Vol. 707 Wednesday No. 23 28 January 2009

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Questions EU: Welfare Benefits Prisons: Young Offender SP Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill: Pre-legislative Scrutiny BBC: Disasters Emergency Committee Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] Committee (Third Day) Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming Machines in Bingo Premises) Order 2009 Gambling Act 2005 (Variation of Monetary Limit) Order 2009 Motions to Approve Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] Committee (Third Day) (continued)

Grand Committee Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL] Committee (Fourth Day)

Written Statements Written Answers For column numbers see back page

£3·50 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/index/090128.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords £3·50 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords £525 WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, £12; Lords £6 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £440; Lords £255 Index—Single copies: Commons, £6·80—published every three weeks Annual subscriptions: Commons, £125; Lords, £65. LORDS CUMULATIVE INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £40. Standing orders will be accepted.

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN, compiled by the House of Commons, gives details of past and forthcoming business, the work of Committees and general information on legislation, etc. Single copies: £1·50. Annual subscription: £53·50. All prices are inclusive of postage.

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2009, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ 243 EU: Welfare Benefits[28 JANUARY 2009] EU: Welfare Benefits 244

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I cannot give House of Lords the noble Lord those data off the top of my head. I am not sure whether we record them fully in respect of Wednesday, 28 January 2009. foreign nationals because, for the most part, under these co-ordinated arrangements, nationality is not a 3pm key determinant of benefit payments. I can give him a number for the total payments made to UK nationals Prayers—read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord and EU citizens living in the EU in the year to Bishop of Carlisle. September 2008: it was about £1 billion, most of which was pension entitlements. EU: Welfare Benefits Lord Swinfen: My Lords, are claimants able to draw Question benefits in more than one country at the same time? Asked By Lord Roberts of Llandudno To ask Her Majesty’s Government what Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it is unlikely. arrangements they will make to enable citizens of The co-ordination arrangements, which are not about European Union countries to access their own nation’s harmonising benefit systems across the 31 countries welfare benefits wherever they are in the European involved, seek to allocate, particularly for workers, to Union. which country’s scheme you pay contributions to and therefore which state is responsible for the benefits. It The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, is therefore unlikely that there would be overlap, but Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of we are dealing with 31 systems here and they are not Luton): My Lords, the EU member states have put in totally aligned. place social security co-ordinating regulations that ensure that citizens can access their own nation’s benefits Lord Soley: My Lords, I endorse my noble friend’s if they have entitlement to them. Entitlement depends comments about the complexity of this issue but is on a number of factors such as the current place of there not a case for the European Union to look at work, if in work; the last place of work, if retired; and other ways of helping? I do not think that it is easy to where their centre of interest lies. These rules do not harmonise all the arrangements but I give the simple discriminate between EEA citizens on the grounds of example of the problems presented by a Polish person nationality. needing emergency housing in London, when there is housing available, but no work, in their home town in Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I am grateful Poland. There is a case for looking at voluntary schemes for that Answer. The Minister will be aware of the that would allow for transfer between countries and number of migrants who are legally resident in the provide additional help to enable people in those UK whose jobs collapse, especially in the present circumstances to go home instead of remaining homeless economic circumstances, and who are then homeless on our streets or on the streets of other countries. and without any income whatever. Wouldthe Government be prepared to explore with our European partners arrangements whereby people who had paid their Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, my noble contributions, say in Poland or in Lithuania, would be friend raises a very interesting question. I do not think able to draw on their country’s resources if they were that the matter is currently under review but I shall in need because they had had a hard time in the certainly take back his suggestion to colleagues in the country where they were living at the time? department.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, this is a very Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, given complex area. There are cross-border issues around the unprecedented collapse of the building industry in benefits. There are existing co-ordination arrangements this country, in which many visiting workers from under which posted employees—people who are posted eastern Europe have been employed, has the department for just 12 months to another state—can access and any estimate of how many workers in that industry are contribute to their benefit system back home. EEA from eastern Europe, and how many of them are now nationals, including those from the accession countries, unemployed? can access income-related benefits in the UK under certain circumstances, including if they have been working and registered for at least 12 months and are Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the answer is seeking work. There are more restrictive arrangements no. Clearly, we have unemployment data which are for A8 and A2 nationals but there is still an opportunity, broken down into broad sectors but I do not believe with that proviso, to access income-related benefits. that the data distinguish between people from particular EU states or from outside. Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, how many people are in the position that the Minister has just described? Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the noble In other words, to how many foreign residents are we Lord agree that it might be helpful if he published the paying social security benefits and what is the global answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, amount of the benefits they are receiving? Lord Skelmersdale, if and when he is able to discover it? 245 EU: Welfare Benefits[LORDS] Prisons: Young Offender SP 246

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, if the information Will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to is available in the form requested I shall certainly cleanse the Prison Service of its attitude towards other ensure that it is made available. The point I was inquiries? seeking to make is that access to a range of benefits—we are dealing with income-related benefits, contributory Lord Bach: My Lords, I have to refute the noble and non-contributory benefits, with different rules for Lord’s suggestion as strongly as I can. From a particular each—does not necessarily rest on nationality. Therefore, case he generalises to an absurd extent. The fact is that nationality is not necessarily recorded when a benefit the Prison Service and all those who work in the is claimed or, indeed, awarded. prisons part of the Ministry of Justice have a hard job to do. There are some extremely difficult cases. I do Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, does the not think that it aids prisoners in any way if someone Minister agree that if these folk who fall on hard times with as much experience and who is as widely respected in the UK, but are not of the UK, could access their as the noble Lord is on this subject generalises to the own national benefits at least they would not be extent that he has done in the House today. It does penniless and that would resolve many of the problems them a huge disservice. If I may say so, he should of rough sleeping and homelessness, which are increasing choose his words rather more carefully. as the credit crunch continues? Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is not generalising. This case has been going on since 2003 to Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I do not think 2005, when the individual SP suffered her injuries. that anything in the UK system would preclude people’s There was then a prolonged inquiry, which collapsed. home states making contributions. Under the Then the Government, in their wisdom, appointed a co-ordination arrangements, when people from abroad Prison Service manager to chair the inquiry. Rightly, are in work in the UK, they pay their contributions that was struck out by the courts. I do not think that into the UK state system and not into their home the Minister can dismiss that as being the noble Lord, systems. However, I take the noble Lord’s point. This Lord Ramsbotham, generalising. Will he now answer area is worthy of further examination. the points put by the noble Lord?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I was not for a moment Prisons: Young Offender SP suggesting that in asking about this case the noble Question Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was generalising. However, he made some very general attacks on the way in 3.07 pm which this particular part of the Ministry of Justice reacted to prison problems. I thought that that was Asked By Lord Ramsbotham unfair. On this case, of course it is right to say that To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Prisons there have been difficulties. The court decided that and Probations Ombudsman withdrew from chairing there had not been undue delay by the Ministry of the public inquiry into the case of female young Justice. We had considered that the investigator whom offender SP. we had commissioned to undertake the investigation would be suitably independent and have the relevant skills to conduct the investigation in a transparent and The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry robust manner. The court disagreed. That is the position of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, in his letter of that we are in and we want to move forward. 18 June 2008, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman set out his reasons for withdrawing from the SP Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I declare an investigation. The letter was publicised by the Howard interest as president of the Howard League— League and has been on its website since June; indeed, unremunerated—which is acting for SP in this case. it is still there today. I am placing a copy of the letter Can I tempt the noble Lord to look positively to the in the Library of the House. future? I invite him to confirm that shortly a new chairman will be appointed who will be independent Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I thank the Minister and preferably of judicial rank; that there will be new for that Answer, although it is very disappointing, terms of reference, so that the full history of SP can be because I had hoped that the reasons would be explained looked into and all relevant matters investigated by to the House, which basically—correct me if I am the inquiry; and that there will be funding, so that a wrong—amounted to obstruction by the Prison Service full and proper inquiry can take place in a suitably in the conduct of an inquiry on behalf of the public. rigorous manner. This is a very disturbing fact, but it has marked the Prison Service’s attitude to inquiries for far too long. Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I can. We hope to It has been noted in coroners’ reports and in the report announce the appointment of the new investigator on the Mubarek inquiry. Only last week a High Court shortly. That person will be independent. As far as judge refused to accept the Prison Service’s nomination funding is concerned, in the recent case, which the of a retired senior manager to replace the ombudsman noble Lord knows about so well, the judge concluded in this inquiry. This attitude amounts to little short of that the funding arrangements put in place by the contempt of the public. Recently, this House voted department “plainly are”, to use his words, sufficient that the Prison Service management should be subject to safeguard SP’s interests as required by Article 2. I to the conditions of the corporate manslaughter Act. can answer his questions in the affirmative. 247 Prisons: Young Offender SP[28 JANUARY 2009] Counter-Terrorism Bill: Scrutiny 248

Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister said that the during which there was widespread support for the substantive Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Home Affairs Committee to scrutinise the Bill. We are Ramsbotham, was acceptable, but he has not answered very happy for that committee to scrutinise the Bill it. He told us to look on a website. Could he tell us in and, although it is not within my gift, I hope that synopsis what we will find there? Parliament is given an opportunity, if it wishes, to discuss any Home Affairs Committee report. Lord Bach: My Lords, the letter that I referred to is four or five pages long and gives the reasons why the Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, very distinguished ombudsman decided not to continue given that the Home Secretary produced the draft Bill with the case. It is a question of why he decided that he within hours of this House rejecting the original clauses could not carry on with it, so the question is perhaps in the Counter-Terrorism Bill, what substantial changes best asked of him. It is his decision and the letter gives, have been introduced into the draft Bill, compared over four or five pages, a number of reasons why he with those in the original Bill which this House rejected, came to the view that he did. That letter is in the public which would make it more likely that this House will domain and I will put a copy in the Library. The noble approve the draft Bill? Lord can see what that letter says. To try to summarise it would be doing an injustice to the ombudsman. Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the safeguards in Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) the Bill are the current ones for people who have to remain in pre-charge detention up to 28 days. There Bill: Pre-legislative Scrutiny are a number of differences between the two Bills, Question such as the requirement in legislation for there to be a grave, exceptional terrorist threat. Effectively, in that 3.14 pm situation, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary Asked By Baroness Neville-Jones will decide that it should be brought into play because, for the security of the country, she will have decided To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they that the investigation of terrorist suspects needs a will submit the draft Counter-Terrorism (Temporary longer period than 28 days. I could go through a whole Provisions) Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny. number of other things which are different, but the safeguards are exactly the same as for the current The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home 28-day period. Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, the Counter- Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill is based on the current arrangements for extending pre-charge detention. Lord Grocott: My Lords, having seen the magic These arrangements have been agreed by Parliament phrase “pre-legislative scrutiny” in the Question, may and work well. Pre-charge detention has been the I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government subject of extensive debate over the past 18 months. on their record of developing and extending the whole The draft Bill has been made available for comment system of pre-legislative scrutiny, which cannot sensibly and Parliament will have the opportunity to debate be applied to every single Bill as there is no demand the Bill if it is introduced. for that? None the less, it is an improvement in our parliamentary proceedings. I say, in this bipartisan Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister spirit, well done to the Government. for that Answer. It seems to me to amount to saying that the Government will not submit this Bill to pre- Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I thank my noble legislative scrutiny. I am sure that the House will be friend, not least because I actually asked for the statistics disappointed, as that is contrary to good legislative on that, thinking that it might be raised. In 1997, less practice. Does the Minister accept that it could be than 5 per cent of Bills had any pre-legislative scrutiny counterproductive not to submit the Bill to proper and in the past year the figure was 33 per cent. My legislative scrutiny? If the extended period of detention, noble friend is absolutely right: we have quite a good which might be incorporated in the Bill, is applied to a record. single suspect who then goes to trial, the defence could argue that the circumstances of the investigation undermine a fair trial, as the jury, being aware that Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the Parliament had approved such a drastic measure in a Minister accept the premise behind the Question of particular crisis, may be tempted to assume the suspect’s the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, that introducing greater guilt. There is a problem in proceeding that the Bill in a moment of crisis will completely prejudice way. any subsequent trial against the individuals concerned?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I understand Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I do not accept why the noble Baroness asked a longer question. When that. Of course, the Bill was roundly defeated—suffering one tries to shorten things, one gets into a terrible state the largest defeat ever in the Lords is one of my of affairs, as I have recently. One has to be careful. successes—but we hope to get something in place A copy of the Bill has been placed in the Libraries before there is a period of crisis. I am a great believer of both Houses; it is on the Home Office website; that legislation passed in an emergency generally is not copies have been sent to the Home Affairs Committee; good. That is an issue. It is necessary to have this; it and it was the subject of a very lengthy debate during has been simplified; and it is very small and focused. It the Commons consideration of the Lords’ amendments, has been placed in the Library and on the website and 249 Counter-Terrorism Bill: Scrutiny[LORDS] BBC: Disasters Emergency Committee 250

[LORD WEST OF SPITHEAD] Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, I have indeed has been debated in the other place, and people have watched the appeal, although I self-evidently did not had a chance to look at it. On that basis, our position watch it on the BBC; I watched it on YouTube. I share is sound. my noble friend’s view—along, I am sure, with anyone else who watched it—that it was a compelling story, Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble well told. As well as evoking strong feelings, I am sure Lord had great praise for the Government’s record on that it encouraged many noble Lords to contribute. It pre-legislative scrutiny and I agree with that. Could is not a matter for the Government or the Broadcasting we, perhaps, go a little further and have post-legislative Minister to comment on broadcasting judgments made scrutiny to see that the legislation that has been passed by the director-general of the BBC. That is clearly a is working properly and is not oppressive? matter for the BBC Trust.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, this is going a Lord Fowler: My Lords, the Minister can communicate little beyond what I can say on the Floor of the House the views of this House to the director-general of the without getting into serious trouble. As I said, we have BBC, particularly as the director-general defends his a good record on pre-legislative scrutiny. We also have decision on the grounds that he wants to preserve a good record on counterterrorist work. We have a BBC impartiality. Can the Minister ask the director- new counterterrorist strategy, which will be put to general how one can be impartial on the suffering and Cabinet and will come out in the next couple of destruction that has taken place in Gaza? Surely this months. Over the past 18 months, we have done a huge appeal is to meet humanitarian need and not to make amount to make this country safer, of which I am very any kind of political statement. proud. It does not mean that we are safe, I am afraid, because there are still severe threats out there. However, Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, the noble Lord is some very good work has been done and I am proud of course the chair of the House’s Communications of that. Committee. I am sure that the director-general of the BBC will listen carefully to what he has to say, as I am sure he will to the debate in this House and the debate BBC: Disasters Emergency Committee that has followed the decision. However, I repeat that Question questions of impartiality are very fine judgments. Questions of impartiality for the BBC are, in many 3.21 pm senses, finer judgments. It is for that very reason that responsibility for the BBC’s impartiality was put in a Asked By Lord Faulkner of Worcester separate place from that for other broadcasters. I To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions make no comment on the rights or wrongs of the they have had with the BBC over the broadcasting decision, but I strongly support the position of the of the appeal for Gaza on behalf of the Disasters BBC director-general to be able to make that decision Emergency Committee. without government Ministers attempting to second-guess him or question him after the event. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting (Lord Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, I Carter of Barnes): My Lords, I thank my noble friend declare an interest as an associate of an independent for the Question. I have had no discussions with the production company. Does the Minister agree that a BBC on this matter and nor, I believe, have any of my consequence of the—in our opinion misguided—decision departmental colleagues in the other place. Decisions by the BBC has been much to the detriment of its on broadcast material are entirely a matter for the position internationally, particularly in its effect on BBC management and thereafter, in the case of the position of the World Service, which plays such an impartiality, a matter for review by the BBC Trust. important role in so many places as the voice and The Government, rightly, do not seek to dictate the source of impartial and unbiased information? This BBC’s or other broadcasters’ day-to-day editorial policy, has really affected its position outside this country. however emotive the subject. Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, I am sure that Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my every senior executive and, indeed, editorial person at noble friend very much for that Answer. I am sure that the BBC will have listened very closely to the discussions, he, like many noble Lords, has had the opportunity to debates and reactions that the decision not to broadcast see the appeal by DEC during this week. Does he has provoked—and rightly so. As to whether or not agree with the assertion contained in the beginning of any individual decision can have the level of detrimental the appeal—that it is, effect that the noble Baroness described, I might contend “not about the rights and wrongs of the conflict”, it. I think that the BBC is very aware that these are fine and that DEC, judgments and it is, often more than most broadcasters, “just wants to save lives”? put in a position where it has to exercise those fine That being so, does the Minister not find that the judgments. Impartiality is defined at some length, as director-general’s refusal to broadcast the appeal, which she will know, in the BBC Charter and, indeed, in he repeats in a letter to the Guardian this morning, on Ofcom codes for other broadcasters. Part of the reason the grounds of impartiality, is both baffling and shameful? why it takes some fine length is because it is difficult to 251 BBC: Disasters Emergency Committee[28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 252 cover all circumstances and all eventualities; but ultimately having more than one provider of news. I take his that decision has to be made by the BBC director-general, point about perversity, but people in this country have who, in this instance, acts as editor-in-chief. Time and had the chance to respond to the appeal. It has been again, I will defend that right to make that decision. broadcast by other broadcasters and it is available online. That chance has been made available but I take the point about the BBC’s position. Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is perfectly possible to take the view that it is for the BBC to have autonomy of Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords— editorial judgment and for the Government to express the view that this decision was an aberration? Does he Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords— not also agree that the BBC has managed to convey more publicity for this appeal than for any that it has previously put out, and it has managed to convince a The Minister of State, Department of Energy and lot of people around the world that it is not impartial? Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food That is a pretty good record. and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I do not think we have heard from the Labour Benches on this Question. Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, perhaps there was a cunning plan behind the BBC director-general’s decision. I think that the Government find themselves Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, since my in difficulty in these situations; there are members of noble friend raised the question of the role of the BBC the Government—Ministers and Secretaries of State— Trust, and as it would be hard to deny that the BBC who have expressed their views very clearly, but in this has suffered some reputational damage in the past few situation it is the job of the director-general and the weeks, is he satisfied that the new governance arrangements management of the BBC to make judgments on partiality currently in place at the BBC are adequate to deal with and impartiality. If individual members of the this kind of situation? Specifically, as the BBC Trust is Government wish to be partial—I, for one, can understand enjoined to act in the interests of the licence fee why—that is a matter for them. holder, is it also acting in the interests of the BBC itself? The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships will permit me to come at this Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, the BBC Trust is at a slightly different angle and ask the Minister if he a relatively new innovation in broadcasting governance. would join me in congratulating the BBC on its To date, my own judgment is that it executes that extraordinarily skilled and sensitive coverage of the responsibility well. The particular situation that we conflict in Gaza, particularly given the draconian find ourselves discussing today emphasises the value restrictions under which the media were forced to of having discrete governance responsibilities for the operate? Furthermore, would he join me in applauding BBC, and I am sure that the BBC Trust will exercise the long-standing corporation policy of broadcasting those responsibilities well. details of helplines that will give support and advice to those affected by potentially disturbing story-lines and topical events that the BBC broadcasts? If he will Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] indulge me on those points, I invite him to agree that it Committee (3rd Day) is ironic to the point of perversity that viewers who were profoundly affected by the BBC’s graphic and moving coverage of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza 3.32 pm were deprived by the same BBC of the opportunity to access information that would have helped them to Clause 23 : Research respond appropriately—that is, by supporting DEC’s humanitarian appeal? Amendment 70 Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, the right reverend Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach Prelate puts his case extremely clearly. If I may digress, I had the pleasure of taking my two younger children 70: Clause 23, page 13, line 5, leave out subsection (1) to the Imperial War Museum at the weekend. I spent some time explaining to them afterwards the benefit of Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This is a probing amendment media coverage as we progressed since the First and to call into question the type and scale of research that Second World Wars. Many people would share the the MMO can undertake. As the Bill stands, the view that the value of accurate, impartial, well resourced MMO can undertake research itself when that research and brave news reporting from situations of conflict is concerned with any of its functions or general or disaster goes a long way to contributing to a objectives, or it can choose to commission research in civilised response to those situations. I welcome the these areas. Some research is carried out by almost opportunity to share his support and endorsement of every organisation to facilitate achieving its objectives. the quality of the BBC’s news reporting from those We fully support Amendment 70A, tabled by the areas. One of the things from which this country noble Baroness, Lady Miller, because to perform its benefits—I shall be talking about this tomorrow—is remit effectively the MMO will and should have to 253 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 254

