Deregulation Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)]

My Lords, first, I draw attention to my interests in this matter as a former chairman of the BBC Board of Governors, the chairman of Pinewood Studios, an occasional—far too occasional—supplier of services to the BBC, and any other interests in the register.

It has been a very good experience putting this matter to rights, and I offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. She and I have not always seen eye to eye on broadcasting matters over many years, but I am delighted to support the remarks she made earlier. I thank the Minister for reaching such a happy resolution on this matter, which means that when the starting gun goes on the charter review debate at the BBC after the election, we can start with a blank sheet of paper and no subsidiary issues that might get in the way. My thanks go to my noble friend and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for running with this matter. I have been very happy to support her, I continue to support her and I am very happy to support the government Motion.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, although the Minister tried to argue that all sides of the House were in agreement in support for the BBC, I am bound to say that the Government’s position on this issue, repeated at earlier stages of the debate in your Lordships’ House, was precisely the opposite. Had the Government prevailed, that would have had a very destabilising effect on the BBC. The Minister may speak now with the passion of the converted, but we heard him in Committee, we heard him again at Third Reading, and we will remember.

Over time, we have in this country established appropriate procedures for exercising effective but arm’s-length oversight of the BBC involving periodic reviews of the charter and licence and the regular fixing of budgets. The lesson to learn from this episode is that it would be very unwise for any political party to play around with the BBC mid-licence period for short-term political advantage.

We support the independent review being undertaken by David Perry QC. We do not know what the review will recommend on this important but rather narrow question of decriminalising penalties for not paying fines imposed by the courts. But we think it is right to wait for the outcome of the review before any decisions are taken for the simple reason that this would ensure that there will be no significant effect on BBC funding—up or down—before the end of the BBC’s current licence fee settlement, which is due to expire at the end of March 2017.

When the 2010 licence fee settlement was announced, the then Secretary of State said that it would provide,

“a full financial settlement to the end of the year 2016/17, with no new financial requirements or fresh obligations of any kind being placed on the BBC and/or licence fee revenues in this period”.

I am delighted that the Government are now prepared to honour that commitment and we support the amendment.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warnock (CB)]

My Lords, there could hardly be a more learned, well informed set of people than those of your Lordships who have spoken up till now. My connection with commercial television ended in 1980. The amendment before us sets right what was put wrong then. It was put wrong largely out of prejudice against the commercial sector and a failure to believe in the public service broadcasting demands that were even then made on commercial television, which were often regarded with suspicion. It seems to me well beyond the time when this amendment should be accepted. The thought that we have to wait still longer for a review, the contents of which we do not know, is quite absurd. I urge the Government to accept the amendment here and now.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, once again, we have had a very good discussion about this topic. Although much stress was placed on the unanimity of view last time, I seem to recall myself being somewhat isolated and not in favour of what was proposed. I plead on this that I was simply arguing for good governance and not for a radical change in approach, because I share many of the views that have been expressed today. I simply think that the complexity of the matter is undervalued. The technological changes and all the other things that people are asserting without much evidence need to be tested by proper evidence-gathering and a proper report.

Like other noble Lords, I think that the way forward is to do something with Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. There is some obvious logic in having the primary legislation already banked in order that it can be implemented when the time comes, but the right process would be to carry out the review to be absolutely certain that the complexities which are present are properly analysed, that the regulatory structure—in so far as it can be—is made future-proof, and that we come forward with a proposal in a coherent and proper way. I hope that the Minister will be able to shed light on the complicated manoeuvrings that are going on behind the scenes but have yet to see the light of day.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his amendment. We certainly missed him in Committee, when we had an excellent debate—and we have had a similarly excellent debate today.

The amendment would create the power for the Secretary of State to repeal in whole or in part Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Section 73 permits the retransmission, on cable, of the main PSB channels by providing that the copyright in the broadcast is not infringed by such retransmission. The resulting effect of Section 73 is that public service broadcasters are not able to charge cable operators for the retransmission of their services. This is clearly an area where many competing interests, particularly those of broadcasters, platforms and viewers, must in some way be balanced.

The Government’s approach is not to abolish Section 73 without exploring these interactions within the wider framework of regulation that impacts the balance of payments between platforms and PSBs. As has already been mentioned today, the Culture Secretary announced last October that the Government were looking at whether the time was right to remove Section 73 of the 1988 Act, which could allow PSBs to invest more in high-quality content.

Our view is that, rather than doing so in isolation, we need to look at this in the wider context, examining the framework of regulation that governs the balance of payments between broadcasters and platforms. I have heard it said in my short time in your Lordships’ House that when the two Front Benches agree, we are into very difficult territory—but this is an area of complexity that we need to look at properly.

We are very sympathetic—I emphasise, very sympathetic—with the aim of this amendment, which seeks to give Ministers the power to repeal Section 73 following consultations, but our view is that it would not give us all the powers necessary to repeal it fully. As I think everyone accepts, Section 73 does not exist in isolation. It underpins complex commercial arrangements between the cable operator Virgin and the public service broadcasters. We need to consider carefully what the impact of the repeal would be on these existing arrangements and consider what consequential and/or transitional provision would be needed when repealing Section 73. Parliamentary counsel advised that the amendment as drafted does not give Ministers the powers to make such a provision.

The Government intend to consult shortly. I fully understand the impatience, frustration and perhaps more than that, which many of your Lordships have expressed. I want to take this opportunity to run through the detail that I have available to me. I do not have all the answers, but I would like to explain the following. Part of this issue has been complicated by the Court of Appeal case, and we still await the judgment. But my understanding is that the consultation will definitely be before the election; in fact, we are proposing for it to be launched in a week or so. I understand that it will take eight to 12 weeks to complete, and then it will have to be assessed. I will make sure that all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate receive a copy of the consultation document so that it is available immediately.

It will be a broad consultation on the whole infrastructure, obviously including Section 73. However, it is important that Parliament has evidence of what may be the unforeseen consequences: for example, with arrangements for addressing areas that are difficult to broadcast to, such as houses in very steep valleys. As with all these things, it is the unintended consequences for the viewer that we need to watch out for.

I understand my noble friend’s frustration and am sure that in his winding up remarks he will stress that he does not think that the Government have acted as expeditiously as he would like. However, it is important that we make sure we get this right. As I said, we could not accept this amendment in any event because it is defective so far as parliamentary counsel is concerned. Our proposal is that we will consult—as I said—and then bring forward legislation to repeal Section 73 once the process and all the permutations and unforeseen circumstances that there potentially may be have been properly addressed. It is for those reasons and not for reasons of delay or lack of concern that I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, there have been moments during the debates on this Deregulation Bill when I have been forced to ask the Government why on earth they are bothering to get rid of some bits and pieces when they will not have any effect at all. That is why I find myself particularly encouraged by the amendment here.

We can draw the sort of people who do not like busking very simply: they are general kill-joys. I have always thought that life is divided between those who are life enhancers and those who are life destroyers. One of the problems is that many life destroyers are worthy, honourable and decent members of society, but they are deeply boring and therefore entirely to be opposed. My problem with this amendment is that it does not go far enough. It is a disgrace that there are so many bits from Acts which can be used against buskers by local authorities and by the Metropolitan Police.

