the 1974 Act, duty holders are required to control the risks they create from their operation. Although the Health and Safety Executive has the policy responsibility for the 1920 Act, in the case of heritage railways, the Office of Rail and Road is the regulator for health and safety legislation. Both regulators have confirmed that they would not enforce the 1920 Act solely to prevent young people volunteering on heritage railways. It has not been used in a prosecution since 2009 and, when it was, it was used alongside more modern health and safety legislation to prosecute in cases where young people were employed illegally in dangerous environments. In total, the 1920 Act has been enforced on eight occasions since 1998, and none of these prosecutions was against a heritage railway.
The law protecting children in the UK is a complex area, and this Bill would have implications not only on health and safety protections but on education legislation and local authority by-laws. To repeal or amend the 1920 Act may initially seem the best course of action; however, because of the links to other legislation, the process of making changes would be extensive. There is no evidence that this legislative change would make a difference to the number of young people volunteering, and therefore it is not proportionate to proceed with it.
I promised also to be relatively short, so I conclude by saying that the Bill seeks to allow children to gain valuable experiences volunteering on heritage railways and tramways, and the Government support this aim. However, we believe that the current legislative framework does just that. Nothing would be gained from a change to legislation when other, simpler and more effective options are available—in particular, working with the regulators to explore the types of activities and tasks that are proportionate for young volunteers.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, remained concerned about what would happen should something go wrong with a young person working as a volunteer, and he wanted stronger guarantees in relation to the 1920 Act. I want to reassure him that if such an incident occurred, both the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road have confirmed that there would be a full investigation, taking account of the risks that the young person was exposed to and how they were controlled. The existing framework is fair and effective, which is why, unfortunately, the Government oppose the Bill.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I express my warmest thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for his kind and extremely generous remarks, which are not entirely justified, I am sure. It is very kind of him to say all those nice things. I also thank my noble friend Lady Sherlock for her generous comments.
The response from the Minister is all right as far as it goes—but there is a “but”. I accept absolutely the assurance that the ORR and the Health and Safety Executive have given that they have no intention of using the 1920 Act to prosecute in the case of young people on heritage railways. But the point that needs to be considered is what happens if something goes wrong that forces them to take a different view and may cause the provisions of that Act to apply. I have had a letter this week from the CEO of the Heritage Railway Association, Steve Oates, who said,
“I know of some railways who are not convinced. If it’s unlawful, it’s unlawful and the risk of prosecution or refusal of insurance cover, however remote, remains”.
That is also the view of the former legal adviser to the Department for Transport, Geoffrey Claydon CB, who wrote to me on Wednesday. He said:
“The Government are relying on the fact that HSE and ORR have said that they would not prosecute for any infringement of the 1920 Act in relation to young persons. But this ignores the possibility of private prosecutions, prosecutions by local authorities and insurers refusing to meet any claims on the basis that the law has not been followed”.
My Bill removes that element of doubt, and I urge the House to pass it this morning and send it to the other place.
In the meantime, I will take up with great pleasure the offer of the meeting that the Minister outlined; I hope that we are able to come to a satisfactory conclusion there. For now, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Commonwealth War Graves Commission: Historical Inequalities Report
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Faulkner of Worcester
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am standing in for my noble friend Lady Goldie, who is busy with the next piece of business; as noble Lords can imagine, it is taking up quite a bit of time. I am very pleased to answer the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I acknowledge and note that they both accepted the apology that the Government have made. They are both right; this is an important report which makes for sober reading. The report of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission special committee makes clear that in the aftermath of World War 1, in certain parts of the world, the Imperial War Graves Commission failed to live up to its core founding principle of equality in death for all, as was mentioned earlier, regardless of status, religious belief or ethnicity. Moreover, while the IWGC itself was at fault, the British Government at that time, together with colonial Administrations, also failed in their duties and were complicit in the decision-making that led to the outcome described in the report.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord mentioned the numbers involved. It is worth my reflecting as well that a further 45,000 to 54,000 casualties, predominantly Indian, east African, west African, Egyptian and Somali personnel, were commemorated unequally, usually in registers or collectively on memorials but not by individual name. At least a further 116,000 casualties—and potentially as many as 350,000—predominantly but not exclusively east African and Egyptian personnel, were not commemorated by name or possibly not commemorated at all. This is sobering and absolutely needs to be addressed, as both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said. As she also said, we must remember all those who fell fighting for our country in World War 1.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about funding. I reassure him that the £52 million per year given by the UK Government via the MoD to the CWGC is in place. The Secretary of State will keep a very close eye on funding; if further funding is required, he will look at that with great care. On the role of transparency, which the noble Lord raised, I reassure him that there is a programme for regular reporting, as the Secretary of State for Defence outlined the other day when he made the Statement in the Commons. There will be quarterly updates to Parliament on progress and, as the chair of the commissioners, he will hold the CWGC to account on delivery.