[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH] Further evidence heard by the Joint Committee led me carry out proper research. Science must be at the heart to table Amendment 70B. The committee suggested of its decision-making. This should therefore be a that there was no power for the MMO to collect data duty. on a cost-free basis from any public body. The noble Will the Minister say what specific sorts of research Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, asked which body he expects the MMO to carry out? Subsection (1)(b) will be primarily responsible and whether it will be specifies that research can be commissioned or supported, Natural England or the MMO, for example. Those “by financial means or otherwise”. questions are vital because, depending on the Minister’s answers, Amendment 70B will be more or less important. What is likely to be the “otherwise”? Will he explain that? Will he also tell us whether there are any estimates What we really aim to do with these amendments is, of how much of the MMO’s budget might be taken up first, to make sure that the research is absolutely by this research? Who will be in charge of deciding required to happen—the designation of MCZs alone which research gets greater priority if, for example, depends enormously on the quality of research—and, time or cost factors come into play? secondly, to ensure that, if the Bill starts to require a reasonable level of research, that research is not prevented Amendment 70A flags up the question of who the simply on grounds of cost. main funder and promoter of research will be. Will it be Defra, the MMO or the NERC? How much will commercial interests be encouraged to participate in Lord Kingsland: I, too, support the amendments in co-funding research? Will Defra’s research budget be this group. They pick up, in a more practical manner, increased to cope with this demand? In addition, the on a theme that has run through the debates on the NERC does not have a history of prioritising funding Bill. Your Lordships are, I think, broadly agreed that for the directly applied research that this would entail. the MMO must take its decisions on the basis of the There is also the question of security of information. best available scientific evidence. The question is: how The Freedom of Information Act means that a lot of does the MMO obtain such evidence? the research carried out may end up in the public As both the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and my domain. While that is a positive development in many noble friend Lord Taylor have said, that evidence will ways, it could pose problems for sensitive information already to some degree be within the knowledge of the such as that on licensing. It could also make partnership MMO staff, because the Minister has accepted that funding with commercial interests more difficult. How many of them will have to be a of high scientific do the Government intend to sort out that situation? calibre. However, there will obviously be occasions There is a risk of duplicating the research by other when there is the need for research and the MMO, bodies. There are many different bodies in charge of because it will not possess that particular expertise, various aspects of the marine area. For example, the will have to consider what sources it will need to Environment Agency, Natural England and the inshore tap—both national and, indeed, international, because fisheries and conservation authorities may all have a the information on biodiversity that it seeks may not vested interest in commissioning similar research. Finally, be available in the United Kingdom. then, what plan will be put in place to avoid wasteful I remind the Minister—in case he needs reminding— and expensive duplication of research? Would the that the marine White Paper published in 2007 had MMO be considered the primary research body? I beg some important things to say about what it described to move. as an evidence-based policy approach for the MMO. It stated that appropriate scientific data and information Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: In speaking were needed to provide, to the two amendments that I have in this group, I first “an evidence based approach to policy-making both at a strategic thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for level (planning) and for local marine management decisions (licensing, supporting them. Earlier in this Committee stage, the enforcement and nature conservation)”. noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, eloquently referred to the It also stated, in what I thought was a powerful need for this sort of research. He laid out, for Members commitment in a White Paper: of the Committee, why that would be so important. “We intend to maintain the provision of high quality sound, The MMO, as the Minister has said, will have to impartial, scientific advice to underpin decision-making by the perform a balancing act as the holder of the ring, MMO and are considering how best to satisfy this need”. given all the tensions between the various interest It is in the light of the Government’s approach in groups. As the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, said, we the White Paper and the contributions made in previous can be certain that the commercial interests will have Committee days and today by the Minister that he commissioned plenty of scientific research to support needs to construe Clause 23. For example, in what their case. That is one reason, among many others, for circumstances would he foresee the MMO acting alone, the MMO needing to be really capable when it comes and in what circumstances would he see it drawing in to research. other bodies or persons? If it needs to draw in other The Joint Committee on the draft marine Bill dwelt bodies or persons, what criteria will it apply? I imagine at some length on this matter and the amendments that the Minister’s response will be that that is a that I have tabled result from its deliberations. It quite matter that ought to be provided for in guidance, not unequivocally recommended: in the Bill. Depending a little on the detail of his “The MMO should have a duty under the Bill to promote the answer, I do not think that I will quarrel with him, but publicly-funded production of marine data, to collect such data the Committee needs to know a little about what the and to make them publicly available”. approach in such guidance is likely to be. 255 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 256

Then there is the other matter, which was extremely organisation to cover all the evidence needs. Science, well covered by both my noble friend and the noble in relation to the sea, can mean the ocean processes—the Baroness, Lady Miller. A great deal of high-quality physics and chemistry of the sea—and it can mean research is taking place in this country in marine biology and biodiversity. The ecosystem approach science—some of it what scientists term “blue skies” embodies all these aspects, but there are also separate research and some of it other commissioned research. elements, which need to be brought together. At some stage, we will need—again probably in We also have to consider the impacts on the marine guidance—some scheme or methodology for when the environment of manmade pressures such as pollution— MMO needs to go outside, setting out what procedures possibly leading to damage—and, as part of our role it should follow to ensure that it not only identifies the in sustainability, the socio-economic impact. There right institution with which to enter a research relationship are centres of expertise in all these fields and these but also gets the best value for money. pieces of evidence need to be blended together. The work of the Marine and Fisheries Agency shows that Lord Greenway: I support the principle behind the this can be done very effectively, as it is able to call on amendments. It is quite correct to say that the Joint the best available evidence on which to base its decisions. Committee foresaw the MMO as being the guardian In 2008-09, my department commissioned of scientific research and knowledge relating to the sea approximately £2.8 million of research into human and the distributor of that knowledge. I shall be very activities and related issues. Under the current interested to hear what the Minister has to say. arrangements, the Marine and Fisheries Agency is a key customer of this research. We anticipate this 3.45 pm successful arrangement continuing with the Marine The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Management Organisation. My department and the Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food MFA have excellent, dedicated advice and research and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): This undertaken by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries has been a short but interesting debate. I am in no and Aquaculture Science. However, our experience is doubt whatever of the view of the Committee of the that wider collaboration is the most effective way of need for high-quality science and research to be a best understanding the marine environment. Such critical part of the work of the MMO and for its collaboration means that there is an excellent track decisions to be evidence-based and embracing what record in the UK. research and scientific evidence are available. The In 2010, the United Kingdom will produce the comprehensive nature of existing marine research and most comprehensive assessment of the state of its monitoring, along with the possibility of new specific marine environment in the Charting Progress 2 report. and focused research that the MMO can commission, This will be achieved through the combined effort of will furnish it with a strong base for planning and many partners to the marine monitoring and assessment making assessments of particular marine activities. strategy, including many of the organisations that I I recognise that noble Lords would like me to give have already mentioned. However, we want to do as much detail as possible on how we think that might more than this. We have recently created the cross- happen and I will do so. However, when it is established, government high-level marine science co-ordinating the MMO will also have to think carefully about this. I committee, which will produce a strategy this year to would caution against trying to build in too much improve further the UK’s marine science and monitoring inflexibility at the moment as, in the end, the MMO across the board. The strategy will aim to improve will be in a good position to make judgments itself efficiency and address the gaps and long-term needs in about the range and amount of research that it should the UK’s marine science. It will very much inform commission and the degree to which it should use some of the decisions that will need to be taken in the Defra’s existing research capacity and other matters. future about the research effort in the marine area, so it will be significant in teasing out the areas on which Although we debated this only last week, I remind we will have to put more emphasis in the future. noble Lords that my department’s research budget is a not insignificant amount of money. We also have What is the role of the MMO? We see it very much access to wider marine research carried out by other as a partner in that work. The point has already been government departments and the various agencies that made that we need to avoid duplication, but we need come under them. I am thinking of the nature to fill gaps and to ensure that there is a collaborative conservation bodies, the devolved Administrations and approach. On one hand, we want to invest as many of the Natural Environment Research Council, as well our precious resources as can be made available. On as, of course, universities and marine research centres. the other hand—many noble Lords will know of some There is also collaboration—I very much take the of the challenges of research funding—we need to point of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—with partners ensure that there is no duplication of effort either. in European and other international projects. Therefore, As I said in our earlier debates, the MMO will there is a fine base already. Seeing the noble Lord, comprise around 250 staff posts in total. As the noble Lord Kingsland, in his place, I should pay tribute to Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, the people who are currently the Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnership as well. working in the Marine and Fisheries Agency are of a We should not underestimate the fact that the sea is very high calibre and have substantial skills in marine a vast, highly complex and expensive environment and fisheries science. They will move into the new within which to carry out research and monitoring organisation, and I assure noble Lords that new staff activities. Therefore, it is not possible for a single with skills and expertise in marine science and data 257 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 258

[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH] MMO will need to use data and it will need to be will also be recruited to the MMO, so it will have a adequately funded to enable it to access data. That is strong science base in house to support its functions certainly our intention. and decisions. The problem we have with the noble Baroness’s Some interesting issues have been raised in this amendment is that it would cut across existing debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for example, arrangements for trading funds. For instance, the cost invited me to construe Clause 23. To an extent, he of data supplied under licence by the UK Hydrographic always anticipates my answer, because, to return to my Office is one of the concerns of many involved in original point, the clause clearly enables the MMO to marine science. The UKHO is a trading fund and, as carry out and commission research and to work in such, is required to be self-financing, so it retains the partnership with other organisations. I strongly suggest information for its products and services to cover to noble Lords that that balance is right; in the end, it running costs and to fund investment. Revenue is is for the MMO to decide. Noble Lords have already clearly important to the UKHO in being able to emphasised in earlier debates the need for the MMO develop its own programme. So I understand the point to act independently, and judgments about research the noble Baroness makes but that would be the must be one of the elements of that. problem. In essence, it would take resources away from other bodies doing critical work in the area of Equally, however, we can give a steer in guidance. research. My understanding is that a science blueprint is being developed for the MMO. It is currently envisaged that The noble Baroness raised a general point about the MMO will also have a strategy and evidence unit the need for information to flow as effectively as that will comprise staff with the skills and expertise to possible. I agree with her and it is something that we support and assist the MMO in performing its functions, wish to do. The current principle under the Treasury skills in the statistical interpretation of data in relation rules is to allow Government to recover a reasonable to a range of its functions, and specialist skills related cost for providing data on request. It is normal practice to fisheries data, economics and social sciences to for the reasonable cost to cover the administrative support the MMO in its sustainable development costs of providing data to a third party. Additional objectives. costs are charged for data once they have had value added to them; that is, by combining other data sets Clause 23 in essence enables the MMO to undertake through interpretation of raw data or producing products research if it wants to do so, and gives it the freedom such as the geographic information system data layers. to decide to access a wider body of information and In those circumstances a charge may be levied by evidence to inform its decisions. In many instances, the whoever owns the value-added product. These value-added MMO’s needs will be met by the dedicated service products are often associated with licence charges. I provided by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & accept the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendment Aquaculture Science, but there is no restriction on the but it is unreasonable to expect these products to be MMO in carrying out its marine science functions. supplied free of charge because it is often the production Equally I stress that if the MMO decides to undertake of these third-party products which helps to maintain and commission research itself, it is important that it the commercial value of data collection activities. does not duplicate scientific research in other parts of government, universities or other sectors. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about resources. 4pm I mentioned the £37 million that my department already However, it is not all gloom and doom. As I have spends per annum on research and monitoring. The said, it clearly is in the Government’s interest to ensure MMO will have access to that and if there are gaps—I that relevant data collected by one government department have already referred to the work that is being undertaken are made available to another department which may to look at gaps—the MMO will have ready access to need them to conduct its business. We are looking at the decisions that need to be taken about the Defra arrangements in government in order to meet that commissioned research alongside the research that is challenge most effectively. there to underpin decisions. These matters will be We have taken significant steps over the past few subject to constant discussion and review in the years years in preparation for the Marine and Coastal Access ahead. It is not as if the MMO will simply be a Bill, and the setting up of the MMO, to ensure that recipient of research undertaken by Defra. It will have data collected are discoverable, collected to agreed a key role to play in informing what research should be protocols and held by data archive centres operating undertaken. to similar protocols. All that is designed to ensure I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, marine data are more readily shared across the community. Lady Miller. She made some general points about the We are finalising formal arrangements to allow for the importance of science and research which I tried to exchange of survey data between a number of government address in my opening remarks. Her amendment is departments and agencies at no extra cost. This will designed to ensure that the MMO is empowered to increase the efficiency gains for each organisation collect data free from other bodies. The Joint Committee while avoiding the duplication of data. Clearly, I accept chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, looked the point that the noble Baroness has raised. into this matter and representations were made to the The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked me about the committee about the cost of marine data. The committee confidentiality of data. Intellectual property remains was concerned that the MMO should be adequately the right of the producer of research. But the aim funded to secure the data if needed. Of course the would be to make as much publicly available as possible. 259 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 260

Data availability is set out in contracts for research of the MMO. In my department, our chief scientific and development. Applicants for development are asked adviser, Mr Bob Watson, is a man of the highest to make their data available once decisions are taken. calibre. Other departments have people of similar The Marine Management Organisation will be able to calibre. Clearly, we want to ensure that the MMO has commission research and set out data openness a similar capacity. We also need MMO staff who agreements. understand the commissioning of research, so that the specifications are correct and the research is properly Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am a little concerned by monitored. Equally, the MMO will have access to the phrase in Clause 23(2), which makes, research undertaken by my own department, and it “research available to any person on request”. can enter into collaborative agreements as well. The There may be circumstances when “any person” is not point is that the MMO has a great deal of flexibility. someone you want to know about it. The subsection The reassurance that I seek to give noble Lords is that does not refer to British interests or commercially it will have the ability to commission research where it sensitive information. It seems to be an open invitation needs to. It all lends to the original point of this for any person to ask for anything. debate, which is that decisions by the MMO are informed by high-quality science and other evidence.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Looking at the drafting, Lord Davies of Coity: I was extremely pleased by the noble Lord has raised an important point. The what my noble friend said in response to the question intention clearly is that the research should be made of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I applaud the available, but should not be contrary to an agreement importance and status that has been given to the about data confidentiality. I will take that back and MMO. However, am I right in believing that the status look at it to ensure it is as tight as it could be. of the MMO will be sufficient to enable it to counter anything that the IPC does in terms of the environment, Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have listened to the and that, in the unlikely event of a difference between Minister’s long and comprehensive answer but I wonder the two, the MMO will have the upper hand in, for how this will work on the ground. The University of example, vetoing other views on environmental grounds? St Andrews is the UK centre for research on sea mammals, including seals, which, as we know, have an Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I congratulate my noble effect on fisheries—so this is important. How will the friend on taking us back to the debate about the funding work? I am not certain, but I imagine that that relationship between the Marine Management department at St Andrews is partly funded by the Organisation and the Infrastructure Planning Scots Parliament, partly by one or more research Commission, and the relationship between marine councils and probably other bodies. If the MMO planning statements and the MPSs that will come wants research to be carried out on the behaviour of through because of changes in the Planning Act 2008. seals and all the existing data, it would be ridiculous I hope that the circumstances he has suggested never for it to embark on research of its own. In fact, I arise. The thought of the IPC commissioning scientists cannot see the MMO embarking on much research to come to one view and the MMO commissioning with the staffing that it will have. It will be farming scientists to come to another is not what I envisage, research out, although the Government are rightly and I would be horrified if that were the case. giving it the right, if it wants, to do that research. If I will make two points. First, as I have said, we the Government ask St Andrews to do some research expect the marine planning statement and the MPS to or to supply data, will the MMO fund that or will it be be consistent. Secondly, the science and research will the department’s responsibility to supply existing data? be available to both the MMO and the IPC to enable How will that work? That is basic to our understanding them to make the judgments that they are called upon of the operation of this body. to make. If an offshore renewable infrastructure planning decision, because it is above the threshold, is not made Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is not easy to give a by the IPC but by the MMO, I would expect that, in one-line answer to that. It will depend on the research making the decision, the MMO would make available being considered, and the surrounding circumstances. to the IPC all the relevant expertise and scientific and For instance, research will become publicly available research evidence. That is how it will work. that the MMO, along with anyone else, will be entitled to use. Equally, there may be gaps in the research that Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: In his full the MMO requires, and it could commission the reply, for which I thank him, the Minister mentioned department that the noble Baroness refers to, or any that, to use his words, there is a “blueprint” available. other research organisation. Alternatively, Defra’s research Is it in draft form and are noble Lords able to see it? If and development commissions might identify a research not, will there be an opportunity at some point during project that is needed. It might be Defra that commissions our consideration of the Bill through its stages in this the department to which she refers, and pays the cost. House to have a look at it? We have flexibility here. I agree that, although scientific expertise will be Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I knew I should not important among the staff of the MMO, the extent to have used the word “blueprint”. I cannot say to the which those staff will do research themselves will noble Baroness that there will be a long document probably be limited. What is important is that the setting all this out by a certain date but, if the amendment MMO has staff who understand science and are able is withdrawn, I shall write to noble Lords with as to analyse it and give high-quality advice to the board much detail as I can about the matter. 261 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 262

Baroness Byford: Before my noble friend responds, might find one or other of the parties using this clause I want to apologise to him for not being able to get to to bolster its own partisan cause. The Bill needs to my place to hear his opening remarks. I should like to provide some protection against all three of these pick on a point arising from the concerns of the Joint eventualities. Committee about funding. Has the noble Lord any idea of how much of the research undertaken at the 4.15 pm moment is being commissioned and funded by government departments compared with what is being Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is a helpful undertaken privately, if you like, by other research intervention by the noble Lord, and I will certainly areas? It would be interesting and helpful to have some consider all those matters. I suspect that if we had had idea about this. a clause that was highly restrictive of access to MMO research, amendments would have been tabled to free There are two issues here, the first of which is it up. My sense is that there is a broad consensus in whether there will be enough money to obtain the sort your Lordships’ House that we want information made of information that the management organisation will available wherever appropriate. We should remember want. Secondly, on a point that my noble friend wanted that the information that the MMO produces, to come back to, under Clause 23(2) does the MMO commissions or has made available to it will be of have to provide information for anyone who requests enormous benefit in a proper way to all those stakeholders it? Does it have to make it available on demand? That who are interested in the marine environment. In the could become a very expensive exercise. The Minister best sense, the more that high-quality research is has indicated that he will probably come back to this commissioned and made available, the more it will add point and I hope that he will, because at the moment to people’s learning. Getting the balance right is a the wording is very open-ended and could result in challenge, but this point has been well made in the great demands being put on the finite resources of debate. I am happy to go away and see if we can come the MMO. back either with amendments or with further explanation of how this ought to be dealt with. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not have the information to respond to the first point and I am not Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am pleased that the sure to what extent it can be discovered. However, I Minister understands our motivation and purpose so shall do my best to see what we can find. The noble well, and I thank him for that full reply. I do not think Baroness has raised an interesting point. On the one I will be alone in being pleased with much of what he hand there is an implication in the amendment of the has said. noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the free flow of This has been a useful debate. We were probing the research information, and clearly that is well understood. way that the Government saw the priority to be given On the other hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, to research. As the Minister knows, we are keen to is right that we do not want to encumber the MMO keep the MMO, particularly its scientific expertise, at with extravagant requests that are hard to meet. the heart of the Bill. When my noble friend Lady Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, Carnegy made her point, I felt that we were back to and looked at the wording in Clause 23(2), I am the core issue of the enabler versus the provider that anxious to give this provision further consideration. we get in so much legislation. That is a key part. We have already discussed the confidentiality issue Sometimes I suspect that the Minister is with us but raised in terms of research, and my understanding is has to draw back a little from a wholehearted commitment that it is implicit in the wording here that it would not to the MMO. It would be good if we could ensure that be covered. However, I shall check the point and come the MMO’s position was clear. back in order to debate it further with noble Lords on Report, or I can write. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am certainly with noble Lords on the importance of ensuring that this Lord Kingsland: I might say that I think that the organisation comes to its decisions on the basis of the Minister has given a well judged response to the best possible evidence and scientific research. I am at questions that the second part of Clause 2 has raised. one with the noble Lord in wanting the MMO to be When looking at it, perhaps the Minister will bear in able to access the research that is necessary. It is a mind three possible angles. The first is the broad good thing that the MMO has a number of options question of national interest. We may find that an available to it in accessing that information and research, interest from abroad, for reasons which might not be particularly in having high-quality scientific people on wholly bona fide, may make a demand that would its staff who can advise and inform the organisation as be strongly supported by the clause as it stands. The a whole on the way it should approach these matters. second point is the one so well made by my noble friend Lady Byford, that the resource cost related to a Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for large, if not infinite, number of demands could be that explanation of his position. I accept that a multi-path massive, not only in absolute terms, but in being approach has a lot to recommend it. I am pleased to highly distracting from other work of a higher priority hear about the formation of the marine science strategy which the MMO will also be undertaking. The third committee, if I have remembered its name correctly. I point is that if you have, for example, a conflict hope that the MMO will be not just a partner in it but, between one organisation and another that may or one might say, a senior partner. It is clear that the may not have reached the stage of litigation, we MMO’s role is going to be exclusively on marine 263 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 264 matters, and I hope that it will therefore be principal in costs will be modernised, so enforcement and civil setting the committee’s agenda. Reassured as I am by sanctions regimes will cost £90,000, and enforcement the Minister’s willingness to go away and look at of marine conservation zones around £1 million. The Clause 23 again, I happily beg leave to withdraw the new GS and data systems needed to underpin the new amendment. planning and other functions will cost around £3.3 million. There are of course additional one-off costs in setting Amendment 70 withdrawn. up a new organisation, and some increase in funding costs for a large organisation in the form of the Amendments 70A and 70B not moved. existing Marine and Fisheries Agency. Of course, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clause 23 agreed. Taylor, would wish that the resources were necessary to deliver the Bill. Indeed, in our previous two days, a Clause 24 : Advice, assistance and training facilities number of Members of the Committee have emphasised to the Government the need to expend extra resources Amendment 71 not moved. in a number of areas—not least research, which we have just debated. Equally, I understand the point of Clause 24 agreed. the noble Lord about ensuring that efficiency also goes to the heart of the matter, and that we should Clauses 25 to 29 agreed. ensure that where there is a reduction of function in, say, my own department, there should be a consequent reduction in headquarter costs. Clause 30 : Grants That will be our intention. I do not want to go into the pain of the efficiency targets that my department is Debate on whether Clause 30 should stand part of the currently under, but they are considerably challenging. Bill. Clearly, we want to ensure that the transition happens as efficiently as possible. Inevitably, as I have indicated, Lord Taylor of Holbeach: On the money front, I there will be transition costs that must be met. The shall probe a little more into the Government’s intentions transition from the current Marine and Fisheries Agency for funding the MMO. The impact assessment for the to the MMO has been and will be gradual. The aim is Bill puts the cost to the Government at somewhere to spread the cost and build up expertise within what between £751 million and £1.6 billion over 20 years. was purely a fisheries organisation. For example, the There is quite a spread between those two figures. The environmental licensing and dredging responsibilities predicted benefits are even more startling: somewhere of the Department for Communities and Local between £8.7 billion and £19.6 billion. Government have already been transferred to the agency, However, I am particularly interested in the efficiency with full resource transfers. I understand that responsibility savings to the Government. We on these Benches are for harbours orders will transfer across, with expertise not generally over-enthusiastic about the creation of and resource, from the Department for Transport to another quango. We support the Bill, however, because the Marine Management Organisation. The current we have great hopes that the MMO will not merely running costs for the Marine and Fisheries Agency duplicate existing bodies’ responsibilities but go beyond will be maintained and enhanced from the core them, incorporating them into the new MMO and departments’ budgets. Running costs are currently extending good environmental practice. Also, the creation around £25 million a year. of the MMO should make it possible for some of the Budgetary provision of around £4 million has been existing bodies to be better co-ordinated and managed, made for one-off costs of setting up the MMO. About and to achieve savings on existing budgets. £3 million has been allocated for the capital expenditure Streamlining the licensing system will reduce the related to the new GIS and data systems needed. We administrative burden on regulators and advisory bodies. have taken account of the planned need to upgrade Can we assume that government funding for these the existing systems with a new function stemming bodies will therefore be reduced? What budgetary from the MMO. The Marine and Fisheries Agency adjustments does Defra intend to make to account for operates a full-cost recovery for its licensing of marine these existing bodies’ reduced workloads? developments, and the Marine Management Organisation will do likewise. We will ensure that industry does not Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the incur unnecessary costs by exempting activities which, noble Lord for allowing us to discuss Clause 30 and by their nature, do not damage the marine environment, the funding of the MMO. Clearly, the resource made or which operate at a de minimis level. The licensing available to the Marine Management Organisation by regime will deliver a more joined-up system than the Secretary of State has been given consideration in currently operates with an estimated saving of some the course of the development of this legislation. The 20 per cent of licences currently issued. impact assessment that was laid before this House includes costings of the Bill’s measures, set out as On the research budget, I should have mentioned costs to government and industry.The costs to government that—although this does not take anything away from are related to the new functions that the MMO will be Clause 23(2), which states: carrying out. The marine planning function is estimated “The MMO is to make the results of any such research to cost government £8.1 million per annum. Enforcement available to any person on request”— 265 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 266