I draw my noble friend’s attention to the phrase “busking-related offences”. I have spent some time, since we last discussed this, trying to imagine an offence which was busking related and not an offence in any other way. I am quite an imaginative person and I do not have too pure a mind but, even putting those two things together, I have so far been unable to discover any offence which is both busking related and not covered by something else in the statute. To go back to “So who said it?”, I may now say something which many will object to, for it was said by the police —well, they would, would they not? The Metropolitan Police always have a reason for leaving any way which enables them to do what they want.

I spent hours and hours discussing the simple business of applying to the space outside your Lordships’ House the same rules as were applied by the House of Commons to the space outside it. I cannot tell your Lordships how much of that time was made up of people explaining why it was utterly impossible, and would probably cause the collapse of western civilisation, that the extent from one to the other should be done. I know that it has been a mere six or nine months since we passed that provision, but I have not noticed any real effect of the kind of major disaster since that small change. I feel that we are in the same position here. I do not know why we should have this. Indeed, because we have been over this before, in the previous debates I thought that there was no reasonable explanation as to why these two provisions should not be removed. I say to my noble friend—and he is indeed a friend—that, to dissuade us from this amendment, the following proof has to be shown.

First, it has to be shown that there is something in the presence of these provisions in the law which is unique. It should be different and cover something which nothing else covers. If we cannot prove that first thing, then of its nature the Deregulation Bill says that we should get rid of it. That is why we have a Deregulation Bill. It is what the Government have been wittering on about: how we have got to have deregulation because there are too many regulations. However, if this is a regulation that shall be kept, it must be seen to cover something which nothing else covers.

Secondly, it must be shown to cover it appropriately: in other words, not to give powers to the police, or to the miserable local authorities such as Camden, which will be misused either in an excess of energy, as certainly took place when people were bundled into a police van in Leicester Square, or by a determination to respond to any complaint, however pathetic, of the kind which explains Camden’s treatment of buskers. It has to be necessary and appropriate.

Lastly, it seems to me—and I hope that my noble friend will be able to explain this, too—that it has to be relevant to today. Many things which were appropriate to yesterday we would today find unacceptable. London is the greatest city in the world. It is the only “world city” and we are immensely lucky to live in this great city. We should be thrilled every day about London, but it is like that because of its variety and difference—its mix of different races and communities, and the like. It is the great triumph of immigration. When people talk about immigration, I tell them to come to London and see what immigration can do to a great city. It is a thrill to be here. In those circumstances, though, this great centre in the European Union—its capital, in many ways—needs as much busking as possible. There are some miserable places where more buskers would cheer us enormously. Anything that inhibits busking unnecessarily seems to be not of our day, and not of today’s London. The idea that buskers should find it more difficult in London than they do in Liverpool seems to be manifestly barmy.

I hope that my noble friend can rise to the occasion and, if he cannot answer those three things, say that he will take this away and get rid of the nonsense.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

It is really unfortunate to have drawn the straw following that contribution. The noble Lord has spoilt my day, but that was a very nice way of doing it; I thank him very much.

I was going to start with a little riff on why the true author of this amendment was being withheld from us, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned that he had not been able to be in Committee. It is an irony beyond irony that the first amendment in his name was the rather beautifully named “parasitic packaging” amendment, for which he produced a parasitic package—the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, who not only replicated every word and phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would have used but did so in such a brilliant and concise way that he immediately won the hearts of all of us in Committee. We welcomed back the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for round two, on the amendment to remove Section 73, which was not quite so successful but was pretty good, and then he went on to busking. Busking was a tour de force; it was almost as good as what we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, because he listed every one of the blooming regulations—I think there were 11 of them—that we are told are inhibiting busking in our greatest world city. I have to say to him, though, that he had obviously missed three because the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has now done even more research and produced another few that he has added to the list.

I absolutely buy what the noble Lord, Lord Deben is selling today, that this is a ridiculous farrago of regulation that needs to be sorted out. There has to be some clarity about what the authorities want out of the regulations that they wish to put forward. There has to be some sense of equity between those who wish to perform and those who wish to listen, and the rights and responsibilities of neighbourhoods in terms of pollution and other things. There has to be the clarity of a single piece of legislation that everyone can refer to.

When the Minister responded in Committee, he used a ridiculous phrase, a chilling remark that I still sometimes wake up and think about in the middle of the night:

“the Metropolitan Police have a desire to retain necessary powers”.—[Official Report, 11/11/14; col. GC 48.]

Come on. It is so easy to say that, and so difficult to get up the energy to say, “Okay, let’s know what these things are”. What are these necessary powers, and what exactly is this desire that the police seem to bear in their corporate bosom to do something about those who wish to entertain and perform in a way that I would have thought to most people would be a very appropriate thing to do in such a major city?

It is up to the Minister to come back on this amendment. I hope that he can step up to the mark and give us a bravura performance, on whatever instrument he chooses, but he should pick up on one point that was raised in discussion in Committee by my noble friend Lord Rooker, who said that there is an obvious and clear remedy for this. The Law Commission exists to tidy up exactly this sort of arrangement, and the Minister said that he would go off and consult on whether it was the appropriate body. First, of course, he said that it was not the appropriate body, but then he was told in no uncertain terms—because that is what my noble friend does—that the commission does indeed look at these things; it is quite happy to update, refresh and reform legislation or regulation that needs it. Surely that is the way forward, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister—in music.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendment because it has precipitated a most enjoyable debate. As has been said, these matters were considered in Committee. I assure my noble friend that, following that debate, we have looked again at these issues even more thoroughly. However, I repeat my own sentiments from Committee: the Government are clear that live music and street entertainment play an important role in community life, and can generate a positive atmosphere that can be enjoyed by all. Indeed, only this morning a guitarist in Westminster station was doing precisely that. If I might digress and respond to my noble friend Lord Deben, my definition in life is “drains and radiators” as to how people perform in their lives.

The Government therefore do not start from the position that busking requires regulation and control. However, in our view it is important that backstops are in place on those rare occasions when an anti-social busker does not respond to requests from the police, or when other legislation, such as that relating to noise or anti-social behaviour, is found to be insufficient. It is in those circumstances that we believe the two pieces of legislation mentioned still have a role to play.

As I explained in Committee, the Metropolitan Police Service has advised that it still uses the powers under the 1839 Act for operational and tactical reasons. I am sure that I am not going to satisfy all my noble friend Lord Deben’s demands. I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for mentioning the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; that helpful intervention precipitated officials having detailed discussions with the Law Commission regarding Section 54 of the 1839 Act. The Law Commission has advised that it would be able to recommend repeal of a specific provision only if it appeared, following research and consultation, not to have any practical utility. In this case, the Law Commission has advised that it would be highly unlikely to recommend repeal in the face of sustained opposition from the police.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are minor and technical. Schedule 19 makes significant amendment to the Poisons Act 1972. In particular, it creates a number of regulation-making powers. This will enable the Government to make regulations in relation to both poisons and explosives precursors that will supplement the licensing regime established by the various amendments to the Act as well as further provision in relation to poisons, given that the Poisons Rules 1982 will fall once the amendments take effect. I am sure all noble Lords understand that the sort of poisons and precursors available have been changing because of various chemical and other developments. We are all aware of the particular problem that we have with precursors nowadays with the ability to make various sorts of improvised explosive devices.

