Report stage in the Lords
- Speaker
Earl HoweConservative- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 217A:
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness NeubergerCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, I have one addition to what the noble Earl has said. He and I are as one in thinking that the intention must be as he stated. On the issue of national representation, the Minister will know about National Voices and that we will have a national user body—or at least we hope we will in the near future. One thing that worries me is that, as the noble Earl outlined, there is no reference anywhere here to any role that such a national body might play. There is a gap where one might expect something about that, and there is plenty of room for suspicion—if no more—in how the Bill is phrased right now. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I hope I can offer some reassurance. I do not accept the noble Earl’s analysis of the question of consultation around a provider. The whole policy remit of the Bill is about providing for consultation around the provision of services. New duties are introduced, for example, for strategic health authorities to consult on their role and the frameworks for which they are responsible. Some of the concerns that the noble Earl has raised in this amendment might legitimately be answered in those clauses if one is looking at the general thrust of policy towards the delivery of services in an area. I do not accept the noble Earl’s analysis, although I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, about the importance of developments outside the terms of the Bill, such as the National Voices initiative. Additionally, a level of scrutiny exists over and above the Bill through bodies such as the Health Select Committee, which holds the Government to account. That is equally important. We do not accept that the change proposed by the amendment makes good sense. Involvement and consultation should be meaningful and have some relevance to patients and the public. The clause provides specifically for consultation to relate to services received by patients and the public, because that is relevant and meaningful to them. I do not want to repeat our discussions in Committee. The clause relating to services supplied has the effect of requiring involvement and consultation of patients and the public on matters where they would have no ability to judge the effect of any change, except possibly through any preconceptions they might have about a provider. It makes more sense for consultation to be about the services that a patient receives rather than the nature of the provider supplying them. If a change in the nature or name of the provider results in a change to the service, the duty to involve and consult remains. I am happy to put that on the record. We are quite clear that there should be appropriate consultation whenever there is a change to services, and where that change has an impact on the nature of services and the manner in which they are provided. I am comfortable that the existing provisions are right, in that they ensure that consultation requirements kick in when there is a meaningful impact on the people who use or may use services. I understand the concerns that noble Lords have raised, but the additional measures in the Bill will, I hope, encourage them to withdraw the amendment.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Earl HoweConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, that was a helpful and largely reassuring reply. I accept that the insertion in the Bill of provisions relating to strategic health authorities makes a difference in so far as wholesale changes to services are concerned, because they would necessarily have to be dealt with at that level. Nevertheless, I still have an uneasy feeling. I always come back in my mind to health inequalities and marginalised groups in a community, whose voice is less often heard than that of others. To argue that it is all right to switch a service to a different provider because the patient will not notice any difference misses the point that there could be people whom the service is not reaching at all, and that the provider concerned is not the best or most appropriate person to reach them. That concern lay behind my amendment.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, the point that I am trying to make is that if the patient notices any difference or is concerned that there might be a difference, the consultation duty kicks in. If there is no difference, surely there is no matter.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Earl HoweConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, that begs the question of who decides whether there is going to be any difference, and I would have thought that it was for patients’ groups to be afforded that opportunity. But I note what the Minister said. I shall leave it there and reflect carefully on this matter between now and Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 218 and 219:
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 219ZA:
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 219ZB:
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Earl HoweConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, the noble Baroness correctly anticipated the points that I would have made in speaking to Amendment No. 219ZBA. Those were precisely the concerns that she outlined. I am reassured by her reply and there is no need for me to speak to the amendment further. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 219ZBA not moved.]