[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH] Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Are the functions and under Clause 26 there is power to charge for services. I their attendant costs being transferred from the devolved think that meets one of the concerns about the cost Administrations, or only from the United Kingdom falling back on the MMO. departments? Clearly, one cannot take on new functions. One has to recognise that this new marine planning system is Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Not that I am aware of, one of the huge advantages of what we are doing. because the MMO’s main responsibilities will be in However, that cannot be instigated without incurring relation to England. It will also have responsibilities costs. that will naturally fall to the UK Government to fund. Clause 30 agreed. Lord Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I may have missed a point during earlier discussion Clauses 31 and 32 agreed. but can he indicate the figure for the initial setting-up costs—we all accept those costs are inevitable as regards the MMO—and in which financial years they will be Clause 33 : Government loans incurred? What is the final financial year in which he anticipates that the MMO set-up costs will still be a Amendment 72 cost to the Exchequer? The £4 million to which he Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach referred will presumably be incurred over a relatively 72: Clause 33, page 16, line 26, leave out subsections (2) and short time. It is a one-off payment, not a recurring (3) and insert— figure that goes on for ever. There is always a tendency “( ) Loans made under subsection (1) must be subject to to think that the setting-up costs of new organisations repayment with interest at a commercial rate. can be built into their budgets for ever and a day. It is ( ) Interest is at a commercial rate if it is at least equal to the very important that that should not happen. rate set by the Treasury under section 5 of the National Loans Act 1968 (c. 13) for an equivalent loan.” Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord is absolutely right. I assure him that we will ensure that Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Amendment 72 seeks to does not happen. I am not sure that I can give him the explore why the Government have retained the flexibility specifics as regards the financial years in which this to make loans on a non-commercial basis to the will all occur. That depends on achieving the required MMO, when Clause 30 has already empowered them timing, how that will be managed and various elements to grant the organisation any such money as they see relating to staff transfers. However, as I said, we have fit. indicative one-off set costs of £7.2 million; £2.9 million I am not trying to say that there is no place for a to set up the MMO; £2.1 million for staff costs; and government loan; I imagine that there might be many £4.3 million to set up a new geographic information situations where the MMO takes on the financial system over three years. The £2.9 MMO set-up costs is burden of setting up a scheme that is eventually self- an indicative figure informed by those incurred in the financing. It might be more appropriate in that case setting up of the Agriculture and Horticulture for it to apply for a government loan, rather than to Development Board, the Marine and Fisheries Agency deplete resources that are better preserved for less and Natural England, and differs slightly from the remunerative duties. However, the Bill is not drafted to £3.7 million that appeared in the impact assessment allow government loans only in areas where there is a which accompanied the draft Bill. This is because that financial benefit in so doing. Instead, we have an figure included Defra staff costs incurred in setting up enormously vague clause that allows the provision of a new NDPB which we have since been advised should any amount of money under any terms. There is not not be included. even a requirement that such loans should be repaid. I think the point is made that we all want the MMO Given the enormous power in Clause 30, it might to be resourced to do the job. We want it to work as seem a little otiose to seek to limit Clause 33, but the efficiently and effectively as possible. Where functions Government’s approach to accounting for government have been transferred, there will be a consequent spending and taxpayer commitments has shown us reduction in the budgets of the parent department. I just what can be conveniently left off certain balance can give the appropriate affirmation in that regard, sheets when it is unclear what is a payment, what is a but clearly there will also be these initial set-up costs. loan and what is something else altogether. By ensuring that loans are put on a commercial basis, we can Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Am I correct in thinking ensure that they are only made when it is financially that as these organisations will be transferred with appropriate for the duty to be funded by such a their existing budgets it will be up to the MMO to mechanism, rather than out of the MMO’s general drive any efficiency savings that it can achieve out of budget. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and these transfers and the co-ordination savings that might I would appreciate a fuller explanation of why he be achieved? envisages making the non-commercial loans to the MMO over and above its annual funding. 4.30 pm Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord has Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, of course, but there raised an interesting point. Clause 33 states: would also have to be the appropriate reporting and “A loan under this section may be made subject to such monitoring by my department as would be expected of conditions as may be determined … The conditions must include any non-departmental public body. provision with respect to … repayment of the loan”. 267 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 268

Although we might debate the principle, there are Clause 35: Directions by the Secretary of State sufficient safeguards for the Secretary of State in lending money to the MMO. Amendment 73 I do not think that there is anything exceptional in the clause. It is a facility that is on the books and that Moved by Lord Greenway could be made available. I accept that it is unusual for 73: Clause 35, page 18, line 3, after first “of” insert “, or departments to make loans to NDPBs from their own compliance with,” budgets or indeed from the National Loans Fund, as funding is usually provided through grant in aid. I have just inquired into my department’s experience Lord Greenway: Amendment 35 deals with directions in this area and I have not found any example of such and guidance by the Secretary of State. I refer specifically loans being made. I understand that loans to Defra- to the directions part. Subsection (2) reads: sponsored public corporations, such as British Waterways “The Secretary of State may also give the MMO such general and the Covent Garden Market Authority, which have or specific directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate a slightly different status, have been agreed at Treasury for the implementation of any obligations of the United Kingdom standard interest rates, primarily to fund profit-generating under”, capital expenditure projects. That is very different and in paragraphs (a) and (b) EU treaties and international from the circumstances in which the MMO finds itself agreements are mentioned. The shipping industry is and is likely to find itself in the future. worried that the phrase “implementation of any On the rates, I can assure the noble Lord that obligations” could be restrictively interpreted to refer colleagues in the Treasury determine the rates at which to only new or future obligations. However, directions any loans may be made to bodies such as NDPBs and given should also respect the UK’s pre-existing treaty indeed any loan is subject to Treasury approval. I law obligations under, for example, the United Nations should have thought that was a pretty strong guarantee Convention on the Law of the Sea, which deals with against the Secretary of State making a loan in such things as innocent rights of passage and freedom circumstances which might cause the noble Lord concern. of navigation, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 and its The clause gives flexibility for arrangements to 1978 MARPOL protocol. My amendment, which adds reflect an economic situation that might arise at the the words “or compliance with”after “the implementation time and the exact requirement for which the loan is of”, would remove any shadow of doubt by ensuring required. We do not want to put the body at a disadvantage that directions to be given to the MMO must cover compared with other bodies in having access to loans prior, current and future treaty obligations. I beg to on that basis, although I accept that it is difficult at the move. moment to foresee those circumstances. It is simply a standard provision in the terms and conditions for setting up a non-departmental public body. Earl Cathcart: I am almost lost for words, not—I hasten to add—having listened to the noble Lord’s Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am grateful to the amendment, but because my speaking note is extremely Minister for his response to this probing amendment. brief. It is one line which says, “This all seems fairly I am not entirely sure that I have totally taken on sensible and uncontroversial. Stand up and support”, board the reasoning. It gives considerable flexibility so here I am. Before I support the amendment, I and powers and usually the Minister is rather keen to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on chairing avoid too much flexibility in such legislation. I should the Joint Committee and producing that excellent be grateful if, at some point, he could advise me of report. It has certainly made my life—and, I am sure, other points of legislation where similar arrangements all your Lordships’ lives—much easier by highlighting arise. I would find that very useful. so many of the important issues. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I can do more than that. I am only too happy to obey my instruction to I can send the noble Lord a copy of Managing Public support the amendment, so ably moved by the noble Money, Her Majesty’s Treasury’s guidance to departments, Lord. Not only does it seem sensible, but I hope the which states: Minister will confirm that the Secretary of State will ensure that all EU treaties and international agreements “The Government can provide loan finance to public sector bodies through the national loans fund and departmental estimate”. are complied with. It is a riveting stuff. Since receiving my speaking note, I have been racking my brain for something to add and two points spring Lord Taylor of Holbeach: It is never too late to to mind. First, Clauses 35 and 36 are about directions learn. I look forward to receiving the document as and guidance by the Secretary of State. When, last soon as the Minister finds it convenient to send it to week, I moved Amendment 52 on the need to review me. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the guidance from time to time, the Minister said: amendment. “I can reassure noble Lords that we will review and if necessary amend the guidance at appropriate points”.—[Official Report, Amendment 72 withdrawn. 21/1/09; col. 1705.] The Minister went on to list examples of when this Clause 33 agreed. might be necessary. With this amendment in mind, perhaps the Minister would add “compliance with EU Clause 34 agreed. treaties and international agreements” to his list. 269 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 270

[EARL CATHCART] Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to noble I have no idea where it came from but I have Lords who have spoken. The intention behind the received a draft Defra booklet, dated December 2008. amendment is to clarify that the directions could The photograph of the Minister is to follow, as is his apply to existing EU and international obligations as text, so I do not know what the final version says, but well as future commitments as there has been concern on European directives the draft says: that the concept of implementation could be construed “The MMO will play a key role in the implementation of the as applying only to future obligations. I understand EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, but at this stage it has that the concerns relate to obligations under, for example, not been decided exactly what form this role will take, or whether the MARPOL Convention and the London Convention the MMO will act as competent authority for the Directive. This on dumping at sea. will be considered in more detail as part of the ongoing transposition process. I have taken advice on this because the point raised Similarly, the MMO may take on a competent authority role by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is valid and is in the marine area in relation to the Environmental Liability supported by other noble Lords. There is a wealth of Directive but the nature of this role has not yet been decided”. existing international commitments, especially in the Have the Government decided yet whether the MMO world of shipping and navigation. Should directions will take on the competent authority role and, if not, need to be given, it is important that they can relate as who will? Indeed, if not, I can add this to my list of much to existing as to new obligations. However, I am areas where the MMO’s authority is being undermined. assured that the drafting and interpretation of This goes back to the debate on Amendment 59, when implementation, in our view and those of Department I cited four examples. Oil and gas are covered by for Transport colleagues who are owners of such DECC; large renewable installations are covered by matters on shipping, clearly cover existing and new the IPC; shipping is covered by the Marine and obligations. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord Coastguard Agency; and the marine conservation zones on that point. are probably covered by Natural England. If the MMO I was enjoying the noble Earl’s speech until he will not be responsible as the competent authority asked me lots of questions. That was when it began to here, that is yet another thing that I can add to my list. get rather more difficult. I shall try to provide as clear Secondly, this amendment is all about reacting a position as possible. I suspect that we shall come on positively to EU and international agreements, but to marine conservation and to his question about the should the Government not be proactive when dealing approach of our neighbours and to the issue of ensuring with the EU and the international marine community? that not only is due regard paid by nationals of those I have two examples of when this should happen. countries, but that there is a consistent European First, have the Government started negotiations on approach. Essentially, the Marine Management extending the 12-mile derogation beyond 2012? Secondly, Organisation will not handle policy negotiations in have the Government started talks with EU member Europe because that will formally rest with the UK states and non-EU countries to ensure that they will Government. In addition, the practicalities of respect and abide by our rules with regard to marine intergovernmental meetings usually cover a wide range conservation zones? The Joint Committee states on of detailed policy issues and are too disparate for a page 19 of its report: single-policy structure organisation to cover. My understanding is that the competent authority is the “The Seafish Industry Authority said that ‘we are approaching UK Government—in other words Ministers—but it is the major problem area of legislating in a way that will control activities of UK nationals but not necessarily non-UK nationals’ delivered by the MMO for the Government in relation and that French, Belgian and Spanish fishermen were unlikely to to any functions that remain with the UK Government respect the management provisions in an area where they have no and the devolved Administrations. requirement to comply”. I take the point about the importance of the MMO’s Those are two examples of where the Government work internationally, and we want it to develop a should be proactive. I ask the Minister whether they reputation for efficient and sustainable use and the are being proactive in those two areas. protection of UK marine resources. We would expect representatives of the MMO to participate in UK delegations to international meetings. The MMO will 4.45 pm provide technical expertise to inform international Lord Tyler: I have some sympathy with the noble marine policy negotiations and will keep up to date Earl and I look forward with interest to the Minister’s with developing techniques. As the MMO evolves, we response. We have a great deal of sympathy with what expect it to play a key role in implementing the marine the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said on the amendment. strategy framework directive. We are in discussion However, since brevity is the soul of wit, I can be even with our fellow member states in Europe and I firmly briefer than the noble Earl and I register my support believe that the UK will wish to take a leading role in and that of my colleagues on these Benches for what these matters. The construct of the Bill and the the noble Lord has moved. establishment of the MMO are valuable resources in enabling us to do that. On the specific point of the amendment, I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, that there is a slight ambiguity in the drafting of the clause. It would be good to clear Lord Greenway: I am grateful to those who supported it up to make quite sure that it refers to existing the amendment. I do not think that I doubted for a treaties as well as new ones. moment that the Government had not taken into 271 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 272 account existing treaties and I am pleased with the When the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, moved the assurance from the Minister that they are covered by previous amendment, he mentioned international law the existing wording. I beg leave to withdraw the and the right of innocent passage; if my memory amendment. serves me correctly, the transit through the Pentland Firth is such a right recognised in international law. Amendment 73 withdrawn. There are, of course, important renewable energy developments planned for the Pentland Firth and, potentially, some conflict—or, at least, the need to Amendment 74 liaise—between a requirement or function that the Moved by Lord Wallace of Tankerness MMO might, on behalf of the UK Government, exercise on general shipping matters under international 74: Clause 35, page 18, line 8, at end insert “and, insofar as any such directions apply to the Scottish inshore region or the law and functions related to renewable energy that Scottish offshore region, the Secretary of State shall also consult were being exercised by Scottish Ministers. Therefore, the Scottish Ministers” getting proper co-ordination would seem very important. We are told that Marine Scotland, which is intended to be the parallel organisation to the MMO, will deliver marine functions in Scottish territorial matters Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I shall also speak to and, in respect of devolved matters, in the offshore Amendments 76 and 78. I am sure that my noble area. Can the Minister give greater clarification on friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth will wish to speak to what the MMO will be delivering in terms of non-devolved the odd-numbered amendments—Amendments 75, 77 functions in that area? What are these functions? Do and 79—which are the Welsh equivalents. they, for example, include nature conservation, the We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady exploitation of hydrocarbons or the marine transport Carnegy, that a devolution thread weaves its way to which I referred? It would be useful to get a better through the Bill, but it is not always easy to pick it out. understanding of that. The purpose of the amendments is to get more clarity Also, if the MMO will be exercising quite important on the MMO and devolution. The amendments would functions in the Scottish offshore area—and, possibly, place an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish inshore area—that underlines the importance Scottish Ministers along with the MMO before giving of ensuring that there is co-ordination and that, when directions under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 35. the Secretary of State intends to issue directions or Amendment 74 would add the provision about Scottish guidance, there has been prior consultation with Scottish Ministers to the end of subsection (3), so, although Ministers to ensure co-operation. A good fit between such consultation would not be required if some what both Administrations are doing would be in the emergency arose, good practice might require that interests of comity, as would Amendment 78. they still be consulted. Amendment 76 would apply a As things stand—and here we move forward to statutory requirement to consult Scottish Ministers Clause 38—on an interim basis the Secretary of State before the Secretary of State issued guidance to the can, as I understand it, requisition the Scottish Parliament MMO. I shall deal with Amendment 78 separately. or the Scottish Executive to provide the MMO with, It is not just any consultee that we are discussing or “temporary … staff, premises or other facilities”. any body that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. Given that the Scotland Act 1998 established the The amendment would oblige the Secretary of State Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive, I assume to consult Scottish Ministers, who have an elected that they fall within the definition of a statutory body. mandate and who, from what has already been said It would not really be in the interests of comity for the about this Bill and parallel legislation to be published Secretary of State to do that. Could the Minister shortly in the Scottish Parliament, expect to act in clarify that that is not the intention? I beg to move. partnership to try to achieve similar goals. I tried to anticipate the Minister’s response on past form, not least his response to the amendment moved The Duke of Montrose: This Bill is highly complex, by my noble friend Lord Livsey on my behalf on our as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has first day in Committee. The Minister then indicated just told us. That is not least because of the legislation that he was not willing to agree to the MMO report involved but also because so many different constituent being laid before the Scottish Parliament, on the basis bodies have to be taken into account. They include the that the MMO would be delivering functions on behalf EU, the UK Government, the Scottish Parliament, the of Her Majesty’s Government and would in the main Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland parliament. be involved with marine functions in waters around They are all part of the Bill, which means that the England, as many of these functions are already devolved terms of the legislation have to be predicated around to the respective Administrations in Scotland and the different legislative bodies. Wales. The amendment would not require blanket We certainly found it of great assistance that the consultation but would come into effect only if there Government kindly issued both a brief on devolution was a direction or guidance in relation to Scottish and a set of maps. While helping a good deal, those inshore or offshore regions. It is clear from Clause 313(4)(a) also served to illustrate just how difficult this issue is. that Part 1 of the Bill, dealing with the MMO, will Within the material, the Government themselves state extend to Scotland, so it would be useful if the Minister that, could give some clarity on the specific functions that “the marine environment is a complex mix of devolved, non-devolved the MMO will exercise in relation to Scottish waters. and retained matters”. 273 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 274

[THE DUKE OF MONTROSE] What really concerns us is that later in the Bill—I It is interesting that in their brief they say: shall not pre-empt that too much—there are references “The UK Government will legislate for England, the waters to inshore fisheries conservation authorities. There is around England”, concern in Wales that there is insufficient reference to for waters, the sustainability of fisheries. If the MMO has powers “around the UK, and for certain functions within the territorial regarding IFCAs, it appears that they are not sufficient waters of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”. in Wales. That reflects what has just been said: devolution That is precisely the area where we need the Minister in Wales does not go anything like as far as it does in to make things absolutely plain. Scotland. Those matters need to be considered. In this set of amendments, we are dealing not with In Amendment 77, the same principle about guidance the powers of legislation but with areas where the applies in Clause 36. Where matters directly impact on Secretary of State is likely to give directions or guidance. a Welsh region, Welsh Ministers must be consulted. My impression, for Scotland, is that this can only be in Clause 36(2) is inadequate, with its reference to, the Scottish offshore area, as the zero to 12 nautical “such other bodies or persons as the Secretary of State considers miles limit has already been devolved, as I understand. appropriate”. It is practically a part of Scotland. The Marine Our amendment would ensure that the guidance was Management Organisation presumably is not intended subject to the Secretary of State consulting Welsh to have any powers whatever in that area. Ministers. I am sure that the Minister will not find that I support the amendments tabled by the noble a difficult principle to absorb. Lord, Lord Wallace, because it is important that we Amendment 79 would ensure that, under Clause 38, clarify this issue. They sensibly point out that for the the Secretary of State’s notice with the interim purposes of consultation and guidance, if there is any arrangements did not apply to the National Assembly overlap, the Secretary of State cannot simply confer for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government, as with the MMO but must also consult the appropriate the amendment would exclude those Acts of devolved powers. Parliament—the Government of Wales Act 1998 and On the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, the Government of Wales Act 2006—that established Lord Livsey, the issue must surely be considerably the Welsh Government and increased the powers of different for Wales, where there is not the same degree the National Assembly. Some of these matters are of devolution as there is in Scotland. I am not aware of found in the 1998 Act, which deals with, for example, the inshore area being devolved at all at the moment. legal proceedings and the public interest, where the It would surely be sensible that, before giving guidance public interest is defined as being of the Welsh public to the MMO, the Secretary of State must consult in terms of devolution. These matters are of concern Welsh Ministers in so far as the guidance relates to and, as far as IFCAs and MCZs are concerned, will them. come up later in the Bill. I make the same request as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that the Minister give us some Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I will not go into all the detail about the type of guidance that may affect issues that my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has non-English areas. Does he have any real evidence that explained so clearly. However, I will just say to the that will be needed and can he give his assurance that Minister that, before he replies to my noble friend’s the devolved Administrations will be consulted? If question about where any guidance given by the Secretary that is necessary, why not include it in the Bill? of State to the MMO might impact on Scotland, he might think about the fact that it is not particularly courteous to refer to the elected Scots Parliament as one of “such other bodies”. 5pm Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I shall speak to Amendments 75, 77 and 79, which refer to the situation in Wales. Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I, too, support What I have to say largely mirrors what the noble Amendments 74 and 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said and, to some Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. It is appropriate to extent, what the noble Duke just said. Amendment 75 make it absolutely clear in the Bill that there are areas refers to directions by the Secretary of State for Wales. where the Secretary of State, in issuing guidance, It mirrors Amendment 74, in that the aim is to ensure should consult bodies and institutions such as those that, before giving directions, the Secretary of State that the Scottish Ministers represent in these matters. must also consult Welsh Ministers where such directions I say to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose— apply to the Welsh inshore region or, indeed, the although I stand to be corrected by the noble Lord, Welsh offshore region. I am sure that the Minister will Lord Wallace—that the reason why references are regard the amendment as making a perfectly reasonable made to the Scottish inshore region, although that request. There will be an impact on the Welsh inshore area is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, is that it region, as featured on the department’s maps, which has been recognised in earlier debates that, although he kindly gave us recently. Given that the Welsh offshore the MMO may not have authority over the Scottish region is now defined, consultation by the Secretary of inshore region, it will have to take it into account in State would clearly be necessary, not least for the anything that it does outwith those waters. It therefore fishery interests involved, before the MMO could fully seems appropriate to include that area within the areas consider the overall situation. to which directions may apply. 275 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 276