As we may come on to later, many of the 10 recommendations laid out have specific timelines. This is an important piece of work; each of the 10 recommendations—all of which the Government have accepted, by the way—are rolled out with sunsets and timelines for work to be completed. I do not have an answer to the question on communication and embassy staff, but it is important. I am absolutely certain that those from our country who are based in countries where there is much work to be done, including in Egypt, Sierra Leone, west Africa and Nigeria, will be called on to help with this work and complete the investigations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke about the wider context and she is absolutely right. Going back to the point about equality in death for all, it is important that we remember each individual. This will be done through addressing the 10 recommendations, where there will be openness towards creativity; communities should engage in the areas that we want to look at, and countries themselves should engage with the war graves commission and the special committee to see what can be done to honour those who have fallen in defence of their country. That could be in the form of a physical memorial or—we are looking at this very carefully—a digital means. It is important to say this, and to be sure that we identify these means. One further thing is that certainly schools need to be included in this. Young people must recognise the importance of remembering their ancestors who have fallen in battle.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed, and so they should be. I am sure that this is an important part of the ongoing work. One thing is very clear and it is the first recommendation of the report—which we have accepted, as we have accepted them all—that there is ongoing commitment to search for those who fell and to recognise the dead and find the names of those who died.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this business has now elapsed. I apologise to the five noble Lords whom I have not been able to call.
Northern Ireland: Victims Payment Scheme
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Faulkner of Worcester
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Baroness hits directly on the frustrations that we have at the moment. As we know, there is an obligation to set up a board, which, with the individuals appointed to it, will make judgments on the victims and get into the details. However, until we have a designated department and there is a chain reaction to set up these important processes —again, this must be done as a matter of urgency—we will not go forward quickly. We must do so.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will have detected the unanimous view that this situation must be resolved—and resolved quickly. Indeed, he may have read my noble friend Lord Hain’s speech on the Northern Ireland banknote order from last night, which put the case very powerfully and persuasively. I have two questions. Will Citizens Advice or a similar independent agency be set up to assist people in making applications and following through with the provision of medical evidence? Secondly, will the Government or the Northern Ireland Executive make legal aid available for applicants in Northern Ireland?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Those two questions were precise. I happened to listen to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, last night; like today, I was left in no doubt about the strength of feeling. I will need to write to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, with the specific detail on Citizens Advice and his second question.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Faulkner of Worcester(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I remind the Committee that the Companion says:
“Members of the House who are taking part in a debate are expected to attend the greater part of the debate. It is considered discourteous for Members not to be present for the opening speeches, or at least the speech before and that following their own, and for the winding-up speeches”.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will move on to the issues that have been raised about the consultation period. Several noble Lords raised this issue, including the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Howarth of Newport and, indeed, Lord Knight of Weymouth.
The policy on the abolition of the AWB and related committees was first announced in July 2010, so there has been plenty of time for stakeholders and interested parties to make their views known. In particular, key stakeholders had the opportunity to do so during meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board and the Agricultural Wages Committees. The department felt that a four-week consultation period was proportionate and realistic, given the length of time that the policy had already been in the public domain. This is also in line with the Government’s new consultation principles.
In this respect I will address a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he expressed concerns about those principles. The new principles allow for a tailored approach to the circumstances and needs of a particular case. Twelve weeks is not necessary in every case. The principles say that the timeframes for consultation should be “proportionate and realistic”. The department considers that the timeframe for this consultation was appropriate, given that the policy had been known for some time, as I explained a little earlier.
As mentioned, we also sent the consultation document to 13,000 bodies and held six meetings throughout the country to enable views to be heard. This very much involved Defra, which was also very much involved in disseminating information to those bodies and to many businesses to make them aware of the launch of the consultation.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I think I should repeat to the noble Lord that the Agricultural Wages Board has been in existence for 65 years. I realise that that is not necessarily a reason for changing but there are still some great anachronisms within the system. Secondly, part of the point is to release farmers from the administrative burden of the two-tier, dual system. So I stick by my view that this is long overdue and it is right that we should take this step.
The key priority for this Government is to encourage economic growth. The Government firmly believe that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and the agricultural minimum wage regime is in the long-term interests of all those within the industry. It will enable the sector to meet the challenges of increasing domestic food production and help secure its long-term prosperity. The abolition of the related Agricultural Wages Committees and Agriculture Dwelling House Advisory Committees in England will also contribute to the Government’s public body reform programme and will remove a number of redundant bodies, as mentioned earlier. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The Question is that Amendment 28ZK be agreed to. As many are of that opinion will say “Content”.
Television: Listed Sporting Events
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Faulkner of Worcester
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I do not think that the noble Lord is right about people being pushed around. However, this is not particularly an issue for government but more an issue between sporting rights-holders and the broadcasters themselves.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right to say that one of successes of the Olympics was due to the television coverage on the free-to-air channel. Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to the BBC for the quality of its broadcasting of the Olympics, which in my view, and I imagine the view of many Members of your Lordships’ House, was absolutely outstanding?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am delighted that the noble Lord brought up that point. I said on Tuesday, in answer to a different Question, that I thought the coverage on television was absolutely outstanding, including the previews and reviews of past Olympics. The editing was outstanding, and I take the noble Lord’s point.