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 219ZC:
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 219A:
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am not sure that I am going to satisfy the noble Baroness, given her concerns. However, I will take a few minutes to respond and give the amendment the proper consideration that it deserves. First and foremost, I will put on record the Government’s gratitude to members of licensing committees around the country, who have recently undertaken an enormous task. The Government are indebted to them for the work that they do and we are aware that they have worked under tremendous pressure. I would not want to give any other impression than make full note of that gratitude. However, the Government resist the changes that Amendment No. 219A would make to the Licensing Act 2003. To understand the effect of the amendment, I need to explain a little about the relevant parts of the 2003 Act, which, after receiving Royal Assent, became fully operational in November 2005. As the noble Baroness explained, Section 6 of the 2003 Act provides that a licensing authority, normally the local council at district level, must establish a licensing committee consisting of at least 10 but no more than 15 members of the licensing authority. Section 9(1) of the Act then empowers a licensing committee to establish one or more sub-committees consisting of three members of that committee. Accordingly, in combination, these sections allow a maximum of five sub-committees to function simultaneously, if necessary, and require that all sub-committee members are members of the main licensing committee. As we have heard, the second part of the proposed new clause refers to Sections 13(3) and 69(3) of the 2003 Act, which make certain individuals and bodies interested parties in relation to applications for, and to vary, premises licences and club premises certificates. Under the Act, an interested party is entitled to make relevant representations to the licensing authority about such applications and to seek reviews of existing licences, which is the important new point. To be “relevant”, the representations must be made within a prescribed time limit, not be frivolous or vexatious, and must relate to the four statutory licensing objectives. As I am sure noble Lords are well aware, those are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The current interested parties are a person living in the vicinity of the premises or club premises, a body representing persons who live in that vicinity, a person involved in business in that vicinity and a body representing persons involved in that vicinity. The purpose of the new clause relating to Sections 13 and 69 would be to add new individuals and bodies to the existing list. The effect of the proposed new clause relating to Section 9(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 would be to permit any member of the licensing authority to sit on a licensing sub-committee, rather than only members of the main licensing committee. It would thus do away with the requirement that all sub-committee members be members of the main committee, leaving open the possibility that the main committee could form a sub-committee whose members did not include any member of the main committee. I am quite proud of that paragraph; there are a lot of “committees” in there. It would be possible to have a sub-committee made up of councillors who are not on the main committee. I have no doubt that this part of the proposed new clause is intended to be well-meaning and maximise the flexibility available to licensing authorities by allowing any member of the council to participate in a licensing hearing. However, most members of licensing committees receive training to enable them to better understand the complexities and technicalities of some of the arguments presented in licensing matters. Their experience in making decisions as members of the sub-committee enhances that knowledge, leading to the building up of a body of specialised expertise in the authority, whose repository is the licensing committee. That is the policy that the provisions in their unamended form were designed to achieve, and we would not want that to be forgone by amendments that fundamentally changed the relationship between the main committee and its sub-committees. In addition, we do not think that there is really a need for increased flexibility in sub-committee membership. The most intensive work for licensing committees was during the 2003 Act’s transitional period between February and November 2005. We are grateful for the tremendous work that the committees did then. However, I am glad to say that since November 2005 the workload on those committees has vastly reduced. Most applications for the grant or variation of a licence do not reach a hearing before licensing sub-committees and are dealt with by officers, which is a step in the right direction. Unlike the old licensing regimes, the Act provides that hearings should only arise where there are disputes and representations have been made by responsible authorities, such as the police, or by interested parties, such as a resident living in the vicinity of the premises or club. Even then, most cases are dealt with by mediation and are resolved without the need for a hearing. The aim of the Act was to reduce the rafts of red tape that led to unnecessary hearings and get a sharper focus on the cases that mattered to the community. The arrangements appear to have worked extremely well since the transitional period was completed in November 2005. The existing flexibility provided by the Act, with the option of five sub-committees capable of sitting simultaneously is, in our view, entirely adequate. The second part of the proposed new clause would amend Sections 13 and 69 of the Licensing Act 2003. The proposed amendments would expand the list of “interested parties” to include elected individuals and bodies such as parish councils, local authority