Another matter to which I draw the Committee’s Subsequent to the Joint Committee’s report and the attention is that the Scottish Parliament is bound to work of the joint ministerial committee, I believe that recognise, for instance, the effect of EU treaties, just as we have achieved a satisfactory outcome. There is no much as it recognises those international agreements doubt that the Scottish Executive will look for the to which the United Kingdom is a party for the time further legislative devolution of new powers in areas being. There again, it would be appropriate for the such as marine planning and nature conservation where Secretary of State, in looking to both the Scottish they feel that governance could be as appropriate from offshore region and the Scottish inshore region, over Scotland as from this House. The UK Government which the Scottish Parliament has responsibility, to have not agreed to that, but we have agreed to the consult Scottish Ministers to be sure that they are at devolution of new functions in the Bill in a form of one on the proper interpretation. That might be important executive devolution. That allows for a more coherent in relation to whether under subsection (4) there truly delivery of the common objectives in the Bill that we is an emergency, in the sense that the emergency may all share and ensures the real engagement of those evolve from the Scottish inshore region and affect the who are closest to the waters in question and the Scottish offshore region, for which of course the MMO protection of key reserved interests, such as oil, gas would have immediate responsibility. and shipping. For those reasons, I generally support these The UK Government will legislate in the Bill for two amendments. I take no particular issue with England, for the waters around England, for the offshore Amendment 78, which seems to be perfectly sensible, waters around the UK and for certain functions within but I have a small comment on the drafting of the territorial waters of Scotland, Wales and Northern Amendment 74. Clause 35(3) says that, Ireland where we have agreed between us to do so. “the Secretary of State must consult”. That means that not all the original proposals in the It would be unfortunate if, as in the amendment, draft Bill will apply to the whole of the UK. Where “shall” was used instead of “must”. In this regard, we proposals do not apply—for example, in the territorial use words of direction slightly differently in various waters of Scotland and Northern Ireland—there are parts of the Bill. We have “may” and “must”, and we proposals for legislation to be brought forward by the have introduced “is to”. I have asked before whether relevant Administrations to deliver similar reforms “is to” is a “must” or a “may”. That was exemplified in and systems as appropriate. the debate that we have just had on Clause 23. Most of the provisions of the Bill extend to Wales Subsection (1) of that clause says “may”and subsection (2) with the agreement of the Welsh Assembly Government, says “is to”. I would have thought that “must” was but in some instances the Bill reflects their wishes for more appropriate. I simply suggest that we look carefully different delivery mechanisms—for example, on inshore at how we use words of direction and that we use the fisheries management, where they do not intend to well known parliamentary language of either “may” create inshore fisheries and conservation authorities or “must”, unless, in the particular area in which the but intend to deliver the same measure in another way. words are being used, neither “may” nor “must” is The Bill also delivers framework powers for the creation appropriate. of a coastal path in Wales. This will allow the Assembly Government to bring forward measures which are Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sure that we are all tailored to meet the specific circumstances of Wales grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and other and which take account of work that is under way noble Lords for allowing us to have a discussion about under their coastal access improvement programme. some interesting devolution matters. Before I respond to the amendments, I will say a little about the general principles that govern where we are. I recognise that 5.15 pm this is a complex area and, if some things are not clear Under the Bill, devolved Administrations become at the end of our debate, I am happy to follow up our the planning authority for the relevant offshore region discussions on devolution outside the Chamber to under a form of executive devolution. That means that ensure that we are all clear about these matters. their marine plans will be subject to agreement by the The Bill in essence recognises that the marine Secretary of State before they can impact on decisions environment involves a complex mix of devolved and across the breadth of marine interests. Scottish Ministers non-devolved, or reserved, matters and its intention is also become the designating authority for marine to respect the provisions of the current devolution conservation zones in the offshore region. Again, proposed settlement. The strategic framework for marine planning, designations are subject to agreement by the Secretary which it introduces, has now been agreed by all four of State. For Wales, the Bill takes the opportunity to Administrations—a development since the publication create a Welsh fisheries zone out to the median line. of the draft marine Bill in April 2008. The provision in This delivers parity with Scotland and Northern Ireland, the draft Bill that restricted the marine policy statement which already have fishery zones for the coherent in form and impact in Scotland drew criticism from delivery of fisheries management across the inshore several witnesses to the Joint Committee. The committee and offshore regions. believed that it was essential that the marine policy I know from talking to a number of noble Lords, statement and plans had the active support and approval both in the Chamber and outside, that there is a of all the devolved Administrations; indeed, it regarded perception that we have here a rather fragmented and as imperative the production of an agreed marine complex system, which perhaps does not deliver the policy statement that has consensus across the devolved benefits that the Bill was intended to provide. I disagree Administrations, including Scotland. with that. Essentially, the Bill recognises the reality of 277 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 278

[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH] legislation and to ensure that the proposals do not the devolution settlement but it contains provisions to adversely impact on the UK Government’s responsibilities make sure that, as far as possible, there is a consistent and objectives. Our position is that we will continue to approach. I emphasise to the Committee the importance pursue with the devolved Administrations an integrated of the joint ministerial statement in the autumn, because approach for the benefit of the marine environment it sets out a good framework for making sure that this and/or marine users. works from a UK point of view. The noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Greaves and Amendments 74 to 77 propose changes to Clauses 35 Lord Livsey—although the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and 36 to require the Secretary of State to consult alas, is not here—also proposed changes to Clauses 35 Scottish Ministers before issuing directions or guidance and 36. Their amendments are designed to exclude to the MMO that might apply to the Scottish inshore any body set up under the Scotland Act or the or offshore regions and to consult Welsh Ministers Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Government before issuing directions or guidance to the MMO of Wales Act 2006 from the bodies on which the that might apply to the Welsh inshore or offshore Secretary of State may call to provide staff facilities or regions. I understand the purpose behind these premises to the MMO on a temporary basis to aid amendments, which is to keep the devolved transition to the new organisation. The existing functions Administrations fully involved in delivering the Bill being transferred into the MMO comprise functions through the MMO. We would normally expect the carried out by UK government departments, such as MMO to operate without direction. This clause allows my department, the Department for Transport and directions to be given where appropriate, but it would the Department of Energy and Climate Change. It is not be normal practice for directions or guidance to be not proposed to transfer into the MMO any functions given to the MMO in relation to Scottish inshore areas carried out by Scottish or Welsh statutory bodies—indeed, where Marine Scotland, the Scottish equivalent of the any functions carried out by the devolved Administrations. MMO, will operate—the noble Duke made that point—or In conclusion, I very much understand the complexities the Welsh inshore areas, which will be governed not by of this matter and the need to ensure that the UK an agency but by Welsh Ministers and officials acting Government and the devolved Administrations work for them. together. We will do everything that we can to ensure Directions or guidance in the offshore region could that that happens. However, the construct of the Bill relate to reserved matters, but we would not expect enables that to happen without the benefit of the that to be normal practice. Shipping and oil and gas amendments. exploration, for example, are reserved matters, as is defence. Nature conservation enforcement in the Welsh The Duke of Montrose: Perhaps the Minister will offshore region will be enforced by the MMO, as will clarify a couple of things for me. As I understand it, licensing of dredging. If matters relating to implementation the Scottish Parliament will not legislate for the Scottish of EU or international obligations required the MMO offshore area. It will not have powers of legislation; it to take a co-ordinating role on behalf of the UK will just have executive devolution. Do I understand Government—it is the UK Government who have to from that and from what the Minister said earlier that, accept that responsibility—we would expect the MMO when Marine Scotland comes up with plans for to undertake consultation with whomever would be conservation in the offshore area, those plans will have affected in the devolved Administrations throughout to be checked with the Secretary of State? From what the UK area. It will be made clear in the objectives set the Minister said, it seems that anything occurring in for the MMO that normal good practice behaviour on that area will be subject to approval by the Secretary consultation will apply. of State. Under the MMO and, presumably, under the I can assure Members of the Committee that this is Scottish Parliament in the Scottish offshore area, there already the practice of existing marine and fisheries will be powers to license developments. The plans that agencies whose functions the MMO will subsume. We we were offered say that the Scottish Ministers will continue to expect consultation to take place with have to issue a FEPA licence and a marine licence colleagues from whichever Administration might be when proposals are made. Does that give them a affected by the guidance issued. For example, my right power of veto on proposals for oil platforms, pipelines honourable friend the Secretary of State has regular and such things? meetings with ministerial colleagues from the other Administrations on fisheries and marine matters. We Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Duke asks work closely to agree UK objectives for EU and about marine conservation zones. The devolved international negotiations and we have worked closely Administration will become the planning authority with the other Administrations on this Bill to secure for the relevant offshore region, but that will be under support for the measures that we are introducing. a form of executive devolution. The noble Duke is I am well aware that the Scottish marine Bill has right to say that marine plans will be subject to agreement just been subject to consultation in Scotland. My by the Secretary of State before they can impact on understanding is that it has received widespread support, decisions across the breadth of marine interests. The which is very welcome. Its provisions mirror in large Scottish Administration will also become the designating part the provisions of the UK Bill, confirming the authority for marine conservation zones in the support that the Scottish Executive have for the objectives offshore region. Again, those proposed designations of the Bill. Clearly, where devolved Administrations are subject to agreement by the Secretary of State. legislate for themselves, the Government will need to The noble Duke put that point fairly and I have be closely involved to press for coherence across the answered it as clearly as I can. As for licensing, 279 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 280 the Scottish Administration already license offshore So far as I can see, the “UK marine area” as defined in marine developments, but not oil and gas; the Scottish Clause 40 does not appear to exclude the Scottish Administration will not be able to veto oil and gas inshore area, although many other clauses expressly decisions. do so. That takes us back to the argument that it could be excluded by way of MMO functions in that those functions are not exercisable in the inshore area, but Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My noble friend Lord the fact that there is no express exclusion in the clause Wallace will speak for Scotland but, as far as Wales is has made me wonder whether there are any functions concerned, I cannot see why the Minister is so shy for the MMO here. about putting into the Bill the requirement in Amendments I shall give one example. For the past two or three 75 and 77 to consult on inshore and offshore projects. years, and certainly in the last year during which I was It is not a lot to ask. Given the good will of the in the Scottish Parliament, a recurring controversy Minister, who says that the Bill complies with the arose over ship-to-ship oil transhipments in the Firth devolution settlements, why can he not find the charity of Forth. The activity generated a considerable amount to put this in the Bill, so that there will be no room for of debate. I recall that one of the explanations that misunderstanding? Scottish Ministers had to give to the Scottish Parliament Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am grateful to the was that, as I recall, the licensing of such activities lies Minister and to other noble Lords who have taken with UK Government Ministers at Westminster. The part in this debate. I share the disappointment of my Firth of Forth is clearly in Scottish inshore waters. My noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth, because, although question is this: are there functions exercised by UK a lot of good will has been expressed, it has not been Ministers related to Scottish inshore waters that may taken that extra bit further and translated into putting be transferred to the MMO which we have not yet the proposals into the Bill. As everyone recognises, the picked up? It would be unfortunate if we discovered amendments would not get in the way of anything. that some functions that are reserved to UK Ministers Indeed, if there was a conflict or problem, they would nevertheless relate to Scottish inshore waters. If the ensure that there was a requirement for co-operation. Minister cannot answer now, perhaps he will write to You do not need that if there is no difficulty, but the me and to other noble Lords. amendments would take care of those circumstances 5.30 pm where there was a difficulty and where co-operation Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I will look into the and consultation were necessary. specific matter that the noble Lord has raised, but the I thank the Minister for explaining in more detail general principle is that the MMO operates in England the set-up for ensuring that we cover the whole of the as the appropriate marine body on behalf of the United Kingdom’s waters through the various Secretary of State. Its involvement outside England is Administrations. It is no small achievement that the on those matters that fall under the responsibility of four Administrations have reached this agreement. I the UK Government. We have tried to ensure that the am sure that, in all Parliaments and Assemblies, we Bill reflects that. If the noble Lord would like to give will want to ensure that we put in place the right me more details of the specific case, I shall look into it. statutory mechanisms to take that forward. I will not dwell on this point, because I have raised Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister needs to it with the Minister outwith the Chamber, and there recognise the political implications here. It was rather may be other opportunities. However, I still have a funny to read in the press that, when oil is transferred concern. The Minister confirmed to the noble Duke, from one ship to another in inshore waters, it is a the Duke of Montrose, that marine planning in the matter for the United Kingdom, although the inshore offshore region will be done by way of executive waters are seen as part of Scotland. This has quite devolution. My concern is for the marine Bill that sensitive political implications. comes before the Scottish Parliament. I will take a simple example, which there will be an opportunity to Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I certainly agree with debate later. There will be a duty on public bodies in the noble Baroness about the political implications, Scotland to promote biodiversity in inshore waters. but the point that I seek to make is that the MMO will However, the Scottish Parliament cannot make that deal with the UK Government’s functions and requirement; Scottish Ministers cannot put that into a responsibilities. My query is this: if there are functions plan for the offshore region, because the Scottish within inshore Scottish waters that are exercisable by Parliament does not have the legislative capacity to do UK Ministers, where does the responsibility lie? I beg that. This House and the other place may have to pass leave to withdraw the amendment. the legislation. There is a potential gap here, which we Amendment 74 withdrawn. should examine, perhaps in a later amendment. There is another point that I would like the Minister Amendment 75 not moved. to respond to if he can. When drafting the amendment, Clause 35 agreed. I deliberated on whether to make any reference to the Scottish inshore area. The noble and learned Lord, Clause 36 : Guidance by the Secretary of State Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, gave cogent reasons why it is necessary to do so. I am influenced by the fact Amendments 76 and 77 not moved. that the MMO area defined in Clause 2(2) refers to, Clause 36 agreed. “those parts of the UK marine area, or of the United Kingdom, where MMO functions are exercisable”. Clause 37 agreed. 281 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 282

Schedule 3: Transfer schemes the staff were informed that the decision had been delayed. On 23 January the Plymouth-based Western Morning News announced that the headquarters would Amendment 77A be in Newcastle. Do the Government think that the Moved by Lord Rosser issue of relocation is being well handled? What is the present position? 77A: Schedule 3, page 220, line 29, after “employee” insert “working at the Marine and Fisheries Agency” The best way of dealing with the unwanted change in status of the staff would be for the Government to Lord Rosser: I want to talk about the effect of the say that the MMO would be an executive agency, an Bill as it stands on the staff of the present Marine and agent of the Crown, and that its staff would be regarded Fisheries Agency. They are civil servants and under as servants or agents of the Crown and enjoy the the Bill will move to the new Marine Management status, immunity and privilege of the Crown. I hope Organisation. As I understand it, they will not retain my noble friend will agree to give consideration to this their status as civil servants because the MMO will be point, which would make my amendment unnecessary, a non-departmental public body.I know of no overriding with a view to his bringing back amendments to the reason why the staff concerned, some 200 to 250 of Bill at a later stage to achieve that objective. them, cannot continue to be civil servants, retaining The MFA was set up in October 2005 and has the same rights, responsibilities and conditions of proved successful. It would be entirely capable, with or service as they have now. I do not know whether the without a change of name, of carrying out the new Minister will be surprised to hear me say this, but the functions and remit outlined in the Bill. The main staff concerned are proud to be civil servants. They significant difference between the current MFA and have chosen careers in public service and neither welcome the proposed MMO appears to be marine planning nor want the loss of Civil Service status and conditions responsibilities, on which I am told less than 10 per and the ability to continue to access Civil Service jobs. cent of the staff will be engaged. If my understanding of the Bill is right, it is unfortunate My amendment to Schedule 3 would address the when Governments, in order to achieve their policy situation in the Bill. The schedule provides that if an objectives, find it necessary to adversely affect the employee at the Marine and Fisheries Agency objects position of the staff most directly affected. Why does to being transferred to the new organisation, the that have to be done? Are we really being told that the employee’s contract of employment is terminated policy objectives could not otherwise be achieved? As immediately before the transfer date. Presumably, the I understand it, there are no plans to remove Civil employee is then faced with the threat of being classified Service status from staff in Wales, Scotland or Northern as having resigned voluntarily on refusal to accept Ireland, where similar functions to those in England change of status. At a time when departments are are carried out. under instructions to reduce head counts, that threat There is also an issue that is addressed in another could become a reality in some instances where an amendment: if the creation of the MMO results in the individual has no wish to accept redundancy. There removal of Crown immunity, staff may become personally has been no commitment from Defra that staff who liable for actions taken in the course of their duties—for do not want to lose their Civil Service status will be example, changes in fishing quotas to conserve stocks, found another Civil Service post within the department. or the opening and closing of areas for fishing for the There are also a small number of MFA staff based in same reason. If the Government are still determined each of a number of different coastal offices. What to set up the MMO as a non-departmental public will happen to them if they do not wish to accept the body, I point out that other NDPBs such as ACAS, change in status? Will they be offered another Civil the Health and Safety Executive and the new Child Service post and, if so, where? Maintenance Enforcement Commission have all retained Civil Service status for staff. I believe that the Government’s Many of the MFA are specialist staff. This proposed original intention was to establish CMEC as an NDPB change in status and possibly location risks the loss of with no civil servants, but subsequently they stated specialist skills and expertise. Even those who remain that it was to be given Crown status and that its staff may well find themselves in a post that is of little would retain Civil Service status for at least three interest to them and which does not use their skills to years. maximum advantage. Is this really the Government’s On top of the change of status of the staff and the intention? Is it the way to treat staff? implications of that for the future regarding terms and My amendment’s purpose is to at least ensure that conditions, there is the prospect of at least some staff an employee working at the Marine and Fisheries finding that the post they hold now has been transferred Agency who expresses objection to the transfer of the if the headquarters of the MMO is outside London. contract of employment, on the grounds of losing the What is the position on that? If the headquarters is status of Crown servant, continues to have that contract moved outside London it is likely that a majority of of employment after the transfer date and is to be staff will not be prepared to relocate, and expertise regarded as an employee of the Department for and experience will be lost. I have been told that staff Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with the status were given to understand that they would be advised of Crown servant. I hope that my noble friend’s reply of the intentions regarding the future location or will show that the Government share my view that locations just before Christmas, but nothing was said. there is no reason why the staff affected by the policy I am also advised that an announcement on MFA changes in the Bill will suffer adverse consequences to relocation was expected on 22 January, but that again the extent that would occur under the Bill. 283 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 284

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am interested in the Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I may be wrong but I do amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, not think that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned has so ably spoken. I look forward to the Minister’s what would happen to the pensions of civil servants reply with interest. It would be well if the Committee who are transferred to the MMO. Will the Minister were informed of the details of what is anticipated in include that in his reply? staffing the MMO. It would be useful to know, for example, the estimates of the number of Crown servants who are being brought in from various departments Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to noble and government agencies to staff up the MMO. I well Lords for their contributions to the debate. I was understand the Government’s concern about having delighted to hear my noble friend say that the current two classes of employees within a single body; that staff are proud to be civil servants. When one hears could create enormous difficulties. However, it would rather ridiculous remarks about civil servants being be useful to understand the Government’s reasoning made by people who should know better, I am glad to on the core of the matter. stand here and say how much I have enjoyed working As for the location being suggested to be Newcastle, with civil servants over the years and what a huge the footballers of Grimsby are known as “the Mariners”. contribution they make. Without doubt, as Grimsby has the distinctions of The designation of the Marine Management being not only in Lincolnshire but also the pre-eminent Organisation as a non-departmental public body is a fishing port of the United Kingdom, it would make an visible sign of the status of that organisation. I respect ideal location for the MMO. the decision of the Welsh Assembly Government to carry out directly the functions that are akin to those of the MMO. However, in the English context, to Lord Tyler: We on these Benches also look forward retain the MMO functions in my department, or to with interest to clarification from the Minister. On the place them with an executive agency, would not accord issue of staffing generally, I hope that the Minister will the right status to this important body. I return to the agree that anything that causes unnecessary disruption, discussion we had during the first two Committee with the effect of reducing the expertise and commitment days when emphasis was laid time and again on the of existing staff, is to be avoided if it possibly can be. critical importance of the MMO and the importance The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is therefore making a of it being able to make its own decisions within the serious point about the body of information and skill guidance and general objectives that have been laid in the existing institutions and the need to avoid any down. I think that non-departmental body status is unnecessary disruption. the right status for the organisation. There are two issues with location. We are obviously I say to my noble friend that, as a non-departmental looking forward to hearing whether the Minister can public body, its staff will be public servants, not Crown confirm the rumour—or was it a leak?—that Newcastle servants, which is very much the usual position. He has been chosen. That shows a disrespect for the skills referred to a number of organisations staffed by Crown and experience of the existing staff, who may find this servants. However, my understanding is that of the a disturbing and unsettling period for then. If the 1,000 or so non-departmental public bodies, only three announcement that appeared in my regional paper, are staffed by Crown servants on a permanent basis. the Western Morning News, was in any way authenticated, Their designation as public servants rather than Crown that is to be deprecated. servants reflects the independent nature of non- departmental public bodies. It allows those staff a measure of independence and gives them the ability to 5.45 pm speak more freely than would otherwise be the case. It However, I cannot agree with what the noble Lord, also gives them the flexibility that noble Lords have Lord Taylor, said about Lincolnshire for obvious reasons. required of the MMO in our previous debates. As The availability of these skills in the south-west, where public servants, MMO staff will in practice be treated expert information is available in a number of institutions very much the same as existing MFA staff. They will and given its proximity not just to the Western Approaches be transferred to the MMO on the same contractual but to the Irish Sea, makes it a far more appropriate terms and conditions of employment and any subsequent location than the far north-east. I am sorry that the changes to their terms and conditions will require the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is no longer present, as I approval of the Secretary of State. They will be entitled think he would argue the case for Plymouth as against to trade union membership. I am glad to report to the the location proposed by other Members of the noble Baroness that their pensions will be retained in Conservative Front Bench. The problem with the far the Civil Service pension scheme. They will be able to north-east is that it is almost in Scotland, for goodness’ apply for Civil Service vacancies in the same way as sake, where, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of other civil servants. In short, there is no reason for Tankerness would agree, a quite different regime applies. MMO staff to feel disadvantaged by virtue of becoming Having the MMO on its doorstep is obviously much public servants. less advantageous than locating it in the south-west. My noble friend, fairly, asked a number of questions. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a He asked what would happen to MFA staff who specific double assurance that, first and foremost, that simply did not wish to transfer to the Marine Management decision has not been leaked and, secondly, that discussions Organisation. As staff will transfer to the MMO with are still taking place to find a more appropriate location their contractual terms and conditions of employment than Newcastle. preserved, there should be no reason to object to the 285 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 286