New Section 7(1)(a) is generally worded, enabling regulations to be made about,

“the importation, supply, acquisition, possession or use of substances by or to any person or class of person”.

New Sections 7(1)(b) to 7(1)(f) list other specific matters about which regulations can be made, for example the storage of substances and the periods for which records are to be kept. The amendment makes it clear that the list of specific matters are not to be taken as limiting the provision that can be made under the more generally worded new Section 7(1)(a). Amendment 32 provides that any power to make regulations under the Act includes the power to make consequential amendments. This is a standard provision.

Amendment 33 relates to Clause 78 and is needed to enable an NHS trust to be dissolved—a different subject—when an acquisition has taken place under new Section 56AA. Paragraph 31 of Schedule 4 to the 2006 Act provides that an NHS trust may be dissolved or wound up only if the Secretary of State or Monitor makes an order to dissolve it within the context of a merger or a separation. As it stands, paragraph 31 of Schedule 4 does not take into account the new Section 56AA inserted by Clause 78, which clarifies the position of trusts and assets and liabilities at the point of acquisition upon the grant of an acquisition by Monitor. This technical amendment to paragraph 31 of Schedule 4, inserting a reference to the new Section 56AA, will enable the provision to reflect the fact that an NHS trust can be dissolved within the context of an acquisition in accordance with new Section 56AA. As stated earlier, this is a minor technical amendment that ensures that paragraph 31 of Schedule 4 is consistent with the changes proposed in Clause 78. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very lucid explanation of these two slightly different changes in the current versions of the Bill. As he says, they are minor, technical amendments and they largely tidy up and make right something that was missed as a result of changes.

My point is about the poisons and explosives section. I went back to the discussions that we had in Committee, in particular the question of consultation. My noble friend Lady Smith represented us on that occasion and asked the Minister whether it would be possible to have sight of the full list of consultees who had been involved in this process because she was interested in that, and wondered whether, subject to normal confidentiality procedures, he could publish the full consultation responses from the two consultations on poisons and explosives. I think the Minister said that he would do that, but we have not received it yet. I wonder if he could remedy that.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I apologise profusely for the failure and I assure the noble Lord that we will remedy it as soon as possible, possibly even imminently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, as a Member of the Joint Committee I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and commend him for the indefatigable way he has brought this issue back on Report. I can confirm that the Joint Committee was exercised about this failure, this deliberate resistance, by the Government to consider the Law Commission for all the reasons the noble Lord set out—transparency, reduction of risk and uncertainty and the opportunity to consider the repeals which were being recommended.

Let me take the House back to the first stages of this Bill, when there was something in the spirit of the original clause which was dropped from the eventual Bill, whereby the Minister was going to take upon himself the power to decide which legislation was or was not redundant and to recommend that a whole swathe of legislation should actually disappear from the statute book. Such was the reaction to that that the clause was wisely dropped.

As to the attitude towards the Law Commission, I do not quite understand the difficulty. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, the Law Commission was absolutely clear that it would be able to deal with and expedite the passage of judgment on the repeals and it would give everyone the security of knowing that whatever was moved for repeal would have that additional scrutiny. That is not to cast aspersions on the ability of departments to make a judgment about what is or is not redundant legislation, but as we have got the Law Commission and that is part of its job, we should take advantage of that expertise and the scope to do that. On that basis, I certainly support the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I wish to make three points and I shall end with a question to the Minister.

First, we should record at some point in our proceedings the considerable debt we owe to the Joint Committee for its work in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, for the work it has done since then in trying to feed into our debates and discussions the intelligence it had gained and the knowledge that it had as a result of that process, as exemplified by my noble friend Lady Andrews’s comments. It once again proves the need for Parliament to think harder about how it gets its legislation together. There is no doubt that, in comparison with a couple of other Bills that I have been involved in recently, the Deregulation Bill is in much better shape. Even though it is a much longer, more complex, Christmas tree-type Bill that has come through, we have found it easier to deal with. If we ever discussed how we do these things, we would conclude that it has been done better.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I will not recap at length the points I made in Committee. Suffice it to say that tourism contributes 9% of all UK GDP and 9% of all jobs: 3 million people rely on it for work. Domestic tourism spending is a significant portion of this—79% of tourism spending across the UK. I made the point in Committee that domestic changes in school term times have a potentially massive knock-on effect for the UK tourism industry as a whole. In the US, there are numerous examples of states changing term times and the huge effect that has had, costing state economies hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

DCMS has admitted that there has been no evaluation of the policy’s effect on tourism. Tourism is heavily reliant on the weather, and it is not uncommon for summer trading to be ruined, for example, by two weeks of bad weather. Decreasing the length of the summer holiday to, say, four weeks would be far more devastating than a simple one-third reduction of the peak period. Diversifying the dates of holidays does not lengthen the peak period but simply spreads out the same trade while increasing operating costs.

Assurances have been given to the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions—BALPPA—by the Department for Education, and indeed by my noble friend in Committee on 6 November, that the needs of businesses will be considered. However, does this actually amount to an assurance that consultation will take place before changes are made? Surely, at the very least, the duty to do so should be contained in guidance or, much better, enshrined in the Bill.

By their nature, tourism attractions bring people in from beyond the immediate locality. Often, they attract people into towns from the region and beyond. Changing school times throughout the whole of Manchester would, for example, affect attractions across the north-west, including those in Blackpool and Liverpool. There is concern that when schools want to use these powers, they will not have the concerns of local businesses in mind. We need to give the tourism industry more confidence in this legislation, which is viewed with a great deal of concern at the moment. The effect of changes to school terms and holidays is potentially huge for the industry. We should therefore make sure that school governing bodies consult when they propose to make any such changes. I urge my noble friend to accept the principle of this amendment and I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord has just said. Indeed, we discussed this at some length in Committee. I have only one point and when the Minister responds I would be grateful if he could expand on the comments that he made in Committee. He said:

“I am happy to assure the noble Lord that the Government have agreed that their advice to schools will make clear that: schools should be considerate of the needs of parents and impacts on others by working with each other and the local authority to co-ordinate term dates as far as possible; and that all schools must act reasonably when setting term dates, including considering the impact of changes to term dates on small businesses that rely on tourism from families with school-age children”.—[Official Report, 6/11/2014; col. GC771.]

That is a very targeted comment and seems in many ways to answer everything that the noble Lord was saying, but I wonder what force this advice will have? Will it be in the form of a circular of some type? Can he expand on that? Will there be any sanctions for those who do not behave to the letter of the law, as so well expressed by the noble Lord the last time round? Particularly, would Ofsted be inspecting such offers made by schools?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for those splendid comments. It is wonderfully nostalgic to read some of the material around this amendment. The British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions has sent me something that particularly mentioned Skegness, Hunstanton and Cromer. Those of us who, like, me can remember swimming off Skegness as a boy, will also remember trying to pretend that it was not as bitterly cold as it was. My children later gave me the LNER poster that used to hang in my room when I was an academic, saying “Skegness is so bracing”. That took me back to what as children we used to have as holidays, before the foreign holiday idea began to creep up on British families and affluence took us further away.

The Government believe as far as possible in devolution and autonomy, and we are providing advice to schools. This is not something that Ofsted is imposing on them, let alone is it an English Parliament deciding that English schools must each have the same holiday.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I cannot resist. Is the Minister saying that it is now Government policy to have an English Parliament?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

No, I was perhaps making an after-dinner remark that was a little outside my brief.