councillors, MPs and, of course, Members of the Welsh Assembly. While not doubting that those bodies and individuals can play a valuable role in local licensing matters, I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. As the noble Baroness has made clear, parish and town councils are self-evidently bodies that represent those living within the vicinity of a licensed premises and, as such, should already be considered as interested parties. The guidance to licensing authorities issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of the 2003 Act clarifies that. I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that that is controversial, but I hope that making this clear on the record will help. Local councillors, MPs, Members of the Welsh Assembly or, for that matter, MEPs or Peers, who live in the vicinity of premises applying for a licence can obviously make representations in their own right as interested parties. They can also apply for a review of the licence at any time if problems occur. The guidance to licensing authorities under Section 182 of the Act also makes it clear that, even if they do not live in the vicinity of the premises, councillors, MPs and others can, if asked, make representations on behalf of an interested party, such as a local resident. They can do this if they consider that the fulfilment of their duties as a representative of their area as a whole permits or requires this. They can also act for them as advocates at any subsequent hearing. In support of councillors’ role as advocates for their local communities, the guidance also refers to the amendment of the code of conduct for local authority members in May 2007, which relaxed the rules relating to members’ prejudicial interests. This means that a member with a prejudicial interest is allowed to attend a meeting to make representations on behalf of a constituent, provided that the public are allowed to attend for the same purpose and the member withdraws from the meeting after making his or her representations. What members cannot do is make representations or request reviews if they do not live in the vicinity or have not been asked by someone who does to act on their behalf. We believe that this must be the correct approach; such members are representatives of those in the relevant area and should act in that capacity. This amendment would create a capacity to act independently of the residents or businesses of the area, which does not seem appropriate. Furthermore, the licensing authority is a representative body for the area in which the licensed premises are situated. Additional input from other representatives acting on their own account does not seem necessary or desirable. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment. She has highlighted an extremely important area and I hope that I have put on record the Government’s position with regard to licensing sub-committees.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply and for drawing attention to the amount of work that licensing committees have done. They are probably not as pressed now as they were when the Act first came in. My husband was a member of such a committee and I know how much work he did when dealing with all the licensing applications. The people on those committees will welcome the noble Baroness’s comments on that. Perhaps I may argue further about enabling the authority as a whole to be, in effect, the main licensing committee. There is nothing to stop 50 or 60 people being members of a committee—receiving training and being the committee. If that were available in legislation and could be adopted if a local authority wanted to, normal rules would apply for the main licensing committee as it stood. The members would have to undergo the same training and they would have to ensure that they were able and qualified to sit on a sub-committee. That would have to be a sine qua non of extending the licensing committee to take in all the members of an authority. I do not totally accept the noble Baroness’s argument, but I can see that she is not likely to shift very much and I shall take that into account. I recognise that the position of parish councils and communities has changed, but it has happened in a way that people are not totally happy with. However, I accept that the situation is not as it was originally, and I hope that in time the issue will become clearer. With regard to applying for a review of the other people who can take part, councillors always expect to be able to make representations about anything in their area, regardless of whether the council is running it. In their representative role, they have always expected to be able to take part in licensing legislation and are all rather miffed at not being able to put forward their views, particularly if they happen to know something about a situation that residents’ representatives do not know or have not asked them to put forward. I can see that it is very nice to be asked; equally, it is very nice to be able to contribute. I shall not push the amendment further. I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 219B:
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Smith of LeighLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I speak in support of the spirit of the amendments. I have been a long-time advocate of the fact that local government can do much better many of the local administration tasks currently performed by central Government. On the first day of Report, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, evoked French local government as a wonderful model. I am glad to see the Opposition Front Bench putting that into practice, as this is something that happens in French local authorities. The advantages are many-fold. In addition to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said about how local authorities can tackle worklessness and deprivation, we know that it is often intergenerational. People are on benefits; and their children and grandchildren get on benefits. We could begin to tackle this in a much more coherent way than is currently done by the agencies. There would be greater public contact with the town hall. People will go there and understand what local government is about. One of the things one notices in France is how people going about their ordinary business have to go regularly to the town hall. We do not want to repeat the number of forms that you have to get in France, but it is quite a good system that involves people. As the noble Baroness said, local authorities already administer important national benefits, such as housing benefits and council tax benefits. We could avoid much of the duplication; we are collecting the same information twice. We could do it more effectively. The noble Baroness mentioned that we could target people who are missing out on benefits. I am convinced that we could do it more efficiently in the light of the Gershon savings. I noted more targets announced last week by the Chancellor. We need to think about those things which are in one sense radical but could improve the service and achieve efficiency savings. I know that the Department for Work and Pensions has conducted studies on whether some of the administration could transfer to local authorities. I hope that in response my noble friend can give us encouragement that the Government will seriously consider this.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, which I am sorry we are having rather late in the evening. Some interesting issues have been raised. The noble Baroness will not be surprised that I cannot accept her amendment, although the case was presented well—certainly on what my noble friend has just said about the role of local authorities and the focus that we have to put into disadvantaged areas, such as worklessness, in particular. I refer to all the work that we have done through the neighbourhood renewal fund, for example, new deal for communities, and so on. We were making great progress in reducing comparative levels of crime and in education scores, and so on. The most difficult thing to drive down is worklessness. There are a number of important local strategies and some of the work being done by the DWP is very innovative. We are not turning our face against the amendments for frivolous reasons. There is a lot happening, which I shall address briefly, suggesting that there is a direction of travel, but there is also some tension in the frameworks that we need. Essentially, if the amendments were adopted, Amendment No. 219B would leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of State on whether to devolve these functions to individual local authorities. In contrast, Amendment No. 222B would automatically result in local authorities taking on the same set of functions through a modification of their community strategy. It is worth looking briefly at the legislative framework in which they operate. My first argument is that it already provides many of the tools they need to secure the well-being of their population. Part I of the Local Government Act 2000 sets out a framework for local authorities, their partners and wider communities to improve economic, social and environmental well-being. In that framework, prior to the 2000 Act, local authorities could only do what legislation expressly permitted them to do. There was little flexibility to do anything discretionary. That was changed by Section 2 of the 2000 Act, which reversed it and gave the power to these authorities to do anything they considered likely to improve or promote social or environmental well-being, subject to express legislative restrictions which I will come back to. The well-being power was a power of first resort. It is interesting that we are already aware of councils using the power specifically to deal with employment issues. The London Borough of Greenwich, for example, has set up a recruitment company using the well-being power, and Bridgnorth and West Devon district councils have used the power to work with their RDAs, among others, to increase development opportunities. Although they do not have these statutory responsibilities, there is no doubt that, with imagination, they are learning how to apply these tools. Authorities must also have regard to their community strategy when they consider exercising their well-being powers under the 2000 Act. They are subject to certain limitations, as the noble Baroness knows, set out in Section 3(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act including taking actions that are expressly prohibited in legislation and raising money by means of precepts, borrowing or otherwise. On the specific amendments, if we look only at the role of the local authority in taking forward the employment agenda, we come up against the first problem which is that this goes in the opposite direction of travel to where we are going with partnerships, local area agreements and the revised performance frameworks. All of those are a result of looking at ways of bringing functions together with a smaller number of shared objectives which, in some of these local areas, can particularly address worklessness or skills. Secondly, I put on the record the fundamental point that we have a national framework and national standards for income benefits, and for good reasons. That obviously goes back to Beveridge and the first post-war National Insurance Act. If we are going to debate overturning national standards, we must do so seriously. It is hardly something we could do late at night in this Bill, but it is a live issue and there is a lot of interest in how you can achieve a balance of powers and responsibilities. Indeed, we have moved in that direction, first, through the Sustainable Communities Bill which provides a means for taking this debate forward. Under that Bill, the Secretary of State would invite proposals from local authorities which they consider would help them promote the sustainability of local communities. More recent, and even more exciting