[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH] Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The main purpose of transfer, and it is expected that all staff will transfer. setting up the MMO is not to rationalise staff numbers. Should any member of staff choose not to do so, their I accept the point that he made earlier about efficiencies. contract of employment with the MFAwill be terminated. It will take on additional senior management and They would have been deemed to have resigned their corporate centre staff. If additional functions are moved post. I understand that this is the usual form in which to the MMO, over time that may lead to an increase in transfers to NDPBs are effected. staff numbers. My understanding is that, in total, the I very much understand the question of relocation. MMO will have about 240 posts set up, but the exact I always regret leaks, and I can well understand the number of staff transferring from other departments concern of staff when they read stories in a local has not been resolved because functions will go from newspaper about the location. I am not in a position the same teams in the Department for Transport and to give any more information at this stage. I have the Department of Energy and Climate Change to the checked, and the answer is that we will announce this IPC, with some relevant policy roles being retained when all the information and evidence have been within those departments. Some matters still have to carefully considered. It will be announced in Parliament be resolved. That is as much information as I can give. in due course. Frankly, the shortlisted locations all would have made a very good home for the MMO, Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Has the Minister counted and this has been a very difficult decision. I understand staffing of the MFA, if the MFA is being transferred that this is a very important decision for the staff and incorporated? It would be helpful to know. involved, and I can only regret that some kind of allegation has appeared in a local newspaper. I understand people’s concern on this. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not think I have. I shall certainly find out and let the noble Lord know. Those staff who are unable or unwilling to relocate Work is still being undertaken because of the various raise a different issue from the first point asked by my transfers that have to take place and some new noble friend about staff who object to transferring to responsibilities which are being added. Much of that the MMO. Relocation is a separate issue. Those staff work is ongoing, but I shall certainly find out that who are unable or unwilling to relocate will be placed information and let the noble Lord know as soon as on my department’s redeployment register. This will possible. The information that I do have is that we give those staff first refusal on any vacancies in the think that up to 200 MFA staff will be transferring. I Defra network. In addition, those staff will have will get back to him on that. preferential access to other jobs across Whitehall. The MFA has appointed a resettlement officer, who will help staff to prepare for redeployment. Staff will Lord Rosser: I thank my noble friend for that reply. receive training and help with CV writing, for example. As his final answer indicated, the great bulk of the After a period of six months, any staff who have not staff in the new organisation will be existing civil found an alternative job will be reassigned to Defra. servants, which, once again, begs the question why this There is no question of compulsory redundancies as a change in status is considered to be so crucial. My direct result of the relocation. noble friend referred to significant numbers of NDPBs where the staff were not civil servants and he said that My noble friend asked about staff losing immunity that enhanced their independent status. Does that on becoming staff of the MMO. My understanding is mean that he is on record as saying that he does not that, as a general principle, civil servants enjoy immunity think ACAS is independent; does that mean he is on only under a specific circumstance for which Crown record as saying that he does not think the Health and immunity applies. There is no general immunity for Safety Executive is independent; does that mean he is civil servants, so we do not think that there is a need to on record as saying that the Child Maintenance and provide protection for individual employees working Enforcement Commission is not independent? for the MMO generally. Such decisions would be taken on behalf of the MMO, so any potential claim would lie against the MMO and not an individual Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Of course not. I had officer. Specific immunity is given in the Bill to marine responsibility for the Child Support Agency and the enforcement officers and other enforcement officers, work that led to the setting up of the Child Maintenance who need to be protected when they carry out inspections and Enforcement Commission. However, nothing I and investigations at sea and on land, so long as they say detracts from the work of those organisations. are acting lawfully within their powers. Otherwise, Noble Lords and the Joint Committee have intimated their freedom to perform their duties would be hampered that they wish this organisation to be seen to be by fear of legal action being taken against them. Even independent within the general constraints laid down if sued, if MMO employees are acting in the course of in the Bill. In establishing such organisations, it is well their duties, the MMO would be vicariously liable for known that NDPB status is the appropriate status. their actions. I hope that I have answered the questions— Lord Rosser: The only comment I would make back to my noble friend—I shall not pursue it further—is that, in effect, he is saying that the three organisations Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I asked for some numbers. to which I have referred are presumably not as independent Can the noble Lord give an approximate idea of the as they would be if their staff had not retained Civil number of Crown servants who will be transferred Service status. That is the only inference one can draw from departments and other agencies? from his comment. No doubt that point will be pursued. 287 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 288

On the issue of Civil Service conditions, I shall read European legislation. I hope that this debate might Hansard with interest because I thought my noble clear some of the darkness and allow us to assess more friend said that, if there was a change of status, the realistically just what we can and cannot expect of the staff of the MMO would still have exactly the same organisations that we are empowering in this Bill. rights as they have at the moment if applying for Civil As allowed under the current EU arrangements, Service jobs; for example, they could apply for the and as my noble friend Lord Cathcart began to point same range of jobs as they can at present. I am not out, these arrangements fall and are due to be renewed entirely sure that is the case, but I shall need to check in 2012. The UK has complete control over its fishing that. waters only up to the six-nautical-mile limit. These arrangements have already caused much delay and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I want to make the obstruction to the effective conservation of our fish position clear. I was referring to relocation and to staff stocks and other species. For example, an attempt to who are not able to relocate: they would remain on the ban pair trawling for bass in 2004 has had an extremely books of my department. limited effect, as it was not supported by the EU Lord Rosser: Would my noble friend accept that, if Commission, and so cannot apply to non-UK ships the status of the staff transferring to the MMO is to beyond six nautical miles. For a conservation zone be changed, they will not be able to apply for the same beyond the six-nautical-mile limit to be applied to all range of Civil Service jobs as they can at present, and EU fishing boats, and so have a chance of achieving its that that is, perhaps, an adverse impact on their future objectives, it is clear that it must not only be approved careers? On the conditions of employment, the Minister by the EU Commission but avoid being overturned by is right to say that on day one they maintain their the European Council. The difficulty of pushing a existing conditions, but they will not then follow Civil meaningful network of conservation zones through Service conditions in the future, in the light of subsequent this bureaucracy is presumably one of the reasons why negotiations affecting those conditions. I want to reflect the Government have decided to take upon themselves on what my noble friend has said. I am obviously the unilateral powers described in Part 5. disappointed that he did not feel able even to say that Do the Government have any reason for believing he will reconsider the position, but I will reflect on that marine conservation zones imposed within the what he has said and, in the mean time, I beg leave to exclusive economic zone, but beyond the six-nautical-mile withdraw my amendment. limit, will be any more successful than their attempt in 2004 to stop pair trawling? Or do they intend conservation Amendment 77A withdrawn. zones to be established within the six-mile limit, making 6pm the new economic zone relevant only to planning, energy installations and licensed dredging? What is Amendments 77B to 77D not moved. worse, the current situation—far from perfect—will quite possibly get much worse in a few years. As I Schedule 3 agreed. mentioned earlier, in 2012 the derogation limit of fishing within 12 nautical miles to historic rights will Clause 38: Interim arrangements come to an end, and our unilateral ability to protect Amendments 78 and 79 not moved. the marine environment will be further reduced. However, the Government appear to be doing nothing to protect Clause 38 agreed. what limited rights we still have, let alone seeking to extend our powers in this area. Can the Minister give Clause 39: Exclusive economic zone the House any reassurance that they are seeking to Amendment 80 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled protect the existing restrictions within the 12-mile List. boundary? Even better, have they made any progress in establishing how they feel about common fisheries policy reform? Amendment 81 The EU promises to bring forward a package of Moved by The Duke of Montrose marine protection proposals, which might go some 81: Clause 39, page 19, line 39, leave out subsection (2) way to improving the current arrangements for fish conservation in our waters. However, if we are to rely The Duke of Montrose: I move Amendment 81 on on the EU to do all the work in this area for us, there is behalf of my noble friend Lord Taylor. This is a little purpose in discussing what we want to achieve probing amendment to clarify exactly what the with this Bill. The Government must either take steps Government achieve with the establishment of the to ensure that the appropriate authorities have the exclusive economic zone. Can the Minister first reassure power to impose and enforce effective protections, or the House that we have received Her Majesty’s full admit that much of the Bill will be ineffective unless permission to allocate her rights, as envisaged under the EU takes the necessary steps to do it for us. I beg this clause? As I understand it, and I hope the Minister to move. will correct me if I am wrong, our rights under this zone are identical to those that the UK was able to exercise under the existing renewable energy zone and, Lord Davies of Oldham: My note indicates that I even more, under the 200-mile fishery limit. If this is should express gratitude to the noble Duke, the Duke the case, many of the provisions that we will come to of Montrose, for moving this amendment. I am not later need to be viewed through the very dark glass of sure that I can express that with quite my normal 289 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 290

[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM] the zone, I would be detracting from concentrating on enthusiasm. The reason is that the noble Duke has his amendment and the need for me to persuade him hung a significant discussion about the common fisheries to withdraw it. policy on this amendment. I do not doubt for a moment that we will discuss the common fisheries The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for policy in the context of this part of the Bill and, coming back on these points. The main thing that I indeed, this clause, but I had not anticipated that it was focusing on, although I did raise the problems of would occur on this particular amendment. I am the common fisheries policy, was the question of the therefore grateful that he preceded his remarks by authority that we expect to have on the establishment saying that this was a probing amendment. I can of marine conservation zones. No doubt we will have indicate that he will probe quite successfully over a a debate on that issue in due course. I have heard in the narrow area, but I rather hope that the debate on the past few months, although I cannot remember which common fisheries policy might be raised more piece of legislation it related to, that Her Majesty was appropriately a little later. If he does not accept that waiving her rights. I wanted to confirm that that was position, I will be more extensive on the common not attached to this legislation. fisheries policy, but this amendment does not really have much to do with the common fisheries policy because we are not changing boundaries as far as it is Lord Davies of Oldham: That is an entirely fair concerned. point and I apologise for not commenting on that. I am assured that everything is in order in that respect. Clauses 39, 40 and 41 establish an exclusive economic Perhaps I may help the noble Duke with regard to zone, define the UK marine area and allow for the the fisheries policy. We are not changing the concept establishment of the Welsh zone. They are the base on of the territorial sea and the 12-nautical-mile limit. which the remainder of the Bill rests. On this base is On these changes, we are concerned with the issues the whole concept of what we are discussing in planning 200 miles out. The law of the sea defines our position for the future. The establishment of an unambiguous, with regard to our waters 200 miles from our coast. Of clearly defined set of boundaries provides a clear basis course, it is not possible to go 200 miles in some for various maritime activities. I do not for one moment directions, due to the limits of the ocean, but in certain deny the significance of fishing, but the noble Duke, directions it is possible. That 200-mile limit is not the Duke of Montrose, will be well aware that a range entirely adequate for us, because we seek to extend the of maritime activities concern us in this Bill and are UK’s rights in relation to the continental shelf. Geology conducted around the coast of the United Kingdom. does not follow the 200-mile boundary with quite the exactitude we would like. In the Bill, we are seeking, We are explicitly setting out the seaward and landward therefore, to extend our position in relation to the limits of the UK marine area and establishing an continental shelf, but to do that we need to be able to exclusive economic zone which will ensure conformity negotiate the issues under the United Nations Convention with international best practice on law-of-the-sea matters. on the Law of the Sea. That is why we have to have this If, as the amendment indicates, subsection (2) is left clause in the form in which it appears, and in a form out of Clause 39, the clause’s position would be, which defends it against the noble Duke’s amendment. effectively, destroyed. Subsections (1) and (3) make no sense at all without subsection (2), which defines the The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for rights to which the other two subsections apply. The that further clarification. It is rather useful to know definition in subsection (2) refers back to the United how the clause will be applied. We are still worried Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and makes that we do not have the powers that we need out to clear that the rights which the UK is claiming are only 200 miles, but perhaps we can look at that again. I beg those for which Part 5 of the convention provides. The leave to withdraw the amendment. clause is needed to enable the UK to declare an exclusive economic zone, which is at the very heart of Amendment 81 withdrawn. the Bill, in accordance with the UK’s obligations under these provisions, and the reference is therefore Clause 39 agreed. absolutely essential.

I could follow the noble Duke down the issue of 6.15 pm one of the particular economic activities and discuss fisheries policy; I recognise that that debate is important Clause 40 : UK marine area and I shall not shy away from it. However, in terms of clarity I seek to establish that I cannot accept, nor should the House accept, the proposal in the amendment, Amendment 81A because that would render absolutely nugatory the Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer fundamental concept of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, will 81A: Clause 40, page 20, line 33, leave out “high water spring” accept that the common fisheries policy will be fruitfully and insert “low” discussed within the framework of these clauses—there is no way in which it would not. I hope that he will Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: With this understand that if I engage in that specific debate amendment and Amendment 81B, we move to a about an exceedingly important economic activity within discussion of what should constitute the marine area 291 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 292 between low water and MMO’s influence all the way that area, as some will, that will be taken into account, up rivers as far as the high tide reaches. There is quite but primarily they are areas where a lot of other things a discrepancy between what is in the Bill and what is in happen. A Strategy for Promoting an Integrated Approach to The Bill also does not take account of all the issues the Management of Coastal Areas in England, in which that I address in my second amendment, as it gives the the Government state that, MMO power up to high water all the way up the “marine plan authorities must have regard to other plans prepared rivers. In some cases that is miles inland. I cannot see by a public or local authority in that marine plan area. This will the reason for that. We know, because the Minister facilitate integration and include Local Development Plans within told us on our previous Committee day, that the EA the Local Development Framework; Shoreline Management Plans; and River Basin Management Plans. The marine plan authority will stay as the competent authority for the water will be required to ensure, as far as reasonably possible, compatibility framework directive. I believe that the practical way of with adjacent terrestrial plans”. deciding where the MMO’s responsibility should stop That is what my amendments go to the heart of. I am is, very concerned that there is no real mechanism in the “the first non-navigable land crossing”. Bill for ensuring compatibility. That could be argued in all sorts of ways. However, Perhaps noble Lords should think for a moment in the rivers that I know, there are usually, where the about the area between high and low water and all the estuaries are still wide and there is still a big tidal activities that take place there. Those include lifeguarding; effect, navigable bridges and crossings, and it is arguable games on the beach such as volleyball, which may that the MMO should continue its responsibility form part of a local authority’s leisure plans; boating, underneath those and that its responsibility should canoeing and that sort of activity; and perhaps flood end on the non-navigable bridges. As the Minister has defences, in which the Environment Agency and the pointed out in previous discussions, the MMO will local authority are very much involved. The area have agreements with other bodies and will be able to between high and low water is extremely biodiverse; it delegate functions for those upstream parts of rivers is where one finds a lot of birds, shellfish and rock beyond those bridges. That would be the appropriate pools full of prawns, sea anemones, mussels, seaweeds, thing to do, as most of the functions on and around and so on. An awful lot goes on between high and low those rivers will have nothing to do with the MMO. It water. has the junior part to play in those upstream rivers. As we go 10, 15 or 20 miles inland, people would find it My concern is about making this area simply one extraordinary that the MMO had any part to play. for which the Marine Management Organisation’s plan is responsible, given that local authorities are not part The other well expressed Defra strategy on the of the list of eligible bodies that we discussed in management of coastal areas is the participatory planning relation to Clause 16. I could have chosen to address approach from an early stage, as laid down in the this issue by including them in that list. However, I statement of public participation. We are talking about thought about all the activities that take place between marine areas; as we move on to marine plans, I am high and low water and all the activities that local sure that we will come back to this point, but I should authorities are primarily responsible for in that area, like the Bill to recognise that public participation is including one that was very recently given to them by very important. I mention that at this stage because the Government—cleaning the beaches—as well as planning issues in the area between high and low water access to beaches, car parking and highway issues on will need the greatest public participation. That is the access roads to the beach, some of which are covered area that the public use and enjoy and the one over by high water. All of these matters have not been which they have an absolute right through their democratic adequately thought about, given the way in which the bodies to have a say. I beg to move. Bill is phrased. The Joint Committee was similarly concerned that Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am grateful to the noble there was no mention of integrated coastal management Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for giving in the Bill. The committee’s report states in paragraph 105: us an opportunity to debate this important matter. “The planning and decision-making process at the land/sea When I first read the Bill, I put great big lines down interface is particularly important for certain industries, such as against this clause as I thought that we could argue ports and offshore developments”. about it all night. I am not proposing to do that, as I Again, the planning authorities need to think about am sure that the Committee would not welcome it, but that. These things all come down to local authorities. this is a very important area. Primarily, I am talking not about development I disagree with some of what the noble Baroness is control but about the planning in its widest sense that suggesting, as she wants to restrict the extent of the local authorities undertake. That is why I have tabled area defined as the UK marine area to low water, the first of these amendments. The Marine Management thereby restricting not only the remit of the MMO but Organisation is concerned with everything that happens the area in which consideration should be paid to the at sea, which is not the area between high and low marine environment specifically under this legislation. water where a lot of human activity takes place. That I would have had more sympathy for an amendment should be the rightful domain of the coastal authorities, that extended rather than restricted the remit. which have to plan for social and economic issues. Of In the previous debate, the Minister said how important course environmental issues are already covered by the it was to have clearly defined physical boundaries, but designations where appropriate by Natural England. there needs to be a clear definition of where one If the marine conservation zones happen to fall within organisation’s remit starts and another’s ends. As these 293 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 294