Those of us who live in the north of England are well aware that different local authorities have had different holiday periods for a long time. Blackpool would not have had the prosperity that it had if wakes weeks had not been staggered across Lancashire and Yorkshire in the 19th century. There was a degree of adaptability among different local authorities that worked extremely well. It is no longer necessary.

In arguing that the proposed amendment to Part 3 of Schedule 15 is unnecessary, I should therefore say that schools and local authorities have had a considerable degree of autonomy to change their holiday times in recent years. Very few have wished to do so, because there are powerful arguments for the existing system. School leaders are best placed to decide the structure of the school year in the interests of their pupils’ education and local circumstances. Schedule 16 therefore gives all schools responsibility to set their own term dates from this September.

Thousands of schools, educating more than half of all registered pupils, are already responsible for their term dates. Three-quarters of secondary schools and more than a third of primary schools are already responsible for their school year. There is a school in every local authority in England with this freedom, but without the proposed specific requirement, suggested by the noble Lord, to consult tourism businesses in place. This has not resulted in significant problems for the tourist industry. In practice, the majority of schools continue to follow their existing term dates, with a small number making changes where there is a compelling reason to do so. Where they make changes, schools take into account the needs of the local community. As noble Lords will be well aware, the needs of the local community in cities such as Bradford or Manchester often include the different patterns of different religious and ethnic communities.

Turning to the concern at the heart of the amendment, all schools must already act reasonably, fairly and transparently when determining term dates. This will include considering the impact on those likely to be affected by their decisions, including pupils, parents, staff, the local authority and businesses.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting and full debate on some aspects of the clause. As I am sure the Minister has picked up, this is a probing amendment and we hope to have a constructive dialogue. It seems to me that there is scope for further discussions outside the Grand Committee Room should the Minister wish to do so. We on this side would welcome that because there are things that need to be explored in a more concise way.

I do not want to add any more complexity to the Minister’s job of trying to reply to this debate but I was a bit confused about territoriality and I wondered if he could look at that. Clause 89 is an extent clause. Subsection (5) says:

“Sections 59, 60, 67, 79, 80 and 83 to 88”—

which includes the clause we are discussing today—

“this section and sections 90 and 91 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.

It does not include places that are not mentioned in that list, presumably the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and so forth. That is all grist to the mill for a Minister with such experience as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

However, with reference to the functions to which Section 83 applies, Clause 84(3) states:

“An order under this section may not specify … a regulatory function so far as exercisable in Scotland … a regulatory function so far as exercisable in Northern Ireland … a regulatory function so far as exercisable in Wales”.

All of these are caveated by the comment about the extent to which these matters have been devolved to the respective territories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, Amendment 99 seeks to amend Clause 90, which deals with commencement. Clause 90 provides for the commencement of the different provisions in the Bill, specifying which provisions come into force on the day on which the Act is passed, which provisions come into force two months after that day and which provisions come into force by order.

Amendment 99 has two parts. The substantive element of the first part of the amendment alters the commencement clause to bring certain additional provisions into force on Royal Assent, for example, Clause 31—which rectifies an unintended aspect of the law about tenancy deposits—and Clause 67, which gives HMRC power to disclose information for the purposes of mesothelioma litigation. Each of these has received law officers’ consent for early commencement. Clause 67 is perhaps a particularly good example of where prompt commencement would be beneficial, as it helps the families and dependants of the victims who have died from diffuse mesothelioma.

The second part of the amendment does not bring any legislation into force but activates selected powers to make subordinate legislation by statutory instrument on Royal Assent. This aims to facilitate the making of subordinate legislation, so that progress can be made as quickly as possible. As a result of this amendment, it would be possible to lay statutory instruments very soon after Royal Assent. I emphasise that the usual timeframes and rules about parliamentary scrutiny which apply to subordinate legislation would continue to apply. The clauses included in the second part of the amendment are the provisions relating to health and safety, civil penalties for parking contraventions, child trust funds, driving instructors, agricultural holdings, the provision of passenger rail services and the testing of vehicles, as well as some of the provisions relating to apprenticeships.

Amendment 101 is consequential to Amendment 99, and Amendment 105 is a minor and technical change which makes drafting improvements. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am sure that the hearts of noble Lords opposite will sink as I rise to address these not very major—although they are not unimportant—amendments. However, I wanted to say that when I started the Bill, I had a very poor opinion of it. Having spent what seems like an endless time in Committee—although it has been only eight sessions, one of which was on the Floor of the House—my substantive view of the Bill is unchanged. I still think it is not the way to deal with much of the legislation we should be doing but I want to put on record how much I have enjoyed the process of being disappointed. The Bill team has been very good at providing material when we have needed it, and I have enjoyed the discussions with noble Lords and Ministers. We have drawn an attentive and often expert audience to some of our debates, if not to all of them, and those who have contributed have done so with the best spirit.

I know that it is customary to give thanks for the work done towards the end of a Bill, but given the way this Bill is organised and structured, the meat of the debate has been in Committee. We have done a very thorough job of going through areas that have sometimes reflected the wildest extremes of government legislation of past decades, which I have always been interested in. I just wanted to put that on the record.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

As the noble Lord has raised the issue, it would be appropriate to say that my colleagues and I feel that we have been well served by officials. There is a force for good in the measures, and we seek deregulation where it is seemly. We are grateful for the support that we have had, but there will obviously be issues that we do need to look at. We look forward to discussions with the noble Lord and other noble Lords so that, before Report I hope, there will be general satisfaction about the measures we wish to proceed with.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The UK is, of course, an integrated market, so it is difficult to say, “exports from Great Britain”. That is the reason why we vary between Great Britain and the UK in different references.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

We are getting somewhat held up: I am sure that this can be resolved very quickly. The point raised first by the noble Lord opposite was that we need to know what the Government are trying to say here. Are they saying that material exported out of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland by definition, is caught by this, or is it meant to mean that there is a separate territorial area called Northern Ireland for which different regulations apply and that therefore, the schedule bites only on Great Britain?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I will write to the noble Lord if I am misinformed, but I think that if this were to read, “Export for the United Kingdom” or “Despatch of the substance within the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland,” it would be entirely clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, it seems that we are discussing, in an amendment to Clause 82, the whole subject of Schedule 20. Five or six years ago I put down a Question for Written Answer, “To ask Her Majesty’s Government” what the oldest piece of legislation still on the statute book was. It dated from the 14th century, though I cannot remember what it was. Looking very quickly through the items in Schedule 20 I notice that there is nothing older than the 19th century. Why? It is a mystery. I certainly go along with what the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Rooker, said about an appropriate and responsible body to delve into and probe obsolete legislation. I could not agree with them more.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, although I may be being a bit previous in saying this, I think that I am the only Member of your Lordships’ House who so far has sat through every minute of the debates that we have had in Second Reading and Committee. I draw two conclusions from that. Today’s open and discursive discussions illustrate that it is a strange experience to be able, in your Lordships’ House, to roam so widely through these uncharted territories of legislation. Some of it, as has been pointed out, goes back a long way, though not all that far back. We have also tried to come to some conclusions about how we might look at this.