in a way, is the review of sub-national economic development and regeneration which looked precisely at the right level for different functions to be delivered: national, regional, sub-regional or local. It threw down the challenge to local authorities to come to the Government with proposals for multi-area agreements. They would essentially be sub-regional. You could have some serious innovation there. We know that economic realities do not respect administrative boundaries. We have also devolved some of these elements, such as the learning and skills funding and functions, and I am sympathetic to the intention behind this. We have already announced that funding for the delivery of Connexions services will pass to all local authorities from April 2008. Subject to consultation and necessary legislation, funding for school sixth forms, sixth form colleges and the contribution of FE colleges to the 14-19 phase will also transfer to local authorities’ ring-fenced education budgets. That is important, because it is very much a local function. In conclusion, we have provided a great deal of freedom to local authorities in this regard—through the 2000 Act and clauses in this Bill—to introduce statutory LAAs, thereby stripping away some of the centralist elements. We must respect the checks and balances, but that does not mean that we are deaf or blind to innovation. It is a lively debate, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for enabling us to have it.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Smith of LeighLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I was not advocating that we should get away from national standards on benefits as, for example, with housing benefit every local authority administers a national scheme. I am sure that we could handle applications for benefits a lot better, more effectively and more efficiently than the sometimes faceless officers of DWP who people have to demean themselves to. I am glad that my noble friend said that the Government will not be deaf to innovation because if that is the case we will get a bid from Wigan.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, at half-past nine, I am grateful to have had even a smidgen of an interesting debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, for supporting me. I did not really expect the Minister to throw up her hands and say that the Government will take this on board, but it is part of the debate about the Bill, in which we have been looking at bringing greater devolution to local government and making things better for local people. It may not be possible to take this on board in the Bill, but I was glad to hear the Minister say that some thought is being given to at least part of it. Most local authorities are now running one-stop shops where people are able to discuss most aspects of their problems and get help. Most local authorities are labouring with the problems of worklessness, people not in education and people who are not benefiting from jobseeker’s allowance because they are doing training, coming out and then not doing anything. There is a host of problems that can be dealt with if someone is there at a local level to do it. I am on a working party in my local authority to understand why people do not take up benefits. That is of immediate local interest because of council tax benefit and housing benefit. There are rafts of reasons why people are not claiming, but we need to know them because there is a deficit between what can be claimed and what is claimed. I hope that this debate will continue. I accept that it may not be possible tonight and that this amendment is not appropriate tonight but I hope that as time goes on and local authorities are given more responsibility the reasoning behind it will become more apparent and we may perhaps be able to make some progress on it. I thank the Minister for her reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Boston of FavershamCrossbench- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 221:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness FookesConservative- Quote
- My Lords, I am delighted to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. He has most eloquently expressed his views, so I will not attempt to repeat them. I am a resident of one of the Cinque Ports—Hastings—and I have a particular interest since my political career started there, so many years ago that it was then a county borough, before the great changes brought about by the 1972 Act. I remember then the immense pride that the town and the other towns took in belonging to the Confederation of the Cinque Ports, and it is important that we recognise these historical traditions and do our utmost to ensure that such an attractive, simple proposition as the ability to admit as honorary freemen those who have given distinguished service should be returned. I hope that the Government will not make too much of a meal of this. It is very easy to find all kinds of reasons why things should not be done. May I hope that the Minister will find ways of bringing this about in this particular Bill? I warmly support the amendment.