[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH] joint committee have been considerably worried by debates are showing, this is—even if we debated it all there being no allowance in the Bill for seascapes, night—an extraordinarily complicated issue. Influences which is where beautiful land—in our case, it is probably on the marine environment do not end neatly at one about to become a national park—also embraces a point on the map. Indeed, events just above the high fantastic view of the sea. That may be a serious tide mark impact much more on the marine environment omission. than vice versa. Rivers flow into the sea and, although We discussed this beforehand with the inspector, fish indeed swim up rivers, provision has already been who wanted views on it. He expressed a view that made for the Environment Agency to retain control of consideration should be given to statutory provisions the licensing of freshwater fish. I would much prefer that would allow marine areas beyond the mean low to leave this part of the Bill as it is with the MMO water mark to be part of a national park. That is a big dealing with marine issues and involving itself in areas question. However, if I read the Bill right, there is at that might not always be covered in salt water but present no thought given to what will happen to which common sense would identify as being part of seascapes, particularly where a national park, of special the marine area and which certainly impact on the conservation, looks down from right above the sea. wider marine environment. We feel that the two could be embraced together, with My amendment in this group is a simple, probing law and planning to combine both. This would be a one to clarify subsection (4)(a), which, with its strong step forward, which I hope can be considered in accompanying Explanatory Notes, suggests that the the context of this Bill. UK marine area incorporates areas that would be under the sea were it not for the tide being deliberately kept out of that area. That would seem to include Lord Davies of Oldham: We have moved toward many areas where no precise delineation is possible. inshore waters, yet I am still in deep water regarding More important—I speak from a purely selfish interest— these amendments and the difficulties of definition. large tracts of reclaimed land are arguably not under Noble Lords have some real concerns and arguments, the sea because of a great deal of drainage work and and I appreciate their significance while wrestling, at so on. this stage, with the issue of definition. Many noble Lords will know of my farming interests. Let me add that if I was in any way discourteous to My farm and my home—indeed, all the Fenland region— the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, I did not would be described as being marine under this provision. intend it. On the next amendment to be moved— Sluices, dykes, seabanks, riverbanks and the artificial Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord exclusion of the tide are the only ways in which the Taylor—we will be discussing the economic zone as it area can be kept dry. I hope that the Minister will applies to Wales. That has a great deal to do with accept that that definition needs a bit of fine-tuning if common fisheries policy, and it seemed to me that it it is not to extend the marine area to those parts of the fitted more into that economic debate. I did not want country that, although they may have the word “beach” to be discourteous to the noble Duke who, no doubt, in their name, are not particularly adjacent to the sea is absolutely right to take the first opportunity that he now. can. However, I am reeling with quite difficult problems Presumably it is not the intention to reclassify land of definition, and taking on the common fisheries as marine that has been reclaimed from the sea for policy at that stage was probably rather more than I many years—centuries in some cases. Paragraphs (b) could accomplish. and (c) of subsection (4) also appear to extend the UK Regarding what I said on that first definition, I marine area limit a little further than subsection (3) want to make one point absolutely clear, as I may not would suggest. The mean high water spring tide is not have expressed myself as clearly as I ought to the the highest mark that spring tides get to, but these Committee. The economic zone will only stretch to paragraphs imply that we should be talking about the 200 miles; the law of the sea defines that for us. Yet, as furthest that seawater gets to “from time to time”—or I indicated, we have interests in the continental shelf does the wording imply, as in paragraph (a), that it is beyond that, because of particular geological features. only where the seawater is allowed to get to? It would We seek to exploit them under the Continental Shelf benefit the Bill if we could define some of these things Act 1964, and that is included in Clause 40(1)(c) of the more accurately. I return to the point that I made in Bill. As I indicated in responding to the first amendment, the beginning, which is that the marine area should all three clauses are part of the definition issue; we are include the land and the sea between the low and high talking about the heart of the Bill, as it concerns water marks. marine development and planning. I seek to make that point as clearly as I can, and confess to any inadequacy in my earlier remarks. 6.30 pm I am now in difficulty, not least because the noble Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I speak with some Baroness, Lady Miller, entices me with the roles that trepidation, not having spoken about this Bill before. local authorities can play within planning development However, I was for 10 years chairman of, first, the and concerns in areas immediately by the coast—and South Downs Conservation Board and then of the not only that, for salt water can go a little further committee that also embraced east Hampshire. One of inland, as she indicated. Meanwhile, the noble Lord, our real beauties is the iconic coastal land and seascape Lord Taylor, has upbraided me lest I stray too far of the Seven Sisters and Beachy Head. Those of us along that line and include most of Lincolnshire within living close by and those now on the South Downs the framework of the Bill, which I certainly do not 295 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 296 want. The Committee will recognise, then, that I seek I know that that does not go as far as the noble to tread a rather difficult line between the two positions Baroness wants in her definition of where the boundary with some care. should be, but I hope that she will appreciate that the In the Bill, the UK marine area is used as the basis Government are not being arbitrary here—although for defining that part of the sea that will be subject to we must take a decision on where the boundary should marine planning and licensing. For these purposes, we be—and are conscious of her point about the necessity believe it important for the UK marine area to include of co-operation when authorities, marine and terrestrial, all places containing seawater that is exchanged with both have an interest in crucial activities. The overlap the open sea. This enables us to regulate effectively all is also important when it comes to development consents activities—and I accept the representations from the and licences. Coastal activities by their nature have noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on how extensive activities both marine and terrestrial elements. The noble Lord, can be in coastal areas—that may significantly impact Lord Renton, in a different context, pointed that out. I the marine area. will come to his point when I can think of a satisfactory answer in due course. He spoke about the concept of a The licensing of these activities is currently regulated national park, which raises real difficulties about the under Part II of the Food and Environment Protection boundary. I am not sure that I will be totally adequate Act 1985, which applies from mean high water spring in my response to him, but I will do my best. tide outwards. Since the licensing provisions in that Act are to be replaced by this Bill, any change to the It is important that all the impacts of coastal definition of the UK marine area, as the noble Baroness development are considered by the appropriate land was so persuasively suggesting, would mean changing and marine expertise. The overlap allows us to do that. a well established and understood definition that we We are conscious that the limits we have chosen will have applied without difficulty for the past 20 years. vary over time and are not regulated by lines on the Therefore, rather than having clear difficulty in defining map. That is a conscious choice. The noble Lord, Lord boundaries, where we have strong arguments about Taylor, is as aware as anyone else in the House that where boundaries should be and one perspective clashes tides are a natural phenomenon. They do not necessarily with another, the noble Baroness will appreciate why recognise our human attempts to define and contain we seek—if I may mix my metaphors—to build on them. Consequently, boundaries change, not through reasonably secure foundations. That is because of how the will of man but through the force of nature. the Food and Environment Protection Act licensing Our choice of mean high water springs and the system has operated over the past 20 years. tidal limit in estuaries will ensure that we can plan for A large number of developments taking place landward and regulate activities in the areas that regularly interact of mean low tide can have significant detrimental with and can have a substantial impact on the sea and effects on the marine environment. It would be anomalous the marine environment more generally. Defining the for these activities to fall outside the very regime that marine area by reference to directly human considerations, has been designed in the Bill specifically to help protect such as landing, crossing and navigation—the point the marine environment. For this reason, it is also raised by the noble Baroness when she moved her important that we are able to create marine plans for amendment—would not be appropriate when designing the full extent of the area within which licences are a regime to manage and protect what is in fact a required. That will ensure that all licensing decisions dynamic natural environment. That is why we have are taken within the planning framework; to look at it drawn the boundary where we have. I appeal to her to another way, decisions on issuing licences will be one recognise that that has been done with care, but that of the key means by which the policies set out in plans under the Bill the marine authority will have to have would give effect in the real world. the closest relationship to terrestrial authorities—she mentioned local authorities—where issues concern them I am conscious that by using, both. “mean high water spring tide”, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, as the Bill defines it, an overlap arises between the because he identified why he could not agree with the marine regimes that we are discussing and existing noble Baroness’s amendment. I hope that I can be terrestrial planning and development consent regimes, helpful on the concerns that he voiced. The scope of which extend down to the low water mark. The noble the licensing and planning regimes in areas such as Baroness, Lady Miller, gave a clear articulation of harbour bases and sea locks that contain seawater those interests. Yet we are not involved in a mistake exchanged with the open sea is an issue. Having heard here; a deliberate and conscious act of policy underpins a series of constituency points two amendments ago the Bill. about the location, I for a brief moment recollected days in the other place when any proposal for the We believe that an overlap between the planning location of government offices led to a free-for-all regimes will help to encourage and support integration from Members rightly advocating why their town or between the two systems. We have made specific provision city should be the place where they should be located. in Schedule 6 to require marine planning authorities I noticed the echoes here today of that position. to notify terrestrial ones when they begin a marine plan, and to require the marine plan authority to have I am going to choose the example of Bristol, largely regard to the provisions of any related terrestrial plan. because I cannot see anyone who will attack me in The overlap between the two systems will help here by detail on Bristol in the Chamber at present. Bristol fits providing an added incentive to create a seamless join all the categories: it is a very significant port and a between them. seaport with a big estuary. 297 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 298

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I fear that the noble set for one authority, would be excessively arbitrary. Lord’s namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of For licences, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, Coity, might have considerable reservations, believing they are not. Natural England, as a nature conservation that there may be some conspiracy for a barrage. body, is the appropriate authority to manage wildlife on land, whether or not it is sometimes covered by the 6.45 pm sea. Only once its jurisdiction ends should the MMO take over and that is at the low watermark. We have Lord Davies of Oldham: Fortunately, my noble friend already had that debate, and, no doubt, we will return is not in his place at present. For that, I thank small to it on Report. mercies on this occasion. I recognise that we have the problem of different We want to ensure that licensable activities taking delineations with different authorities. These issues place inside areas such as the port of Bristol do not are not easily resolvable. However what I am seeking adversely affect the wider sea, which our regime is to maintain in response to the amendments—and I designed to protect. Subsection (3) on its own will not know they have been put forward constructively—is in some cases include such places, because lock gates that one size does not fit all functions equally. The Bill prevent the tide flowing in and out of them. Subsection (4) has to dovetail with a myriad other legislation and the is therefore intended to capture those places where boundaries set in each and every case are designed to locks affect the flows of water. do this to the best effect. I hope that noble Lords will If we did not include harbour basins and the like, feel that I have helped to clarify some of the issues we could not regulate effectively all the activities that sufficiently to withdraw their amendments and I ask may have a significant impact on the marine area. the noble Baroness to do so. Moreover, we would be faced with having those harbours without lock gates and open to the tide within the scope of the marine planning system, and others—those Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for with lock gates to control the flow of water—beyond his response and, in particular, for his comments on its scope. We seek consistency in the Bill, as our my amendments. This is a complicated area which stakeholders have repeatedly requested. Subsection (4) needs good thought. I know marshland environments is intended to bring that consistency. very well. They are quite difficult to describe because much of the marsh area is dry above a mean, high-water spring tide. Only occasionally are much of the green Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am grateful to the areas of the marsh actually under the water. Yet, Minister for giving way. This is an important area, within the Minister’s definition, we would obviously because a lock is for one purpose; to allow water to be consider them to be a marine area. So, the wording retained. However, sluices are very similar structures used needs careful thought because we do not want and the water contained within them would never be delineation disputes at a later stage. I hope the Minister considered sea, but it would include all the drainage of will commit himself to having a good look at that the fenland basin. I understand exactly what the Minister before we come back on Report. means; he knows that, generally speaking, I agree with the Government’s definition of where the sea, or the marine area, starts; but I am concerned by the wording Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not want to prolong of Clause 4. It needs to be quite clear that sea banks, this matter, but it seems that we are delineating marine sluices and areas protected from the sea by artificial areas within which, for example, the Scots Parliament means are not included within the meaning of the Bill. will be working on devolved matters. I am picturing the Montrose basin, near where I live, which is tidal and where there is a great deal of natural activity. I am Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble sure that will be included the Scots marine Bill. There Lord for saying that he broadly supports the Government’s is a bridge that is so low that no boat can come in, but approach on that. I chose Bristol with care because it it is tidal. Presumably, everything is all right for the is a fairly clear case. He is right to say that sluices are Montrose basin. However, we have to think all the not the same as locks, and they raise interesting issues. time of the whole of the United Kingdom when If he will allow me, I will reflect on that and give him thinking of the marine area. If there are going to be an answer in due course. I am not equipped to debate disputes, they may well be between the devolved the issue of sluices with him now—it may well be not Administrations and Westminster, so it is important at any stage, but certainly not now. that we get this right. Concerns were raised in an earlier debate in Committee about the different extents of the Bill. The noble Baroness was prominent at our last meeting in what Lord Davies of Oldham: I did not think that we she said in that respect. I assure the Committee that would get very far with this part of the Bill without each extent has been carefully chosen best to reflect the issue of the devolved parts of the United Kingdom the activity in question. For the reasons I have just becoming prominent. The noble Baroness has raised it outlined, licensing and planning, for example, are very in this context. We will have a number of other important issues. Clause 10 restricts the MMO’s functions opportunities where these issues will need to be explored. to seaward of low water mark clearly to delineate functions between the MMO and Natural England. Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The noble Licensing and planning overlaps with terrestrial regimes Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has done a are beneficial. They will ensure that we have the necessity tremendous amount, in his part of the world with his for co-operation in which the boundary, if it were just AONB, and in this House, introducing the original 299 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 300 concept of AONBs having the statutory powers they There is a lot here that we should be coming back to do now. He did really groundbreaking work, laying in Committee and on Report. In the mean time, I beg the way open for the Government to adopt that in the leave to withdraw the amendment. subsequent Act that gave AONBs much better status. The noble Lord will be comforted to know that we will Amendment 81A withdrawn. be dealing with the issues that he raised more fully under Amendment 106CA, so I will not address those Amendments 81B and 82 not moved. now. It does not surprise me that the Minister wants to Clause 40 agreed. take powers away from local authorities—which plan between medium low water and medium high water—and 7pm give them to a quango. It does not matter whether the quango is Natural England or the Marine Management Organisation. The fact is that it is a quango. Clause 41 : Welsh zone It could be that local authorities under this Bill would be required to take additional steps to pay Amendment 83 attention to the MMO’s plans. Nevertheless, it would be right that the local authority would be left with the Moved by Lord Glentoran primacy of planning in this area, where so much 83: Clause 41, page 21, line 6, leave out subsection (2) human activity takes place. However, it does not surprise me because the Government have not been terrific at giving powers to local authorities. If anything, they Lord Glentoran: I appear at your Lordships’ Dispatch have been busy taking them away, as they are doing Box wearing my Welsh hat. here. I am surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of This is a short, probing amendment to enable your Holbeach, is going along with this attitude. I hope that Lordships to delve a little more deeply into the new between now and Report, he will talk to his Local Welsh zone. As I understand it—I hope that the Minister Government Association colleagues and all the local will correct me if I am wrong—the Bill establishes authorities that are controlled by Conservatives, and through Clause 41 and Part 2 of Schedule 4 that see whether they are happy about losing their power fisheries will be devolved to the Welsh Ministers in this and being subservient to a quango. zone. This is obviously a significant devolution. The I was talking recently at a meeting of CoastNet in control of fisheries will have a huge impact not only Barnstable. Someone came up to me afterwards and on those directly involved in the industry but on the asked what the Conservatives’ attitude would be to a development of marine conservation zones, as the quango. I said that I did not know but would find out rather tortuously expressed consultation requirements during the course of the Bill. His question was whether in Clause 116 make clear. it would be okay for quangos to have much more Clause 284 also makes it clear that this devolution power. He was a member the estuary forum, I think, carries with it significant powers to impose executive and concerned that it would be losing a say as it would penalties. It is therefore surprising that the actual not have elected representatives. The MMO will be a limits of the zone are still not specified. The Minister remote body. I worry that we are taking a step that will and his officials were kind enough to give us a very fundamentally undermine an enormous amount of useful and enlightening meeting with maps last week what coastal authorities do. They will now be in the on the various devolved powers, but their notes and position of playing second fiddle to the MMO, which maps contained the very concerning detail that the is a quango. In fact, it should be a much more equal boundary between the Republic of Ireland and the relationship. We could, during later stages of the Bill, Welsh economic zone is still undefined and a matter of or on Report, remedy this by strengthening the hand negotiation. of local authorities through other amendments, but, This negotiation, I suspect, will not be all that easy. at the moment, they are not recognised at all. If the Republic of Ireland does not recognise this new I am sorry that the LGA has not made better zone, as distinct from its waters, the devolved powers representations to us on this Bill. It has been remarkably that we are discussing cannot be implemented properly. silent. I do not think that we have had a briefing from Getting final agreement is therefore of the utmost it—if any noble Lord has, perhaps they would let me importance, and the agreed limits should be clearly know. However, it has a special interest group which I stated in the Bill to provide certainty for those involved. expect to make representations to us and if it feels Let us not forget how wide that strip of water is. At its differently from me, I would accept that. widest—I have not taken this from a chart—it is I share the fondness of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor probably 100 miles at the very most and, in many of Holbeach, for salt marshes. I am fond of everything places, considerably less. about them, from curlews to salt marsh lamb—I do The Minister gave the impression in that meeting not eat the curlews; I just like listening to them—and I that the negotiations were close to their conclusion think they are wonderful places. But, again, they are and that only a few small details had still to be so rarely under water. Of course, they are important. resolved, but I have dealt with an awful lot of small However, they are essentially land-based places, full of details concerning Ireland in the past 20 years. Presumably, farmers, such as the noble Lord. Therefore, why should if this is so, we can anticipate final agreement before the MMO be primarily the planning body for them? the Bill receives Royal Assent, which is still several That again, should rest with local authorities. months away. Can the Minister promise the Committee 301 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 302

[LORD GLENTORAN] will come into effect. Such an order will be the subject that he will table amendments as soon as he can that of further consultation with all interested parties, and express this agreement and remove some of the uncertainty the Committee will appreciate the nature of that order; enshrined in the Bill? I would also be grateful if he it is part of the existing devolved arrangements with could confirm that no such uncertainty remains about the Welsh Assembly Government. the other boundaries of this zone, in particular that The Welsh zone will allow the existing powers under with the Isle of Man. I would like these boundaries to fisheries legislation to be extended to that area. A be numerically clarified, because, excellent though the single Welsh zone will provide a far less complex maps were that the department showed us, the distances patchwork of fisheries legislation off the Welsh coast, are so small and the scale of the maps and charts were will make enforcement far easier and will provide of a size that they did not indicate the problem. fishermen with a simpler legislative context. The Welsh I am also concerned about the areas between Scotland Assembly Government undertook extensive consultation and Northern Ireland. We should not be fighting on the proposal in May 2007 and almost 100 interested among ourselves, but we need clarity. At its narrowest, bodies across the UK were invited to comment on the the distance is only 10 miles. I beg to move. document. From this consultation only one outright objection was received and the majority showed support for the proposal. The amendment would prevent the Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The amendment is of great creation of the Welsh zone. If it is a probing amendment, interest to me as a Welsh Member of this House. I I hope I have given reassurance about the boundaries deduce from it that Clause 41(2) would be taken out of issue which we do not regard as significant. I give way the Bill and subsection (3) would remain, and I conclude to the noble Baroness. that that would leave the Secretary of State determining by order where the division to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred would occur. My understanding Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Can the Minister from the briefing that we received recently from the tell us who the one objection was from and what the Minister, which was extremely helpful, was that the implication is for the fishermen of the north Devon negotiations on the boundary between the Welsh zone coast? I realise it is a very specific question, but if we and that of Ireland were at an advanced stage. are making changes to the Welsh fishing zone, they are I note that the last few words of subsection (3) are: likely to be most affected. Indeed, the whole Bristol “British fishery limits adjacent to Wales, and those which are Channel area is brought into question. not”. I assume that that refers to the offshore area. Will the Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness will be Minister confirm that I have interpreted that correctly? reassured to learn that I asked to look at a map of the I would prefer subsection (2) to be left in, although, as Bristol Channel because of this issue. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, says, perhaps the that I was much the wiser afterwards in terms of the definition of where the limits are needs to be much impact on the north Devon fisheries, but I will come more exact—I can see the point in that argument—so back to that point in a moment. that no doubt is left about where they are. It would be better for the definition of the Welsh zone to remain in On the more general issues of the zone, I apologise the Bill as it is in subsection (2); there is quite a lot of once again to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, scope for defining more clearly in subsection (3) the for being a little dismissive of the fisheries argument words “those which are not”. I will be very interested earlier. We have had endless debates about the common in the Minister’s response to the amendment and his fisheries policy and we all know that it is coming to views, on behalf of the Government, of the proposed some kind of climax with the arrangements for 2012. exclusion of subsection (2). However, Scotland and Northern Ireland have these zones and Wales is getting the opportunity to have a zone. There is certainly no issue with regard to Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to noble international boundaries. I am not sure I can give an Lords who have spoken on this amendment, although answer to the noble Baroness about the boundary they have slightly taken me aback; I had not thought arrangements between Wales and north Devon. I will that the boundaries issue would be significant at this write to her on that point because in all my voluminous stage. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Welsh notes I am afraid that particular dimension does not zone has absolutely nothing to do with changes to UK occur. international boundaries. No doubt many anxieties The fisheries issue will, of course, recur in this will be articulated about the Welsh zone and what goes House but I emphasise, with regard to this clause, that on in it. It gives rise to the obvious issue of a devolved we are merely creating a framework within which the authority, so I have no doubt that Scottish—and doubtless Welsh Assembly Government can exercise authority Northern Irish—eyes are keenly focused on the matter, within the limited waters that the map defines. I give too. This is not a boundary issue, however. The Welsh way to the noble Lord. zone brings responsibilities for fishing and fisheries management in Wales into line with those of Scotland and Northern Ireland, where similar zones have existed Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the noble Lord. since devolution in 1998. The clause provides that the Obviously, the fisheries issue is extremely important precise co-ordinates of that zone will be subsequently and this is a step forward in terms of legislation for the determined either by an Order in Council by order of Welsh zone. I am therefore well satisfied with his the Secretary of State. At that stage, the Welsh zone explanation. 303 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 304

Lord Glentoran: I, too, thank the noble Lord for his We now turn to the important part of the Bill explanation. I am not entirely happy about his comments concerned with the new marine planning regime, and on international boundaries. If there is no change, specifically, in this chapter, the marine policy statements. why did the Minister and his team tell us the other day The amendments that I am addressing, starting with that negotiations were nearly complete? Negotiations Amendment 85ZA, are concerned to make sure that are clearly needed and ongoing to form the fishing these statements are sufficiently compatible with other boundary for Wales. I am not pushing that any further; important policy developments that we have all been I am just commenting that we need to get it sorted out. considering in this House and in the other place over This is a serious framework power being devolved to recent years. It is also extremely important, as has Wales and a lot of work needs to be done. been made clear since Second Reading and through all the preparation work for this Bill, that there is complete Lord Davies of Oldham: The negotiations are about effective compatibility with the requirements of European co-operation on the fisheries policy. Obviously, the Directive 2001/42/EC and all the various UK enabling Irish have their interests with regard to the management regulations needed to fulfil that. of the sea as well as their role in relation to the We have tabled a number of amendments to try to common fisheries policy. But these are not acute issues give practical effect to those requirements. This is the of boundary definition; they are about how effective context in which these important marine policy statements co-operation occurs and about policing and sustaining must be developed. If they are not developed within the control regime with regard to the fisheries policy. this context, there will be widespread agreement across The negotiations are not boundary issues in terms of the Committee that we are failing in our duty in the actual territory limits. I am talking about land, of scrutinising this Bill. There is general consensus among course; territory is hardly the right word. But I do all the so-called stakeholders—I hate the word; I think not think that the issues are as serious as that. we can do better but we have to live with it, I suppose— that the marine policy statements and the marine 7.15 pm plans must be subjected to effective strategic environmental assessment, or SEA, under the directive. There are Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lord again for obviously several advantages to the directive. It has that explanation. This is just an aside, but I have sailed not just been imposed on us and we can make good up and down there many times and I know the waters, use of it. It ensures that there is a robust assessment of maps and charts very well. I have never actually seen a the policies and proposals, with all their environmental boundary on any chart I have used, including the impacts taken into account and with the promotion of modern electronic ones. That may just be coincidental sustainable development fully and properly considered. but I have never seen anything on paper or electronically There is also the considerable advantage that the directive recorded. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. gives guidance on proper consultation. We are all very much aware that in this and in many other areas Amendment 83 withdrawn. consultation is essential if the outcome is to be owned by those who are most concerned with these policies. Clause 41 agreed. There is also the ability for recourse in extremis to the European courts should there be a breach of the Schedule 4 agreed. directive’s requirements. In order to be sure that the SEA process is triggered, Clause 42: Marine policy statements the marine policy statement and the marine plans must meet certain criteria. The MPS and marine plans must fall within the definition of plans and programmes Amendment 85 not moved. for the directive to apply, and to allow for further consideration as to whether an SEA is required. The Amendment 85ZA most relevant element of the definition is that the plan or programme must be, Moved by Lord Tyler “required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions”. 85ZA: Clause 42, page 21, line 34, after “development” insert “and setting the framework for future development consent of In other words, it must appear in the Bill. If it is not projects” there, it may not trigger the SEA. There must be a mandatory obligation on the relevant authority to Lord Tyler: In moving Amendment 85ZA, obviously produce that plan or programme. I need to refer to a number of other amendments in As things stand, the Bill makes the adoption of the this mammoth grouping. We on these Benches and MPS and marine plans only discretionary. We may your Lordships generally are suffering from the absence think it is more than that but, under the Bill, it is of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and my noble friend discretionary. This means that the MPS and the marine Lady Hamwee, both of whom are still engaged with plans could not be defined as plans and programmes the Local Democracy, Economic Development and under the directive. Therefore, the requirement for an Construction Bill in Grand Committee in the Moses SEA would not be triggered. A number of environmental Room. I hope the noble Lord can give us an assurance organisations that have been so supportive of the Bill that any further Committee days on this Bill will not and so keen to see this legislation on the statute book coincide with that Bill because we are all going to miss are very concerned that we may not be effective in their expertise. triggering this process, which is obviously crucial for 305 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 306