There are two conclusions to draw. First, the exercise in pre-legislative scrutiny that was done in the Bill is a very good thing. The reports that this scrutiny generated, and the actions that were taken and the improvements that were made to the Bill by that process, exemplified by my noble friend Lord Rooker, are things that we should bear in mind. Secondly, we need to utilise that experience better. Perhaps it is something for another time. The periodic appearances of my noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, have always generated, when they are here, a much better and more focused discussion in our considerations than when they are not; they have been present a lot and have raised good points. It has struck me that when we have been able to interrogate and listen to what they have been saying we have learnt a lot more about the process that we otherwise do.

That leads to a broader truth that came out in all the presentations that we have had around this amendment so far; we are probably rather ill equipped in Parliament under the processes that we have to follow to do the deep and important thinking about some of the legislation that has gone or is currently going through the House. I absolutely take the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend Lord Rooker that it is inefficient for Parliament to try to scrutinise line by line material which is obscure and possibly not very well expressed in terms of the material we are given and the notes.

I do not want to go through each of the paragraphs in Schedule 20, but I wish to share with the Committee two things about the process. One is that without a Keeling schedule relating to the particularities of the Bills being amended, it is almost impossible to work out what they are. One simply does not have the expertise or even the time to do that, and it would not be fair to ask civil servants, even if they were able to do it, to help the Opposition on this matter. For example, in paragraph 1, the best I could get from the Bill team—and I thank them very much for it—was a set of summaries in which they tried to characterise what is being done by the various enactments. The first, which is an amendment to the Companies Act 2006 simply says:

“The provisions to be repealed were originally included in the Companies Act 2006 to address an anticipated transitional issue in relation to moving the rules requiring audits of some small charitable companies from the Companies Act to charities legislation … This means the provisions are no longer needed”.

You do not have to be an expert in logic to realise that there a bit of imaginative leap in that. I do not know what legislation is being referred to, and I have not been able to track it down, so I am taking at face value what is, I am sure, good advice that the original legislation has indeed been overtaken by changes in charities legislation, but I do not know that. Therefore, I am not able to scrutinise as effectively as I would like the work that has been done.

These are points already well made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend Lord Rooker, and I do not want to go over them. I have a number of points throughout paragraphs 1 to 42 on these matters. I could go through them, but it would take up the good will in this Committee, so I will not do it. However, it makes the point for me that we have to have a body that we can trust as a Parliament to certify that the Bills or legislation that we wish to see excised from the statute book are no longer of practical use. That body has to be independent. It has to have the time to do research, it has to be able to certify to Parliament that it has done a full and comprehensive study of the work, duly taking evidence and drawing conclusions from work carried out in other ways, to provide a draft Bill to be taken forward. Otherwise, we are cutting corners, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said. We simply cannot be certain that what we are doing in this process is not allowing infelicities, injustices and other things to happen in areas where it would be wrong for Parliament to take things forward.

I said I would not go through them, but I cannot resist just one more example. In paragraphs 14 and 15, there are proposals to excise Sections 6 and 7 of the Atomic Energy Act because they are no longer of any use. I could quote the whole of the Explanatory Notes, but I shall jump to the end. They state that the measures define “prescribed substances” that include,

“uranium, plutonium and other substances prescribed by order which can be used for the production of atomic energy or research”.

Then they state—I do not know how to judge this statement—that,

“the United Kingdom no longer needs to search for these substances as it has a steady supply from politically stable countries”.

Need I go on? What sort of judgments are implied in that? To whom and to what Minister has that been put up as a submission? Which Minister has signed off in his or her mind that we no long require for our future energy sources for the longer term to have the right to search for uranium, plutonium and other substances which we need to keep our atomic energy systems going because we can get them easily on the open market from politically stable countries? Okay, Lord Copper, I get what you are at, but this is not sufficient to make a decision of that nature. I may be extending to make the point, but it is typical.

I signed up to this amendment because I thought it was the right thing to do. Having listened to the persuasive arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, the detailed criticisms made by my noble friend Lord Rooker and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about how neat and necessary it is to have a proper system here, it seems to me that we need to think very hard about this.

I appeal to the Government; they would not lose this clause if they decided to accept what is proposed here. They could take credit for making sure that the standards that we set in this Parliament are for the long term and for the good. That would be something that we would all applaud.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I accept the noble Lord’s point that, taken event by event, or even instance by instance, we are talking about relatively small numbers—one or two glasses, not magnums, of champagne. I think that the point my noble friend was making, picked up by my other noble friend Lady Smith, is that in aggregate, if we are talking about nail bars, hairdressers and small events, we are talking about a potential explosion in the total quantum of alcohol being provided. Is the Minister happy with that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the concept of having my hair cut and being offered a whisky at the same time had not occurred to me. I recall that when thinking about the 7 am starting point, the one occasion of which I was conscious, when listening to someone describing how pleasant it was to have alcohol at breakfast, was when I got up very early, heard the BBC farming programme, and a good friend of mine who appeared on that programme was having breakfast with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, at his farm, who had indeed offered him a dram with his breakfast. He remarked that that was an unusual occurrence. I do not think that that is the sort of thing that bed and breakfasts will want to do very often.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I am pleased that a legislative consent Motion in the Scottish Parliament has been passed and there has been good co-ordination between the UK Government and the Scottish Government in transferring the powers. As a Liberal Democrat, it is pleasing to see that we are not only providing support for local events such as the rally, support for local authorities such as Scottish Borders Council, ensuring that regulation is improved, but carrying out what we believe in, which is transferring appropriate powers to the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. If it means that we support a rally that I and my family are passionate about, I also have a personal interest in seeing the success of this measure.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his useful contribution to our debates. He certainly caught us on a colourful day. We had a succession of rather intimate disclosures around eating habits and various other things, which has not been a hallmark of this Committee—and I have been here for every minute of it so far. However, we still have two days to come; perhaps a trend is being set, and we may get on to that, certainly with subjects such as television on the horizon. I am sure that there is room for manoeuvre. The noble Lord would be welcome to participate or just to observe.

I am left slightly unsighted on this because I had expected my noble friend Lady Smith to respond to this amendment, but she decided to go off and console herself with some Mars bars, I think, and left me to pick up the pieces. I therefore have only three small points to raise, to which I hope that the Minister can respond. First—although I am not sufficiently up to speed on this issue to know whether this is the case—presumably, when one is talking about passing responsibility for these matters to local authorities, we are anticipating situations involving large-scale events such as the recent Tour de France in Britain, which might span several counties or other city authorities. There may be a variable response. Can he explain the process for that? Will there be a lead authority that would, presumably, normally take responsibility? Given that this is a big change, and we are talking about high-speed, rather dangerous sporting events, it may be a bit of a worry if there are variable local authority standards, or if it is not clear what happens if one authority agrees and another does not agree to run an event on the scale of, say, the Tour de Yorkshire. I know that the Minister and the amendment say that the measure is restricted to smaller-scale events, but small-scale events involving cars are, in my view, still quite large-scale. They are certainly noisy and quite dangerous. I would like some reassurance on that.

Secondly, as regards my point about variable standards, if there are to be differences, there is an issue as to how the events will be sustained. Parliament can currently take an overview of the standards it wishes to see. The devolution of these responsibilities is not a bad thing but it raises the question of variability, and I should like some comments on that.