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord ImbertCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, in his proposed amendment, particularly in so far as it concerns the Cinque Ports and member towns of the Confederation of the Cinque Ports. I, too, must declare an interest. I was born in a Cinque Port, was brought up in one, went to school in one, and my first job was in the town clerk's office of a Cinque Port. I am also proud to have a Cinque Port ship shown on my coat of arms. Some noble Lords may wonder what all the fuss is about. “After all”, they might say, “In the end, it’s only words”. Why should the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, feel so passionate about what, to the uninitiated, may sound a bit unnecessary? But my noble friend Lord Boston is endeavouring to right a grievous wrong. It may be that the civil servant who drafted Clause 249 of the Local Government Bill 1972—he or she was no doubt legally qualified, like all our civil servants, for whom I have the highest regard; I have been fortunate enough to work with many of them over the years—did so in impeccable English. Unwittingly, however—I cannot believe that even the most careless drafter could have meant to be so destructive—he or she drew a red-pencil line through some of the proudest and bravest times in this country's history. Trust me, I am a policeman—and this seems to be a job for the police. It is a case of theft, whether deliberate or in ignorance, of certain rights and privileges granted in particular to the Cinque Ports over many hundreds of years for their contribution and devotion to duty in the forefront of the defence of this kingdom. Their provision of ships and the manpower to sail and operate them as fighting units against this country’s enemies, particularly the French and Spanish navies, has long been recognised by a succession of monarchs. There is evidence of charters to individual ports from the 11th century. By the middle of the 13th century, charters were granted to the five ports, to the two ancient towns of Rye and Winchelsea and to their members collectively. There is even credible speculation of long-lost charters which pre-date the Norman Conquest. But, in my view, the most important was that of Queen Elizabeth 1, in 1563, at the time of threatened invasion by the French and Spanish fleets. Throughout the centuries proud young men of the ancient boroughs and towns have been quick to acknowledge any call to arms, and the Cinque Ports, by granting the most outstanding the honorary freedom of the town, had a way of publicly acknowledging that tradition of duty. One of the first people after the 1939-45 war to be appointed as a freeman of the Cinque Port borough of New Romney was a local young man, Wing Commander Learoyd, DFC. He was a distinguished World War II pilot whose exploits included involvement with the famous “Dambusters”. I was one of the most recent to be given the honorary freedom of that town, in 2000, but I cannot lay claim to exploits like those of Learoyd and his many Battle of Britain colleagues. It seems that as a result of the Local Government Act 1972, the town council may not have had the legal power to confer that honour on me. Am I the first “illegal” in your Lordships House? Speaking selfishly, perhaps this is all the more reason to correct the current anomaly. If we fail to accept this amendment to the proposed Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, should we expect in the future some legislative error to commit us to ploughing up the Battle of Britain memorial to those precious few, which stands as a proud symbol of freedom and bravery on the cliffs between Folkestone and the Cinque Port borough of Dover? I strongly urge your Lordships to support the amendment.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I would be happy to do so. We have had three fascinating speeches and I have learnt a lot which I did not know before. One of the proudest things that a local authority can do is to honour someone who has been of help, has had a significant position, has been of assistance, or is just such an example that it wishes to honour him or her. It is done sparingly, and it is therefore that much more important. Any local authority worth its name should have the right to do so—if for no other reason than to make the noble Lord legal.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham; it has been a delightful short debate. The Cinque Ports could not have a more distinguished or powerful group of champions and advocates. I am impressed by the personal associations, especially that of the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, who gave us his personal history, and the loyalty which the Cinque Ports command from their residents and supporters. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, it is a great honour to be able both to receive and award these distinctions. It is a very important part of our history and traditions and we are not in any way diminishing that. I have some disappointing news, but I can also hold out the prospect of some positive news as I respond to the noble Lord. We have, as he knows, given his amendment serious consideration, but we are unable to include it in the Bill for practical reasons. He referred to the pressures on the Bill and spoke about the direction that it had taken in terms of its major function, the improvement of public services. That is certainly one barrier. A greater barrier, however, is that the issue is not as straightforward as it first appears. Our principal concern is that the power to grant such privileges is usually conferred on a local authority, but some of the Cinque Ports are not local government entities; in particular, Winchelsea is currently not a local government area. It is therefore not clear on whom the power to admit freemen would be conferred. Resolving the question will require serious discussion with a variety of local partners about who is best placed to take on the role of admitting freemen. Any legislative solution will need to include a suitable definition of the ports that are compatible with current local government legislation. We need also to consider whether extending this power to admit freemen has implications as a precedent for other areas. I am absolutely willing to see whether there are ways around these difficulties. There may well be, such as by conferring powers on charter trustees, as suggested by the noble Lord’s amendment. This will need to be explored further. We also know, for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, that the Cinque Ports are the subject of very old legislation and customs. The very age and uncertainty of the legislative framework means that any amendment to rights and privileges is complicated. We need time to consider the issues properly, but that time is not available to us now. I