[LORD TYLER] It is said that the SEAs of high-level plans or its success. We must make sure that the MPS and programmes, such as the proposed marine policy marine plans will be subjected to full and proper SEA statement, pose particular practical challenges to processes, even if they are subject to an appraisal undertake. Such plans or programmes often lack detail, which includes components of SEA. It is extremely thus making them difficult to assess. To our knowledge important that we pursue this issue. For that reason, there have been few high-level SEAs in England, Wales we have tabled the amendments. or Northern Ireland. However, I understand that Scotland Various options are included in the amendments. I has had success and experience of SEAs at a high have followed a procedure here, which I have often level. The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 found useful in public life, whereby if you ask anyone covers strategies as well as plans and programmes. I do whether they want to say yes or no, they invariably say not believe that England, Wales or Northern Ireland no. But if you give them two options—either A or have this experience. I further understand that Scotland B—there is a much better chance of success. For has a number of high-level strategy plans which have example, Amendments 85JA and 85J are alternatives. undergone or are undergoing SEA. Therefore, it would I hope that the Minister will find having a choice more be perfectly possible to conduct a SEA for the MPS. I conducive to a forthcoming and responsive answer, hope that the Minister will look at this issue, especially rather than if I had chosen to present just one option after the assurances that he gave the Committee when to the Committee, to which he could just say no. I am responding to Amendment 73 in the name of the sure that he has had the same experience. noble Lord, Lord Greenway. For the benefit of speed, I will not read out the sustainability appraisal, which is included here and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am conscious of the very substantial but nevertheless well based. It comes time, but we have reached Part 3 and it would be from sources for which other legislation has given us appropriate for me to make a few remarks about this guidance. I accept that the alternatives are not that very important part of the Bill before responding different, but I hope that the Minister will find them directly to the amendments. The marine planning helpful. system we are developing will adopt a straightforward The other amendments in this large group are all two-stage approach; that is, a UK marine policy statement, derivative and consequential. I do not propose to go and a series of marine plans, which will apply the through them in detail because I suspect that the policies in the policy statement to particular geographical Committee would like to deal with this group expeditiously areas. Decisions on licensing and consents in the marine in view of the hour. I hope that I have given sufficient area will have to be taken in accordance with the indication of how crucial they are in trying to make marine policy statement and the plans. sure that we are including in the Bill marine policy statements which carry all the opportunities and The intent of the marine policy statement is to be advantages to which I have referred under the directive. agreed by the UK Government and the devolved I beg to move. Administrations, which are called “policy authorities”. The Bill does not change the devolution settlement, Earl Cathcart: With this group of amendments we but provides, as we know, for a form of executive are moving into Part 3, Marine Planning. All the devolution, which will allow the devolved Administrations following groups of amendments, including this one, to produce comprehensive plans with the agreement are necessary because, as the Bill stands, there is a of the Secretary of State. We know that ensuring a huge lack of clarity. We broadly support the probing consistency of approach throughout the UK SEAs is nature of the amendments put by the noble Lord, very important. The marine policy statement will cover Lord Tyler, but, in particular, the requirement for a the whole of the UK marine area. If all four strategic environment assessment, SEA, that should Administrations agree the MPS, as we intend, there is be conducted for the MPS. Apparently, there has been no question that we will deliver consistency throughout legal advice supporting the view that the SEA directive the United Kingdom. does and should apply to the MPS. However, to date, Significant incentives are built into the system to the Government have stated that they, encourage co-operation. However, it is a fact of devolution “would not be required to carry out a strategic environmental that we cannot require other Administrations to agree assessment of the MPS under the terms of the Directive concerning with us. We have had to provide for devolved SEA”. Administrations to opt out of the MPS, and for the That was the Government’s response to the Joint Secretary of State to work alone if necessary. Clearly, Committee’s report on the draft Marine Bill. the impact of what countries, including ourselves, can In addition, I understand that concerns have been achieve alone is significantly diminished. None the expressed regarding the practicalities of carrying out less, the discussions that took place between the four an SEA to such a high-level or overarching document Administrations last year give me a great deal of as an MPS. The principle of whether a SEA should be confidence that we can achieve a marine policy statement carried out goes back to the same argument posed by to which all four Administrations have signed up. my noble friend Lord Kingsland when moving Amendment 12. He argued that until the MMO has established the best scientific evidence, it cannot make 7.30 pm an assessment about the damage or otherwise that The statement will bring together all our marine particular human activities would do. In the same policies, covering social, economic and environmental vein, a marine policy statement would be incomplete considerations; set out a clear and consistent framework without first having done an environmental assessment. for coastal and marine regulators and users; and help 307 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 308 everyone to work together towards common, agreed of the marine planning statement, that does not mean objectives. The marine policy statement will be that the policies in it will not be subject to appraisal prepared—this is an important point—in the light of and assessment. the amendments. It will be prepared within our EU As set out in Clause 42(1)(a), the MPS will be a and international obligations, and will address how we statement of our policies on contributing to the give effect to them. It may also contain information achievement of sustainable development in the UK about the location and extent of resources, activities marine area. The policies that it contains will add up and pressures that will assist the development of marine to a positive contribution to sustainable development, areas. otherwise it will not meet the criteria required of it in We want to make sure that the MPS is a useful the Bill and will not then be an MPS. Appraisal of document for decision-makers, providing a unified sustainability is inherent in the process of preparing context and framework for their decisions. Following an MPS, rather than a separate consideration or process, the recommendation made by the Joint Committee which is why there is no separate requirement in the scrutinising the draft Bill, we have introduced a new Bill. This goes to the heart of the matter. requirement for a draft marine policy statement to be We shall debate the statement of public participation laid before both Houses of Parliament, and the devolved later. It will set out the process to be followed in legislatures of all the Administrations that have developing the marine policy statement, including an participated in preparing it. If Parliament or any impact assessment that will set out the options that legislature makes recommendations about the draft have been considered, and any assessment or appraisal MPS, each Administration will have a duty to respond. of sustainability. The MPS will also be subject to All public authorities will be obliged to have regard to extensive public consultation and scrutiny, not only by the MPS and marine plans, and, in most cases, to take this House and the other place, but also by the devolved licensing or enforcement decisions in accordance with legislatures. We will be happy to receive representations the policies set out in the MPS. as part of the consultation. If there are concerns that As a first step to developing an integrated policy we are not meeting our European obligations on assessing statement, we consulted all interested parties last summer the sustainability and environmental effects of the on a set of high-level objectives. We are considering MPS, there will be ample opportunity for parliamentarians carefully what they told us, and will take forward to call the UK Government and the devolved further close working with those parties as we develop Administrations to account. the MPS. I apologise for taking the time of the Committee, We began this process last summer by consulting but it is important, at the start of such a crucial part of on a set of high-level marine objectives that will form the Bill, to set out the general principles that govern it. the basis of the MPS. These objectives start from the The amendments are focused on the core purpose principle of enabling an integrated approach to delivering of marine policy statements and marine planning. economic, social and environmental benefits, underpinned They seek to ensure that the MPS and marine plans by sound science and good governance. are subject to an appraisal of sustainability, including I stated in our response to the Joint Committee that compliance with the European directive on the strategic scrutinised the draft Bill that we do not think that the environmental assessment of plans and programmes, requirements of the European directive on the strategic known as the SEA directive. I will deal first with environmental assessment of plans and programmes Amendments 85ZA, 85ZB, 89ZA and 89ZB, relating will apply to the marine policy statement. I understand to Clauses 42 and 49. These clauses set out the definitions the desire to ensure that we assess the sustainability of of a marine policy statement and a marine plan. The our policies. However, as I have said, Clause 42(1)(a) amendments add to those definitions wording that makes clear that the statement has to contribute to the will ensure that the SEA directive applies to them. achievement of sustainable development in the UK. If Whether a legal obligation, such as a directive and the Government are wrong and the requirements of the regulations transposing it, apply to an MPS or the European directive on the strategic environmental marine plan should be determined by the directive and assessment do apply to marine policy statements, they the regulations. If it applies, then we and the other UK will be applied; nothing in this legislation would prevent Administrations will comply: we have to. It is not that. We accept that whether the SEA directive applies necessary to restate an existing legal obligation in to the MPS will depend to some extent on the eventual legislation. That might backfire if the European directive content of the MPS. I reassure noble Lords that, if it were revoked or replaced. The references might become appears that the requirements of the directive apply, redundant and would do nothing to ensure compliance then we will comply. with any directive or regulations that came along later. As far as concerns Amendments 85J and 85JA, we Many other directives may apply to the marine must ensure that the policies in the MPS are sustainable, policy statement and plans, including the birds directive otherwise the MPS will not be an MPS. We have also and the habitats directive—not that I wish to inspire committed to publishing a partial impact assessment further amendments on Report. They will also require alongside the draft consultation which sets out the assessments to be carried out when proposals might options considered for inclusion in the draft MPS. affect a designated site. We do not list them in the Bill What is more, and as I have said already, we need to because there is no need: we will comply with them if ensure that the policies in the MPS are sustainable. they apply.We do not think that a strategic environmental I turn to Amendments 89FA, 89G, 89GA, 89H and assessment is any different. Although there is no reference 89HA. Let me reiterate that we are clear that every in the Bill to carrying out an appraisal of the sustainability marine plan will require a strategic environmental 309 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 310

[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH] statement may be made, while Clause 43, which we assessment under the terms of the directive and that shall reach shortly, describes the flexibility provided so this will be carried out as part of the sustainability that an MPS may be prepared by all the policy authorities appraisal of each plan. In our response we have made acting jointly, which is very much the desired option. a commitment to conducting pre-legislative scrutiny It may also be prepared by the Secretary of State and in order to produce guidance for the MMO on how to by one or another of the other devolved Administrations carry out these appraisals. This guidance will make it or, in the end, it could be prepared just by the Secretary clear that the process of sustainability appraisal is of State. There is flexibility in the legislation, but I am intended to be carried out alongside the development confident that there is sufficient understanding between of options for inclusion in the draft plan, and that it all the Administrations that the benefits of working should inform the choices made about which of the together far outweigh not doing so. It is necessary to possible alternative proposals to take forward. have this kind of measure in the Bill to deal with Furthermore, we are happy to publish the guidance circumstances where working together is not possible, for public consultation before it is finished. but I am confident that it will not have to be used. As I said in response to earlier amendments, we do not think details such as those proposed in these Lord Tyler: I am grateful for the support of the amendments are appropriate for primary legislation. noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. This is an important part We will comply with our European obligations and of the Bill and I, too, am sorry that the debate has appraise the sustainability of options for inclusion in been slightly truncated by the hour. The Minister the marine plan. The appraisal will inform the choice referred to our optional amendments to Schedule 5. of options that are selected for inclusion in the draft Perhaps I should have made it clear that although we plan and we will publish guidance for the MMO on do not believe that we have heard the last word on this how we expect this to be carried out. subject, we are slightly disappointed that he feels that no such assessment of sustainability appraisal needs Baroness Byford: I agree with the Minister that we to be provided for in Schedule 5. We shall certainly have come to an important part of the Bill and I am look at the issue again. only sorry that our consideration has been slightly I warmly welcome the Minister’s assurances about rushed. He said that he hopes for a consistent approach, the discussions held at ministerial level with the various which is clearly what we are all after. My question is devolved Administrations about this part of the Bill, therefore simple: what will happen if it is not consistent? because that is absolutely critical. He used the word “hope” at one point, but he has also used the word Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is a good question. “confidence”. I hope that his confidence is well placed Essentially, the marine policy statement will always because if the development and implementation of apply to the whole UK marine area and can have the MPS does not work out, there will be a major regional content within it. If the devolved Administrations problem at the very heart— are not signed up, it will be limited in its scope and impact. I suppose that in theory a UK Government-only marine policy statement could cover devolved matters, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Based on my understanding but I am not sure that that would be wise. In any case, of the agreement reached by Ministers that has led to the devolved Administrations would not have to follow the statement, along with the discussions between it. A UK Government-only marine policy statement officials from the UK Government and the devolved would cover reserve matters, and for England it would Administrations, I am optimistic about the conclusion. cover the whole area of marine licensing and consents. It would be a huge disappointment to get to that Lord Tyler: I thank the Minister. I am also grateful position. We hope—the incentives to do so are in the for his statement that a great deal of consultative Bill—for agreement to be reached. Again, I go back to discussion has already taken place with a number of the statement of intent by the four Administrations stakeholders about the form and content of the MPS following the meeting last autumn setting out their and that that is to continue; obviously that is right not determination to make this work. The Bill is constructed just as the Bill progresses through both Houses, but to make it possible, with incentives moving in the thereafter. Perhaps I may repeat the point I made direction towards an agreed marine policy statement earlier: if those who are most concerned about the for the United Kingdom to which all the devolved success of this legislation are not adequately consulted Administrations are signed up, but in a sense there is a about the way in which the policy statement is developed, reserve position in order to deal with the matter if it is there would be a lacuna at the very heart of the Bill. not possible. I come back to the issue of the relevance of the SEA because I am concerned that we should be as Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Is that the reason for confident as possible that we are using the right mechanism Clause 46, which concerns the withdrawal of the devolved to ensure that the sustainability appraisal is really authorities from such a statement? Did this clause effective. I understand that there is another option have to be included as part of the agreement? known as the sustainability appraisal, but to be frank that is a rather tame weapon to use in this context. 7.45 pm There is widespread concern that by apparently turning Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not sure that I down the possibility of the SEA process, we may be want to go into the detail of the discussions. Clause 46 adopting a rather limp approach. Incidentally, I am sets out the circumstances in which withdrawal from a sure that I recall reasonably well the Minister saying in 311 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Gambling Act 2005 Order 2009 312 his response that sustainability appraisal was inherent A number of special circumstances apply to bingo in the preparation of the MPS and therefore reference halls. These include the fact that the industry’s business to the SEA directive is not really necessary. That does model means that there is very high demand for these not quite accord with the Government’s response in machines during relatively short periods of the day—that taking forward the draft marine Bill in response to the is, between the sessions of bingo play. Also, while Joint Committee report from the noble Lord, Lord gaming machine entitlements in casinos, betting shops Greenway. The Government stated that while they and adult gaming centres were increased through the believed that they would not be required to undertake 2005 Act in return for the taking on of enhanced an SEA for the MPS, they said that they were, social responsibilities, bingo halls retained the same “considering mechanisms that might be suitable for assessing the gaming machine entitlements as they had under the policies in the statement”. Gaming Act 1968. Frankly, nothing we have heard this evening has really Most important, however, is the role of bingo halls fulfilled that promise. Perhaps it is still ongoing work in local communities. They fulfil an important social and we shall hear about it later, but no assessment function and provide a softer gambling environment, mechanism has been built into the Bill at the moment. where the gaming machines offered remain ancillary We have had a brief but useful debate. However, to bingo. Of course there are risks attached to an these issues will come back in various forms. We shall increase in the number of these machines, not least ponder carefully between now and Report what the with regard to their being seen to promote harder Minister has said, but in the mean time I beg leave to forms of gambling and problem gambling in general. withdraw the amendment. That is not the case. These machines are already on bingo premises, while under the 2005 Act a comprehensive Amendment 85ZA withdrawn. new system of regulation for gaming machines was established with consumer protection at its heart. The Amendment 85ZB not moved. number one priority remains the protection of the public. That is why the Government rejected the Bingo House resumed. Committee to begin again not before Association’s view that the number of B3 machines 8.49 pm. should be increased to 16; we felt that that went too far. We have agreed on eight, which is consistent with the precautionary approach that we take to gambling Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming Machines in regulation. Bingo Premises) Order 2009 It should also be borne in mind that all categories Motion to Approve of gaming machines must comply with strict regulations and technical standards to ensure that vulnerable and 7.50 pm problem gamblers are protected. Stringent controls on entry by under-18s to areas in bingo halls offering Moved By Lord Davies of Oldham gaming machines are already in operation via the mandatory conditions attached to the premises licences. That the draft order laid before the House on We can with confidence see this increase in machines 24 November 2008 be approved. without creating significant social problems. Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint On the question of lotteries, the House will be Committee on Statutory Instruments. aware that society lotteries are lottery draws run by charities, sports and leisure clubs to raise money for Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in moving the good causes. Few societies currently reach the present Motion on the Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming Machines limits relating to the maximum proceeds and prizes for in Bingo Premises) Order 2009, I shall speak also to individual draws; at the moment the proceed limit is the Gambling Act 2005 (Variation of Monetary Limit) set at £2 million and the prize limit at £200,000. Order 2009. However, the Lotteries Council and the Hospice Lotteries The first order is intended to help to address the Association argued that these limits were holding them severe economic downturn in the bingo industry by back from raising significantly higher sums for good increasing from four to eight the number of category causes, particularly by preventing a number of societies B3 gaming machines that bingo halls can offer customers. from coming together to promote a larger one-off Category B3 machines have a maximum stake of £1 annual draw—for example, a Christmas bumper draw— and a maximum prize of £500. In June last year it was and these arguments were reflected in both Houses. announced that the Government intended to make The Government have always been willing to consider such an increase in response to a campaign by the representations made on behalf of charities and other Bingo Association, a campaign that also attracted the bodies that benefit from society lotteries and, in response support of Parliament. Such widespread cross-party to those arguments, we announced last July that we support was influential with the Government in making intended to raise to £4 million the maximum proceeds our decision. for individual society lottery draws and that the top The order is intended to help the bingo industry, prize had also doubled to £400,000 for each draw. It which is facing difficult trading conditions. While the should be made clear that the Government do not current economic climate is an issue for the gambling intend to raise the limit on maximum annual proceeds industry as a whole, there remains strong evidence that for society lotteries, which will remain at £10 million. the situation in the bingo industry is particularly acute. The maximum £25,000 prize for society lotteries whose 313 Gambling Act 2005 Order 2009[LORDS] Gambling Act 2005 Order 2009 314