Thirdly—because it may be topical—what would be the process if it were decided by someone, say the mayor of a large conurbation, to have an F1 race in that city? Would we be stuck with the current arrangements for an Act of Parliament in order to provide, say, the “London Grand Prix”?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank both noble Lords for those interventions. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Purvis, who clearly understands much more about the implications of this from his personal experience, and from the Jim Clark Rally and its history, than many of us do. It was extremely valuable to have his contribution. Perhaps I should mark to noble Lords that a series of amendments are in the name of both myself for the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—not a Member of your Lordships’ House who is least careful about the importance of new legislation.

This group of amendments ought to have been in the Bill earlier. We apologise for their late introduction during the passage of the Bill. DCMS consulted on these measures in spring this year. The Government’s response to the consultation was announced by the Prime Minister on 11 July and we tabled these amendments at the end of July. However, for a number of reasons—including the fatalities at the Jim Clark Rally in the Borders just ahead of Second Reading in the Commons, when it was planned to table this—introduction was delayed to ensure that the provisions satisfied the need for confidence in the safety of such events. The Scottish review of the safety of these events will report at the end of the year. The provisions as drafted, which require secondary legislation to give these provisions effect, give Scotland, Wales and England the opportunity to have regard to any recommendations in the review.

My noble friend Lord Purvis asked a number of questions. He first asked whether the Government have considered allowing a local authority to be the regulating authority; I understood his second question to be whether the regulatory authority can enforce restrictions. In Scotland, the person or organisation authorised to carry events forward will be up to the Scottish Government, which can regulate. Enforcement of the regulations can also be determined by Scottish Ministers by regulation. Conditions in respect of public safety will be added to the regulations if the Scottish Minister wishes. I hope that my noble friend Lord Purvis will regard that as a matter of good co-ordination between the Scottish Government and Westminster.

On the question of safety for participants and spectators, we will certainly want to take into account the reviews that are following the Jim Clark Rally and apply those. We know that a number of local authorities would like to hold races. They apparently include: Oban South and the Isles; Torbay; Eastbourne; Isle of Wight; and Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council. We see those as being small events in a single local authority, with nothing on the scale of the Tour de Yorkshire, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, remarked, involved very considerable distances. Of course, across the north of England every summer we have effective motorcycle races by very large numbers of people—usually looking as though they are slightly older than me—which have fatalities on public roads. Indeed, my wife and I were crossing the North Yorkshire Moors when one of those sad accidents took place. There will be much more regulation under these circumstances than what currently happens.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked what the circumstances would be if the Mayor of London wished to have a London Grand Prix. I am informed that this legislation would be adequate in principle for an F1 race around London, but the wider logistics would also need to be considered. It could well be that a really large event in London, or another big city, would have to have its own specific legislation, as the Olympics did, because of the sheer scale of the operation. This is intended to cover small events.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The Minister is trying to have it both ways. He said that it would be for small-scale events, not for F1, but on the advice of his officials he then said that the legislation would allow one to run an F1 event in London. Can we have a clear statement on where the break point is? The idea of F1 cars skidding around corners in Westminster and other places, which is being envisaged in this, puts a completely different light on it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I accept that. I can assure the noble Lord that I will check that and write to him to reassure him on that matter. I hope I have answered the questions from both noble Lords who spoke.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Grand Committee

Debate on whether Clause 41 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, is not in his place at the moment. He enjoined us to pay respect to the wonderful skills of the Minister who is about to respond to his fourth topic of the day. Having moved seamlessly from sport to parking and to marine inquiries, he now has to deal with intellectual property and, in particular, the blocking of ISPs—not an easy topic, as I know that he knows, but one that has to be dealt with as we consider Clause 41.

The clause would remove a power from the Digital Economy Act 2010 to make regulations containing site-blocking provisions. The Act gives courts the power to grant injunctions requiring internet service providers to block access to specified sites to prevent the infringement of copyright. The power was included to enable copyright owners to tackle sites based outside the UK that offer their copyrighted material illegally. Copyright owners are not able to take action against those sites in the UK and find it difficult to pursue them in their home territory. It was therefore considered reasonable to provide the ability to block access via internet service providers.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing the Deregulation Bill today and look forward to the many speeches to come. With more than 30 noble Lords listed to speak, I am sure that every clause and schedule will get some attention as we start what I suspect will be a long job, stretching out, perhaps, until the end of the year. We intend to scrutinise very carefully this rather mixed bag that the Government have put before us. I am joined on the Front Bench for the majority of the Bill by my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord Tunnicliffe, but others will have to come in with their expertise on areas of the Bill.

I join the Minister in thanking noble Lords who served on the Joint Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, particularly its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. It has clearly improved considerably since its first publication. Indeed, we will hear reference in the debate to how much change there has been, since, as the Minister said, some 30 new clauses have been added since the Bill left the Commons. That suggests that, in some senses, the pre-legislative scrutiny could only have partial effect, sadly, since a lot of the Bill, almost 30%, has emerged since it finished its work.

Although the name of the Bill is the Deregulation Bill, it contains a number of measures which would properly be regarded as re-regulation. It might be helpful at some point if the Minister could explain precisely, perhaps by means of a chart—he is good at these things—what is deregulatory, what is re-regulatory and what is simply shifting burdens around the various places that have to undertake them. That would be helpful to us as we progress through the Bill.

I am sure that your Lordships’ House enjoyed the Minister’s attempt at making this Bill sound central to future economic growth. However, I hope that it will not come as too much of a surprise to him if I tell him that deregulating the sale of knitting yarns, freeing our children to buy their own chocolate liqueurs, decriminalising household waste and abolishing dog collars are not measures that are going to generate jobs or deliver prosperity. If your Lordships will forgive me for saying it, some of the clauses and schedules are barking mad.

People up and down the country are being hit by the cost of living crisis as their wages do not rise at the same rate as prices, yet instead of measures to stimulate the economy, the Government give us this Christmas tree Bill to end all Christmas tree Bills—forgetting, of course, that one of the few things that are not dealt with in it are Christmas trees.

All Governments have a duty to reduce unnecessary regulation at every opportunity, but unfortunately this Government’s approach to regulation is simplistic. Smart regulation underpins fair markets and can level the playing field for small firms and new entrants—the very people and businesses that create new jobs and prosperity. Smart regulation saves lives. For example, it is a matter of great pride for all of us that the 2012 Olympic infrastructure was built without the loss of one life. Regulation played a part in that. The men and women working on those construction sites knew the value of having clear health and safety regulations in place.

Smart regulation can help to drive innovation and growth. Yes, regulation is a concern for some businesses, but most sensible business people understand that rules are needed to protect people’s safety and rights, promote competition and prevent employers being undercut by those who do not play by the rules. As the Federation of Small Businesses has noted, the concerns of business are often more about how regulations are developed and introduced, how they are enforced, and the existence of duplication and overlapping rules that waste their time.

When in power, Labour sought to reduce regulation by introducing the Better Regulation Commission and an ongoing better regulation programme, and made a number of legislative changes to reduce the cost of regulation. Our programmes for simplifying regulation delivered £3 billion of savings to business per year. In contrast, the impact statement for the draft Bill estimated that it would save businesses and civil society a mere £10 million over 10 years, although the Minister has said that the figure is now £400 million over 10 years. Perhaps he could outline where the additional savings have come from. These figures underline that, while we all agree that unnecessary regulation can be a burden on business, a sensible approach to deregulation is about more than repealing one or two minor statutes.