have every sympathy with the wishes of the confederation. As I said, it is important that we maintain our most ancient and historic local traditions. I regret that the ability to honour eminent citizens has been lost to the historic ports and towns in the confederation, although I understand that Hastings may still confer the honour. The noble Lord will know that I am keen to do whatever I can to help him meet his aims and the aims of the confederation. We have already done some work in the department—which is why we know how much more there is to be done—on how best this might be achieved. My officials will be in touch with the confederation, if they have not done so already, so that as a first step we can get a real understanding of the issues and help prepare for what may be a more suitable legislative opportunity. I hold out that prospect to the noble Lord. The Government are certainly sympathetic and will be prepared to do some work with the confederation on this. I hope that, for the moment, he will withdraw his amendment.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Boston of FavershamCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have taken part in this short debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and my noble friend Lord Imbert. I am also grateful to the Minister for what she said. She has indeed been encouraging and sympathetic, even more so in recent days than she was a little while ago. In her response she indicated what sounds to me like a positive way forward. The words she used today about another legislative opportunity which would enable us to pursue these aims, and we hope secure them, sound as though that will not be in the remote and distant future, but sooner than that. She has also been helpful in meeting me with some of her officials during our recent Recess. I am grateful for that. I hope that my noble friends and other supporters of the amendment will agree with me in saying that, with the positive approach indicated by the Minister, we can take that step forward. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord BestCrossbench- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 222:
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, we debated the proposal in Committee. I do not have a huge amount to add to what I said then, but we have certainly moved on a little way, not least because of our conversations with the LGA. Amendment No. 222 would abolish the Secretary of State’s power to issue a code of practice for local authorities about the content, style, distribution and cost of publicity issued by authorities. I still do not consider that to be a desirable outcome, and I am not alone in doing so. Out of about 320 respondents to a consultation which we carried out earlier this year, only 20 people wanted the code to be abolished. However, I recognise the noble Lord’s concern about the content, style and ownership of the code. We aim to consult later this year not only on its content, but also on whether it is necessary for the code to be issued by the department or whether instead any code and its contents could be a matter for local government representative bodies. That would give ownership to the local authorities. Abolition of the publicity code would not help. It would mean that authorities would be left to themselves to decide what to publish and not to publish. There is an obvious problem of inconsistent treatment and lack of clarity. That is why so many people in local government wanted to keep the code. However, as I indicated, we are looking at the wider future of the code. We want to explore any suggestions from the local government world and stakeholders on the content of the code and how it might be updated, simplified or clarified; for example, to support members’ advocacy role for their communities. I would be grateful if the noble Lord joined us in that dialogue. We will reach a decision on the ownership, format and content of the code on the basis of the responses to the consultation. The existing rules require the Secretary of State to consult local authorities before issuing any code. We will consider with local government, including the LGA, with which I have already discussed the matter, what form they would like to see the code take to make sure that the views of the representative bodies are reflected. I have discussed with the LGA the possibility of it and other representative bodies consulting on the future of the publicity code. I hope that we can further consider how to go about framing a new code, because it is the most sensible and effective way of taking the matter forward. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to contribute his own views during the consultation.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BestCrossbench
- Quote
- My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. If the local authorities had been asked whether, in place of a statutory code laid down by central government, a code prepared by local government, put forward perhaps with the Local Government Association at the helm, might exist, they would have been almost unanimous in saying that that alternative would be preferable. They were not asked that question. However, the review that the Minister promised might come to almost the same conclusion. That would be a happy outcome. It is part of the process of central government backing off and local government doing its own thing. I hope that that outcome will come to pass. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bruce-Lockhart is not in his place today to move Amendments Nos. 222A to 222C; he is not very well. I shall table them again at Third Reading in the hope that he might be able to be here then. [Amendments Nos. 222A to 222C not moved.] Clause 248 [Commencement]:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 223:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 224:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 226:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 227 and 228:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 229:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Ullswater)Conservative- Quote
- My Lords, I must advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 230 is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 231 to 239.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 230:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 240 to 241:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 242 to 244:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 245:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 246 to 248:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 249:
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, let me start where the noble Baroness concluded. I know that the council of VT members welcomes the concept of the single Valuation Tribunal. I do not think for a moment that she is sabotaging this; she is obviously expressing her serious concerns with the process. The most useful thing that I can do is bring her up to date with where we are on the post of the new president of the VTE. DCLG Ministers have recently agreed a draft job specification for the post of the new president of the VTE. It has been passed on to the Judicial Appointments Commission, which will run the recruitment campaign in due course under the Ministry of Justice. Final decisions on the specification will be for it. We have an open mind about whether the appointment should carry a requirement for previous judicial experience. It is perfectly possible that many, if not most, good and well qualified candidates are likely to bring that experience with them, but we do not see that as an absolute requirement that needs to be spelt out in legislation. It is worth bearing in mind that such a requirement would exclude almost all the membership of the current valuation tribunals from the field, since they are volunteer lay members. Putting that on the record may be of some help to the noble Baroness in the context of what she was saying about judicial independence. I do not have a huge amount to say that is new since Committee. On the amendments to Schedule 16, the VTE will have both express and implied powers. It will have power to determine those appeals which are within its jurisdiction. Consequently, it will have power to do anything that is necessary to fulfil that duty; but there is no need to make express provision for each and every facet of those implied powers in the Bill. The Government believe that it is important for the VTE president to have an express duty for the selection of VTE members who are to deal with any appeal, so that at least one senior member of the VTE is required to deal with an appeal. There is nothing to prevent the president making further procedural arrangements, including through guidance. In relation to the discharge of VTE functions, I again reassure the noble Baroness that it is not the intention to usurp or obstruct the appellate functions of the tribunal. A power to delegate functions is not new; a similar power already exists in relation to the current valuation tribunals. It is simply about facilitating good administration. The Government’s view remains that requiring the consent of the president before functions can be discharged by the clerk will be unnecessarily bureaucratic and may even inhibit the purpose behind the power. In most cases, the Government expect the power to be used at the express wish of the president of the VTE, and the Government would consult the president of the VTE before exercising regulation-making powers, so consultation will be built in. There are three amendments to Schedule 17 which are linked and which seek to remove the requirement for the majority of members of the VTS board to be senior members of the VTE. I have previously set out the reasons for the board composition and why the Government believe that it is important for this to be retained when the VTE is established. It ensures that the board has a good understanding of how tribunals function and the likely impact of any proposals being considered by the board. The president of the VTE would be a member of the VTS board by virtue of office, but to prohibit any other tribunal members from sitting on the board would deny the VTS board the crucial input from those people who are strongly involved in the day-to-day working of the VTE. Importantly, it would go against the views that the members of the valuation tribunals expressed when the founding legislation for the VTS was approved by this House and in the other place. I hope that in the light of those explanations and what I said about the post of the president of the VTE, the noble Baroness will take some comfort and will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 22:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, the Minister said that the Government are consulting the Judicial Appointments Commission on the job specification or, possibly, the job description—which is not quite the same as the person specification, which is what I am concerned about. Can she confirm that there is consultation about the person specification—in other words, the qualifications and qualities required—as well as the job description?
- Time
- 22:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- Yes, my Lords, we will be continuing the consultation as part and parcel of trying to achieve the right outcome.
- Time
- 22:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, that being the case, I can, at any rate, be satisfied that the debate on this issue will not end tonight, as that consultation is ongoing. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 250 not moved.] Schedule 17 [Consequential amendments relating to the creation of the Valuation Tribunal for England]: [Amendments Nos. 251 to 253 not moved.] Schedule 19 [Repeals]:
- Time
- 22:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 254 to 257:
- Time
- 22:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