By my count, the 86 clauses in, and 20 schedules to, the Bill cover at least 12 major Whitehall departments, and some measures apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are some proposals in this rag-tag hotchpotch of a Bill that are welcome and that we do not oppose. However, there are some rather disturbing proposals hidden beneath the knitting yarn and the piles of redundant dog collars which we will vigorously oppose.

There are fresh attacks on employment rights, with the removal of yet more powers from employment tribunals. Those are measures that the Government’s own impact assessment claims will have a negligible effect on businesses or may even cost them money. We will not support any new attacks on hard-working people.

I turn to the first part of the Bill. Exempting self-employed people in certain industries from health and safety regulations will simply create confusion about who is covered and who is not. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health is opposed to that, calling it,

“a very short-sighted and misleading move, it won’t actually help anyone; it won’t support business; but it will cause general confusion”.

Even the Federation of Small Businesses, which supports the change in principle, says that there is a question mark over how effective this clause will be, as it crucially depends on how well drafted and extensive the “prescribed description” list is. We understand that the HSE will consult on this later this year, but I put it to the Minister that it will be impossible to proceed to scrutinise this clause if we do not know precisely what the prescribed list contains. The draft that we have seen raises more questions than it solves. I hope the Minister will ensure that we have a complete list by the time we get to the Committee stage.

As the Minister mentioned, the Bill will also remove employment tribunals’ power to make wider recommendations to employers who have been judged to have discriminated against someone unlawfully. Such recommendations are only advisory, but they promote good working practice. Why are the Government trying to limit the ability of tribunals to make observations which might help to drive up standards? What are they afraid of? The House of Commons Library considered the impact assessment for that measure and found that, despite the Minister labelling it deregulatory and counting it as an “out” under the Government’s arbitrary one-in, two-out system, business will incur a cost as a result of the removal of the power. What sort of Government proudly propose a deregulatory measure that actually costs businesses money?

Building on Labour’s progress in government, the Bill seeks to introduce a growth duty on regulators, as the Minister explained. This duty will compel them to “have regard” to the promotion of economic growth when carrying out their functions and to carry them out in a necessary and proportionate way. We support the aims behind this duty and clearly the additional principle that regulators should go about their business in a proportionate way. I received a letter from the noble Lord this morning together with some draft guidance. I thank him for that. But I have not had time to absorb it or check whether it covers our concern that the duty does not inhibit or contradict the primary function of any regulator, particularly those dealing with social issues and the EHRC.

We have concerns about other parts of the Bill. Housing is a critical part of the cost of living crisis for families up and down the country, so should there not be a coherent, long-term approach, rather than ad hoc tinkering? The number of homes built for social rent has fallen to just over 7,700, the lowest in 20 years—indeed, since records began—and a fall of 75% from 2009-10. At the same time, the Government have pledged to replace housing sold under the right to buy, but there is mounting evidence that they are failing to ensure that this actually happens. In light of this, why do the Government refuse to undertake a review of the effectiveness of the current right-to-buy system and the impact that their right-to-buy policy is having on the supply of affordable housing? What is the rationale for the change in planning requirements for offering short-term lets in London, which may have fire and personal safety implications?

The decriminalisation of waste will apparently reduce the regulatory burden on households, but it may increase the burden on local authorities, and particularly affect their ability to reach their recycling targets. We have been told, in a helpful note by the councils, that operating standard collection arrangements is crucial to helping councils and residents further increase recycling levels to meet EU targets. Why remove that power? The Deregulation Bill also removes the offence, punishable by a £1,000 fine, of not complying with prescribed arrangements for refuse collection and converts this to a £60 civil penalty. The current arrangements are used proportionately and principally as a deterrent by councils. The proposed civil fine will not serve as an effective deterrent and will undermine the work of councils to encourage and support residents to increase recycling rates. The new trigger for a penalty is that the resident’s behaviour is,

“detrimental to any amenities of the locality”.

That is a novel test, with no legal precedents to define it. It almost certainly would not allow a council to enforce, for example, recycling arrangements which may be needed to get best value for money from a waste collection contract.

Speaking of fines, we will want to discuss in some detail the thinking behind the Government’s proposals to decriminalise failure to pay the licence fee collected by the BBC. We agree that it makes sense to consider this issue in the round, but we want to be assured that the terms of reference for the review will be debated in both Houses of Parliament and that the results of the review will feed into the charter and licence fee discussions and not be separated from that process.

We will look closely at the measures in the Bill to deregulate taxis and public hire vehicles outside London. The Government’s proposed reforms to the taxi and minicab trade will enable people without a minicab licence to drive one when it is “off duty”, end annual checks on drivers’ licences, and allow minicab operators to subcontract bookings to other firms in other areas. There has been widespread criticism of the Government’s last-minute decision to insert these reforms into the Deregulation Bill. Campaigners, industry bodies and unions are also warning that these changes will have severe safety implications, as local councils do not have the powers to enforce the changes safely.

The Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which campaigns for better personal safety, has raised concerns that enabling anyone to drive a licensed minicab will provide,

“greater opportunity for those intent on preying on women”.

The Local Government Association has said that,

“it is imperative that the Government withdraws these plans”

to ensure passenger safety. All this when we have now received the major review that the Law Commission has been carrying out since 2011 on taxi and private hire deregulation. The law as it stands—both in London and Plymouth with its bespoke legislation, and in the rest of England and Wales with its different legal framework—is built on the premise of broadly local trade in local areas and allows each local authority to regulate the taxi and private hire trade in its own area. Crucially, it gives local enforcement officers sufficient powers to enforce the existing law over the drivers, vehicles and operators in each respective area.

The report of the Law Commission, which specifically considered deregulatory measures, would set up new trading conditions, freeing private hire operators and drivers to work in a national environment, and for both taxis and the private hire industry to compete on a pricing basis that the public would understand. However, it also proposed making sufficient changes to the enforcement regime such that local authority enforcement officers, in particular, specially trained stopping officers, would have new powers to enforce the proposed legislation over vehicles, drivers or operators, regardless of whether they were registered in their licensing authority area or had come from outside.

We have a strange situation. The Bill’s proposals, which were introduced without proper consultation, will have to be repealed when DfT brings forward, as it intends to do, the Law Commission proposals. That begins to look more like a response to special pleading than a genuine attempt to deregulate. I thought that this was a deregulatory Bill, not a double regulation Bill.

The Bill contains a controversial blanket ban on the use of CCTV for parking offences, something that the LGA, the British Parking Association, cycling groups, head teachers and charities representing blind and disabled people have argued against, while businesses and motoring groups offered mixed responses, with some motoring groups calling the ban a retrograde step and some businesses stressing that CCTV could remain beneficial at particular times and on particular occasions.

We will be supporting the proposals in the Bill for public footpaths. The present system for recording public paths on definitive maps is not operating with the speed and efficiency needed to ensure that all the rights of way are properly recorded, which would give certainty to all.

Finally, as we are out walking, I come back to dogs. Noble Lords will be aware of the old filmmaking saw, which said that you should aim never to work with children or animals. I wonder whether that holds true for legislation too. I have a strong feeling that this part is going to cause an awful lot of trouble. At the moment, dogs must always be sold with a collar and tag. The Government announced in February 2013 that they were going to introduce micro-chipping for all dogs in April 2016. The provision in the Bill, however, will create an 18-month gap between when the Bill is passed and when those rules come in. The LGA opposes the clause on animal welfare grounds. If a dog becomes lost at present, anyone who finds it is able to read the information on its collar. Members of the public will not be able to read a microchip and determine where an animal belongs. That will make it harder for members of the public to contact owners when they come across a stray dog and increase the likelihood that people will deliver stray dogs to councils. That would constitute a new burden and would surely need to be fully funded. Is that another spending commitment in a time of austerity? That is yet another nonsensical policy in this rather disjointed Bill. The Government seem to have been caught out on an unworkable proposal permitting dogs to be sold without collars before their own compulsory micro-chipping requirements have been introduced.

Good regulation protects consumers’ and employees’ rights, ensures that our industries play their part in moving to a green and sustainable future, keeps citizens safe and saves lives. It is important that it is effective and enforceable. Challenges arise when ill-thought through regulation has unforeseen consequences or is interpreted bureaucratically and inflexibly. It is fair to say that the overall reaction to the Bill has been underwhelming—lukewarm at best. Ministers are delighted with it, but that is because it seems to be about removing burdens as much on Ministers as on business. By my count, half the proposals in the Bill will take away burdens from Ministers and the Government, and fewer than half will remove them from business.

Once again, the Government’s rhetoric extends far beyond their reach. When we get into Committee, and on Report, the Opposition will seek to remove or amend the iniquitous clauses in the Bill and to improve the others. We look forward to the journey.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That is a very constructive suggestion. I will take it away and we will discuss it.

On short-term lets in London, I am told that the question was included in the consultation issued in February last year on a review of the property conditions of the private rented sector. Nearly 100 responses were received and the Government will publish their response shortly.

One of the happy surprises I have in facing this Bill is that my initial feeling that the rights of way clauses of the Bill would be the most difficult turns out not to be the case. The Ramblers, the Country Land and Business Association and others have written to me to say that they are united in asking for no further amendments to this part. I hope that we can all hold to that. It is remarkably unusual to find a situation in which all those involved in a deeply contentious area, which has been contentious for a very long time, have come to an agreement and are asking us to put it into law. Let us see how far we can get on that following their consensus.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and others asked about the TV licensing review. As a matter of course, I can tell him that the terms of reference will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses and the review itself must begin within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

That was not the main purpose of most of the comments, which was to allow for a discussion of the terms of reference of that review on the Floor of the Chamber. Simply to place them in the Libraries is not sufficient. Will the noble Lord reconsider that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I am told that the Government are currently committed to putting the terms of reference to both Houses at a later stage. I think that the noble Lord is asking for an early consultation. Again, let us talk off the Floor and see how far we get on that. My noble friend Lord Gardiner speaks for the DCMS and it may therefore be particularly appropriate that he would speak on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, was particularly concerned about the potential growth of alcohol consumption. I hope that in Committee we will be able to reassure him about what is proposed in these measures, which I recall have been discussed in terms of local arrangements allowing local communities to have events with fewer hoops to jump through in what I am told are community and ancillary sellers notices. The intention is strongly that this will be limited to a small part of any business that is allowed to do so. We do not see hairdressers offering gin and tonics to those who come to have their hair cut, which I think was almost what the noble Lord was suggesting, and other matters of that sort. Again, we will explore that further in Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, had concerns about the repeal of the duty of the Senior President of Tribunals to report. I am told that, since the duty to report was introduced in 2007, other and more effective feedback mechanisms have been introduced—the production of a report by the Senior President of Tribunals no longer represents the most effective way of providing feedback. What the tribunals now do is to introduce summary reasons in employment support allowance appeals, starting initially on four sites. These summary reports have been found to be more useful than what was done before. Again, I am happy to talk further if that helps.

I have taken a lot of time and I have not talked about the closure of small prisons or the whole relationship between the Law Commission and this Bill. It is perhaps time for a short debate on the future role of the Law Commission as there is quite a lot of interest in that.

Before I close, I will talk about the question of the growth duty and in particular the EHRC, because I know there is a lot of concern about that. We are considering the question of how far the growth duty extends to non-economic regulators. Again, that is something that we will discuss further. We look forward to a lively and lengthy Committee stage. I congratulate all those who have read the entire Bill all the way through to the end of Schedule 20. I beg to move.

Equality (Titles) Bill [HL]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure that I am capable of following all the subtleties of those contributions. I am not sure where the argument about the Labour Party comes from. As far as I am concerned, it is very simple, although I cannot speak officially for the Labour Party. We are, simply, opposed to discrimination on the grounds of gender, as the noble Baroness said a few minutes ago. That is all there is to it; surely that proposition is so simple. Of course the Bill will get blocked in the Commons. If any noble Lords have nothing to do on a Friday afternoon at 2.30 pm when the Commons is sitting, you will see the government Whip with a list of all the Bills, and he shouts “Object” to all of them. Last Friday he even objected to the Bill to give a pardon to Alan Turing. I thought that that was absolutely shameful. This House totally agreed that that Bill should go forward. That happened for reasons that the Government do not have to explain. The procedure in the Commons is absolutely lacking in total transparency. I will not digress too much on this, but it is quite wrong that an anonymous person—it happens that one can see that it is a government Whip—objects to all of those Bills. To object to the Alan Turing Bill was a really shabby thing and the Government should be ashamed of that.

To return to this Bill, the proposition is very simple. I do not speak for the Labour Party, but we are opposed to discrimination on the grounds of gender. I do not have any particular views on the rights of the aristocracy in any other respect, but the proposition is absolutely simple. If the Bill were to go through quickly, the Government might object, but it would send a signal in the hope that before too long, the Government will themselves take the matter in hand and do something about it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I came into this debate believing that a vow of omerta would probably be the best approach, and I intend to stick to that. However, I wanted to upset the noble Earl on his happy day. I am afraid that as my noble friend Lord Dubs just said, he is confusing several things. The position that we have adopted is as stated by my noble friend Lord Dubs: in relation to the way in which titles are transferred we believe in equality and we will support that. We do not believe in the hereditary principle, therefore his continuous presence in this House is something we would oppose.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, it is valuable to treat this Committee stage as a discussion about titles and the question of discrimination. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, talked about stripping away all the carbuncles. I hesitate a little on that, partly because the British constitution consists of a great many carbuncles. The application of rational design to the British constitution would sweep us away in its turn, which we know the majority of Members of this House are very strongly opposed to.

I was here when the Government announced that the office of Lord Chancellor was to be abolished. They thereupon discovered that the office of Lord Chancellor—a very ancient office—had a whole cast of obligations attached to it which was extraordinarily difficult to get rid of. That is why we still have, for different purposes, the office of Lord Chancellor combined with the Secretary of State for Justice.

The Government’s principle on this Bill is that we welcome the discussion of the elimination of discrimination as far as titles are concerned. My understanding on titles is that all honours stem from the Crown. I am therefore not entirely sure that titles are matters of property. One of the issues that we are debating in the Bill that stands behind this one in the queue is the question of whether the Duchy of Cornwall is a private property or a type of public property.