[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM] National Lottery. I have two points on this. First, as proceeds are below £250,000 will also remain unaltered. societies give 58p or 59p of every pound raised to This level of increase, from £2 million to £4 million, is charity, as against the National Lottery’s 28p, the wholly consistent with the licensing objectives of the prize money that they offer could not compete with Act and achieves a satisfactory balance between providing that offered by the National Lottery. If there was a valuable boost to hospices and other bodies that concern that, as the lotteries grew in size, societies raise funds from lottery draws and retaining the character would reduce the proportion of money received that of society lotteries. That view is supported by the they donated, the minimum amount that must be Gambling Commission, which has advised that there given under Section 99(2) of the Gambling Act 2005 is no evidence that an increase such as this would give could be amended from 20 per cent to a higher figure—say, rise to gambling concerns. 40 per cent. This would ensure that lotteries run by The Government also recognise the unique position societies would retain their character, which is distinctive of the National Lottery and its enormous contribution because, as the Minister said, the prime motivation is to the public good. I therefore assure the House that to benefit the cause rather than to win large sums of we have considered the impact that the proposed money. increase in proceeds may have on the National Lottery Secondly, if societies continue to give so large a and believe that such an increase would not threaten portion of what they receive to good causes, they income for the good causes. Society lotteries operate should get the maximum help and encouragement. on a quite different scale from the National Lottery. Good causes would be better off and there would be Moreover, they target different markets. People generally more opportunity for people spending money on lotteries play society lotteries to support a cause rather than to to ensure that the money went directly to the beneficiary win a prize, whereas playing the National Lottery is of their choice. If there is to be a limit, it is disappointing about the possibility of winning a life-changing amount, that it is not to be increased to the £5 million requested with the good causes a secondary consideration. The by the Lotteries Council. Perhaps, rather than complain, Government remain of the view that the suggested one should be grateful for the increase that the order increase to society lottery limits will not affect that gives. difference. However, to ensure this, we will ask the National Lottery Commission to monitor the impact 8pm of the revised limit on the National Lottery and ask for a report to be made three years after implementation. Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall not detain your I commend the orders to the House. Lordships’ House long. Let me take the orders as they are presented to us. As bingo is currently suffering, one wonders whether having machines in the bingo Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, I thank the halls is a straw for them to cling to or a lifeboat. As Minister for introducing these orders. I declare an bingo halls are in structural trouble, I hope that when interest: the lottery for my local church, which I have the Government consider any future increases they to tell the House will not be approaching any limit at will also consider the fact that this is supposed to be a all, goes forward in my name. “soft” environment. However, I have no fundamental According to the Henley report, bingo provides a objection. As to the raising of the limit, the only thing social service and acts as a lightning conductor for that occurs to me is that the limit will presumably have gamblers, who without bingo might well drift into to be increased over time, provided that there is no hard gambling, with its far greater percentage of problem adverse effect on other bodies. Will we have an order gamblers. With over 100 bingo halls closing over the every time, or would it not be sensible to have some past two years, there is clearly a strong argument for system to look at this automatically? It might save a assisting the industry by changing the restriction on few rushed dinners in both Houses of Parliament if the number of machines allowed. However scientific there were some way forward. I hope that the Government one pretends to be, it is anyone’s guess what the right can provide us with some of the thinking behind these number of machines is. The Minister might consider matters. keeping the number under review to ensure that the restrictions thought necessary to prevent problem Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I have little to say about gambling still allow the industry to function properly. the first order, on bingo. I am not a great expert on The other order before the House increases the bingo. However, I noticed that the Minister referred to ceiling from £2 million to £4 million for a society the economic downturn. I do not think that that has lottery—that is, a lottery run for the benefit of charities, any real consequence for the bingo industry.The downturn sporting bodies and non-commercial activities. My in the bingo industry has been a consequence of the first question is: why is there a limit? The Budd review enactment and slow implementation of the Gambling called for the removal of a limit, and that was supported Act, which has frankly nearly destroyed it. That is why by the joint scrutiny committee in its report on the we have this order today, and my only comment is, draft Gambling Bill. There is also a limit of £10 million “Too little, too late”. on the amount that can be sold by any one society in a I want to talk about society lotteries. In doing so, I year. remind your Lordships that I have a personal interest The restrictions on the activities of those working in them. I have been a licensed operator of society for the good of others do not make a great deal of lotteries since they started having professional operators sense. The argument has been made that, if there were in 1993-94. In fact, I moved the amendment to the not these limits, there might be an adverse effect on the then National Lottery Bill which allowed external 315 Gambling Act 2005 Order 2009[28 JANUARY 2009] Gambling Act 2005 Order 2009 316 lottery managers to start operating. I also then moved When he winds up, it would be awfully helpful if the first ever increase of monetary limits to lotteries, the Minister could tell us what the policy objective of bearing in mind that lotteries have existed in this this order is. The policy objective of the Gambling Act country since the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. is to prevent crime, ensure that all gambling is fair and So lotteries had their first increase in 1993-94, the to protect the young and vulnerable. The order has second in 1998-99 and this is the third. That is three absolutely nothing to do with that at all. In fact, we increases in 32 years; not a good record for Governments can see, despite the fact that Ministers and officials of either hue. have denied it for years, that this is about protecting the National Lottery. But protecting the National This increase was first lobbied for in 2000. It has Lottery is not a policy objective of the Gambling Act. taken eight years. It was lobbied for a great deal harder It has nothing to do with it all. during the passage of the then Gambling Bill through The Minister said in another place, when the order this House. Your Lordships will remember that the was passed through the Second Delegated Legislation Bill passed through Parliament in the wash-up period Committee on 19 January, that the protection of the in April 2005, when after one day in Committee it National Lottery must not threaten income for good went through its remaining stages within 25 minutes in causes. My noble friend on the Front Bench had it your Lordships’ House, following a statement made absolutely right. The reality is that, pound for pound, by the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. society lotteries give a great deal more to charity than He gave an undertaking to your Lordships that the the National Lottery. The biggest beneficiary of the monetary limits for society lotteries would be reviewed National Lottery is not good causes but the Treasury. as soon as possible. That was in April 2005. This is Let us be absolutely straight about this. No exchequer how quickly the Government carry out their undertakings. anywhere else in the world takes more money out of In fact, the consultation process for this increase was its state or national lottery than ours. It can do that if completed by Christmas 2005, but I understand that, it likes, but not, I suggest, at the expense of charities. owing to the pressure of work at the Department for The charities that run society lotteries do so for the Culture, Media and Sport, there was no time to send it most vulnerable in our society. Those I have been back. involved in have raised many millions of pounds for My goodness, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, many charities. Last year we had “Brainwave” for puts his finger on it sometimes, does he not? Why will brain-injured children. That is more important than we have to go through this every three years? We the Treasury’s coffers in my view, and I think that of talked, debated and lobbied about the idea that there your Lordships’ as well. should be triennial reviews of stakes’and prizes’monetary The Minister said that prizes had not been breached, limits in the Bill. The Government said that it was not as though that were a reason for not increasing them. necessary. The lottery people said, “You don’t care Does that mean that if we all drove at 81 mph the about us; we will always be at the bottom of the heap”. Government would increase the speed limit? Not “Oh no you won’t,” said the Government, “We will breaching them is not a reason for increasing them. look after you”. Here we are, all these years later. We That is a ludicrous idea. were right and the Government were wrong. This is a I would therefore like the Minister to tell us why the story of poor quality and shabby government. limit is £400,000. Why not £600,000? Why not £550,000? What is the logic in that? It is completely illogical. The Government said in their document supporting Why, too, should it be 10 per cent of the pool? Why this that they have virtually unanimous support. They not 5 per cent? Why not 15 per cent? In fact, what has have seven out of 10. Two of the three that did not it to do with the Government at all? Why do the support them are the National Lottery and its own Government care what percentage it is? The answer is, private regulator, the National Lottery Commission; they do not really know. you would hardly expect it to support them. I do not My final question on the subject of limits which I know who the third was, but the reality is that this should like the Minister to answer is the following. increase this evening has not got unanimous support. Why does this order not abolish annual limits? The Everybody was told that either they took the £400,000 Minister in the other place and, indeed, the noble or they would not get anything. The noble Lord, Lord Lord, Lord Davies, when speaking earlier, made a Addington, and my noble friend on the Front Bench good thing of the fact that the order does not abolish are absolutely right. Sir Alan Budd’s review of the annual limits on the number of tickets to be sold. But gambling industry before we had the Gambling Act what does the annual limit achieve? It makes no difference asked what was the purpose of limits—any limits at to the National Lottery how many tickets are sold. It all—for society lotteries, and said that they should be makes no difference to anybody. It has nothing to do removed. with gambling or protecting the vulnerable. It is merely The joint scrutiny committee on the draft Gambling the amount that the charities can raise. Why would Bill, on which I had the honour to serve in your any self-respecting Government in the world want to Lordships’ House along with Members of another restrict the amount that a charity can raise? But that is place and other noble Lords, also recommended to the what this does. It is an unnecessary regulation. Government that all these limits should be removed. Before the noble Lord, Lord Davies, approaches his The Government finally agreed to remove the limit on officials for an answer, I should tell noble Lords that stakes in the Bill, but have kept the monetary limits on since 1993 I have asked this question of every Minister pools and prizes. Like my noble friend on the Front and every official in the department. I have asked it of Bench, I still do not know why it is. all the chairmen of the Gaming Board and of the 317 Gambling Act 2005 Order 2009[LORDS] Gambling Act 2005 Order 2009 318

[LORD MANCROFT] when bingo is not being played. While machine play is Gambling Commission. None of them has the answer. ancillary to the main social pursuit of bingo, it is The most constructive answer I received was from the important. There is no real evidence of problem gambling present deputy chief executive of the Gambling in bingo. I should point out clearly that people say Commission, who used to be the secretary of the that bingo is the softest area of gambling. It is even Gaming Board, who said, “We’re not really sure what less than that; it is a social experience for elderly and it does. It got put in the 1976 Act by mistake, and there lonely people. Arguments that bingo is soft gaming it sits”. They know that. The annual limit should are generally wide of the mark. I have never been therefore be removed and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, personally involved in the bingo industry as such but I should tell us what steps the Government will take to know that those who play bingo—this is mentioned in remove it. It simply is not good enough to have this the Henley report—are generally older people of about shambles again and again. my age. People enjoy a game of bingo not from a Of course, this order will go through. I would not gambling aspect but for social reasons. My plea is as dream of praying against it because I have an interest, follows. I know that the order stipulates eight machines, nor would I vote against it if any other noble Lord but I ask the Government to reconsider it and change were to pray against it. However, it is a pretty shambolic the figure to 16. I also ask them, please, to take into order. It is not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord account the large number of clubs which have closed—I Davies, because it is not his department, and I do not believe that more than 100 have done so—throwing blame him for a single second. Nor is this the fault of several thousand workers out of their jobs, which is the officials because they have only been in the department very bad at present, and depriving people, particularly for five minutes. The officials who wrote this document those in small communities, of a place to meet. are long gone. But it is a shambles. It is an example of The Henley Centre places great emphasis on the really poor government. The Government should social aspect. In the present climate, that aspect is of apologise to the House for bringing such a shoddy maximum importance. I therefore urge the noble Lord piece of work before us at this late dinner hour. to change the figure to 16 machines—if that cannot be done now, can it be done shortly?—as the industry has Lord Steinberg: My Lords, I am sure noble Lords requested. That would help the industry at this very are aware that I used to be the executive chairman of troubled time when job losses are occurring every day, Stanley Leisure plc and am currently the life president as we read in the newspapers. All gambling activities of Genting Stanley, the company which acquired Stanley are similarly affected, so will the noble Lord please Leisure plc. Therefore, I have considerable knowledge soften the Government’s approach, thereby saving jobs of the gambling industry. Bingo really is not gambling. and keeping the bingo industry alive? I wish to declare that I hold no consultancies and never have. Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to The noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be aware of the all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Henley Centre’s report of August 2007, which has Like them, I shall comment separately on the two been mentioned. The executive summary of that report orders. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, asked that we states: should at the very least keep under review the numbers “The closure of Bingo clubs, especially those in the small, that have been settled upon; that is, eight as regards rural venues and deprived urban locations, has meant not only bingo halls. His comments are supported strongly by the loss of a pastime and form of entertainment but the disappearance the noble Lord, Lord Steinberg, with his great knowledge of a unique social support network, relied upon especially by retired women. The demise of this pastime and network can have of the industry. I hear what the noble Lord says and a detrimental impact upon the physical and mental wellbeing of agree with a great deal of what he says about the social patrons, particularly as there are often few other opportunities for role of bingo halls. As we all recognise, bingo is at the this group to socialise. Bingo closures also appear to be both a softest end of gambling. People play bingo as a social manifestation and catalyst for a wider breakdown of local communities pursuit rather than with the specific intent of gambling, that could have a negative impact upon society”. although that is obviously part of it. The industry has What really concerns me is that the bingo business is made the strongest representations that we should declining rather more than many other industries because increase the relevant figure to 16. But the Government of taxation, the smoking ban, the reduced number of have wider considerations at stake. They have to be machines and now the bad economic situation. The reassured that we are not unduly increasing levels of noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be aware of the previous gambling. We have an obligation to the wider society. occasion that a cull of machines took place. We have responded to pressure from the industry, and My noble friend Lord Mancroft was extremely we have doubled the number. Putting it up to 16 would critical of what the Government have said and done. I have been a stage too far, but I undertake that we will do not disassociate myself completely from those keep the figure under review. comments but I am dealing purely with bingo whereas The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, berated the fact he dealt principally with the change to the lottery. that these issues have to be done by order. That is so As I say, all these things have happened and we now because that is the basis of the primary legislation that have a bad economic situation. The main plank of my set up the position. I give the undertaking that the argument concerns the Government’s desire to permit Government will keep the position under review. One only eight machines. I know that this is an order but I or two extravagant claims have been made that the also know that the industry asked for 16 machines. bingo industry is being destroyed. With 614 bingo Machines account for a large part of the income of all halls in regular existence, that point can be exaggerated. bingo clubs. They are played mainly during intervals I hear what noble Lords have said. The Government’s 319 Gambling Act 2005 Order 2009[28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 320 judgment is that doubling the number of machines in Gambling Act 2005 (Variation of each bingo hall that wishes to do so is about right. I Monetary Limit) Order 2009 listened to the representations. On the wider representations with regard to the Motion to Approve limits, it will be recognised that the Government have doubled the limits as far as the lotteries are concerned. 8.24 pm The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, berated the Government Moved By Lord Davies of Oldham and their position. He is an in an excellent position to identify that the Gambling Act 2005 was scarcely the That the draft order laid before the House on Gambling Act that the Government set out to produce. 24 November 2008 be approved. He will know all too well, as he said, that we got the legislation through in the wash-up, and it betrays Relevant Document: First Report from the Joint some of the weaknesses of having been rushed, with Committee on Statutory Instruments. the Government having to settle for what the Opposition put as priorities in those very limited days. I am sure Motion agreed. that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, like I, has been in those negotiations when the Government have to get 8.25 pm all their legislation through in the week before a general election, and he will know that the boot is on the other Sitting suspended. foot. Therefore, if the gambling legislation has weaknesses, he might look at the part played by his party— Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I do not for a single Committee (3rd Day)(Continued) moment let my own party off the hook. If the noble Lord had been in this House longer, he would know that I have given Ministers on both sides an equally 8.49 pm hard time on this, and when we get back into power, very shortly, I shall give my noble friend Lord Howard, Amendment 85A when he is sitting on that side of the House, just as much of a hard ride as I have given the noble Lord this Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach evening. 85A: Clause 42, page 21, line 38, at end insert— “( ) In determining the policies that are to be stated in an MPS, Lord Davies of Oldham: Yes, my Lords, but the the policy authority must have particular regard to— noble Lord is not attended in the debate by large (a) the need to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse numbers of people making the case that he is making gas emissions, and who do not have a declared interest like he does. If I (b) the need to maintain a secure and safe supply of energy.” am meant to respond to the widespread public position and the great concern about this; in this House are a very large number of noble Lords who have great Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Amendment 85A would associations with charities. Is this House packed with insert a little more detail into the Bill. I am very people saying, “This is the change we want for the grateful to the Minister for his very full explanation of benefit of charities, because the noble Lord, Lord an MPS, how it will evolve and the background against Mancroft, with his special insight into the issue and which it will be considered. I hope he sees this as an through his special interest speaks on behalf of all of opportunity to elaborate on the somewhat more truncated us”? I can only say that the noble Lord is a lonely debate that we had just before dinner. voice. Therefore, he should not exaggerate his case too Marine policy statements, which are established in far. He should recognise that the Government work Clause 42, are apparently intended to contain the within limits. answer to several questions that we have already asked I say to all noble Lords present that, of course, the the Minister about how the relevant bodies will balance Government could always be bid up with regard to the competing interests of those involved in the marine these figures. Of course, the industry and the societies environment. Much as our Amendment 33 highlighted are going to make their case for more. It would be the working of the Marine Management Organisation, amazing if the Government ever produced a result the policy authorities that we are considering now are, that was beyond the demands that were placed on of course, subject to similar conflicting advice and them. When did that ever happen? What always happens lobbying from various stakeholders. As with the MMO, in these circumstances is that bids are made by interests, the priorities that policy authorities will give to the as they should be, because people genuinely believe in various interests are of the utmost importance to the work that they do—I pay tribute to the noble those who have an interest in this area. The Government Lord, Lord Mancroft, and his contribution in those have laid out some of their intentions in the glossy terms, but of course he is going to make a bid—and publications that are littering my desk—it is not the Government have to balance those bids against difficult to litter my desk as it is littered most of the wider considerations and the wider public interest. time—but priorities can be changed and pamphlets That is why we arrive at the figures that we do, and can be reprinted. Ministers and Governments come that is why I am moving the order. and go, as we know. Government press releases in no way replicate the certainty and security that clearer Motion agreed. legislation would provide. 321 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 322

[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH] important part of it, but at the risk of dismissing The two concerns highlighted by the amendment— another part. Recently we have spent a lot of time on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring the Bills—particularly the Planning Bill—considering the security of our energy supply—have both been very danger of creating lists. I do not know whether two much in the forefront of people’s minds recently. With items constitute a list; they probably constitute an the recent difficulties over gas supplies from the Ukraine, inchoate list. our warnings about the vulnerabilities of our energy network are finally finding a more sympathetic audience The Minister of State, Department of Energy and on the Benches opposite. Energy security has risen up Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food the Government’s agenda. Similarly, the Government and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): I confirm have recently come round to a more accurate appreciation for the noble Baroness that we too have had our of the importance of addressing climate change. But debates on lists. Her entry at this stage is very welcome. this may not last. Once people start turning off their central heating for a few months, or once the taxes that this Government will impose to pay for their Baroness Hamwee: It will be welcome if I support solutions to the credit crunch start to bite, those the noble Lord, but it might not be as welcome in half priorities will be replaced by others. If the Government an hour. Who knows? allow their commitment to addressing climate change to be weakened, it will be disastrous. The Government Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: All I can say is that the are relying on private investment into the energy market noble Baroness has made a very good start. to supply the secure, low-carbon energy we need. Without legislative certainty, how can the Minister expect businesses to stump up the cash that is needed? Baroness Hamwee: I think perhaps I had better sit Investors will be looking for commitment that is enshrined down now. in law. The list of areas which the policy authorities should Baroness Byford: In that case I will certainly rise to rightly be forced to have regard to is much longer than support my noble friend’s two amendments. While I the two I have laid down. Indeed, if we go back to accept the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Amendment 33, we see a list of some 10 factors. I do Hamwee, on lists, it is important that this Bill has not seek to write the detail of marine policy statements regard to some things that are crucial at the moment. in these amendments, but the two that I have indicated One of these is climate change and the other is security are key factors which the MPS should be obliged to of supply. When the Joint Committee took evidence, I address. It is an opportunity to enshrine these two questioned the then Minister for Energy and the Defra factors into the legislative process that we have today. Minister about the way the Government’s thinking Notably, the Government have commitments in the was going. We had talked about being able to get area of marine conservation as well, but the two I have energy from different sources, including wind, wave, highlighted link up with two of the Government’s tide and all the others that go with them. I questioned recent Acts—the Climate Change Act and the Energy the Minister at that stage on the role that nuclear Act—and because of commercial uncertainty, they power could play. This is hugely important. particularly need legislative safeguards. These amendments Clearly, if nuclear energy came in more quickly, we link these two important Acts, which we supported. would not be faced with some of the very difficult The lack of any detail in the Bill on current and future choices that the Government currently face. In other government policy will be counterproductive and will words, would a Severn barrage be necessary if there make any government commitment to a meaningful were enough nuclear supply? Would more wind farms marine policy weak and susceptible to change. I beg to be really necessary? As the Minister knows, I raised in move. this House about a month ago the question of production from wind farms. During the winter, over Christmas Baroness Hamwee: I am very conscious that, having when it was so cold and there was very little wind, the missed the whole of the Committee stage so far because person from the association acknowledged that wind of the clash with the Grand Committee on the Local power needed back-up. It could not produce the energy Democracy, Economic Development and Construction that we needed at that time. Although the noble Baroness, Bill, taking place in the Moses Room, I may well fall Lady Hamwee, is not minded to support this into the trap of repeating arguments which have already amendment—perhaps because of the list—it is been made or showing how little I have understood, enormously important that we consider it in the overall because I have not had the opportunity of listening to context of climate change and energy security. the previous stages, nor, indeed—through illness—of I may be misjudging the noble Baroness, but perhaps reading Hansard. I start with that apology and ask for she is trying to reconcile the balance between that and forgiveness in advance if I appear to be particularly the protection of wildlife and the environment. She thick on some of these issues. and I—and, I am sure, my noble friend Lord Taylor of I am, of course, aware that there have been debates Holbeach—are very conscious of the needs of wildlife. on sustainable development and what that means in All of us on the Joint Committee particularly tried to this particular context, and that there will be more. I strike a balance on that. was immediately struck by the noble Lord’s choice of I am perhaps slightly promoting nuclear because these items, which seem to undermine the notion of that in itself does not raise the difficulties that, for sustainable development in that they focus on a very example, the Severn barrage would for wildlife and 323 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 324 conservation lower down the river, or some of the circulated a few days ago, because it encapsulates how enormous wind farms that are proposed out at sea, I feel—that by highlighting renewable energy, climate which could affect wildlife in its entirety. I am not change and energy security we are putting the emphasis wedded to one particular way, but my noble friend’s in the wrong place. You might have expected that I amendment has given us a chance to think a little would feel like that because of the statements I made wider, and would be a welcome addition to the Bill by when we were talking about the objectives of the making us think again about our responsibilities to MMO and the need for the marine Bill to focus on our communities. I still think that the Government’s what it started off being about—the conservation of main responsibility is to defend them and to feed them the marine environment. and, having done that, to make sure that communities Indeed, I was delighted to see from the Minister’s have enough energy to be able to have a daily living. explanatory note on marine policy statements that it That is the reason for these amendments at this stage will set out the UK’s vision for the marine area as a of the Bill. clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse The Minister may not be able to take them on, but I sea within the framework of sustainable development. hope that he takes the drift and the thrust behind The marine policy statements should focus on that. them, because we clearly have responsibilities to ourselves They will have to say important things about a whole as humankind and, as I would put it, to God’s creation, variety of policies, but if the Bill gives special consideration the natural life. There is a balance to be struck somewhere to climate change and energy security, that will downgrade and I commend my noble friend on his amendments. some of these other very important objectives that the marine Bill was originally intended to promote. Much 9pm as I believe in the importance of tackling energy security and climate change, I would hesitate to elevate Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The furthest them above other objectives. that I could go towards agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is to say that we should certainly aim to harness as much as we can the renewable elements of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an extremely marine energy. She has prompted me to get to my feet interesting and wide-ranging debate. I wondered how to question a couple of things. First, she said that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would get food marine wind farms would damage wildlife; actually, security in, but she managed it just at the end of her the evidence so far from the Thames array and the contribution. On the one hand, as the noble Lord, initial assessments of other wind farms suggests that Lord Greenway, suggested, perhaps many of the offshore the pillars on which they sit are likely to create extra renewable developments might not fall within the remit habitats. Even the RSPB does not argue that they of the MMO but will go over the threshold and be damage birds, so I wonder just where the damage to considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. wildlife that she foresees will come from. None the less, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has done us a great service by introducing some of the Secondly, the case has not been proven for nuclear, considerations that inevitably lie within the marine although I do not want to get into that debate now. planning environment, albeit that they are not the The noble Baroness mentioned the Severn barrage only considerations, which is the essential point of the and big offshore wind farms, such as the one likely to argument. be built north of Lundy. If a project went ahead—I am not a solid barrage supporter, but we must harness In terms of commercial certainty, I agree that we the power of the Severn by some tidal method, whether require a huge amount of investment in energy over by tidal lagoons or the softer tidal reef that was the next 10 or 20 years. We are talking about tens of referred to—and if the large wind farm is built, the billions of pounds. As much stability and certainty as grid will not support a developed Hinckley or any possible is conducive to that investment. The Government other nuclear power station in the south-west. That have provided a good framework and certainty for will be automatically ruled out. I simply ask the noble companies to invest, through recent planning legislation Baroness: is it not better to have a free source of and the Energy Act. It is also clear that we need a lot energy from the waves, the tides and the wind than one of renewable energy. The provisional European target that will cost us for ever, because we will have to for this country is 15 per cent of energy by 2020, which dispose of nuclear waste? equates to about 30 or 33 per cent of electricity generation. The figure at the moment is that about 5 per cent of electricity is generated through renewables, Lord Greenway: One of the problems with this so we must see a huge expansion, in which offshore amendment—I have raised this before—is that a lot of has a major contribution to make, as I hope will the planned energy-producing projects that have been marine energy, if we can take advantage of the mentioned, like the Severn barrage or the larger wind technological lead that the UK has at present. Many farms, will not come under the scope of this Bill; they lessons can be learnt from previous situations in which will come under the Planning Act. the UK has had a technological lead but has not translated it into major development with a positive Baroness Young of Old Scone: It may seem a bit impact on jobs, skills and future investment. novel, but I should like to address the amendment of I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that the the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. Much as I Climate Change Act, with our commitment to an admire him and support many of his amendments, 80 per cent reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050, this is not one of them. First, I thank the Minister for sets out this country’s determination to play our part his useful note on the marine policy statement that he in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in mitigating 325 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 326

[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH] access to the grid. We wish to ensure appropriate climate change and in giving international leadership, access to it, particularly where offshore renewables are particularly as we move towards the critical talks in likely to be developed. Copenhagen. On the question raised by the noble On the Severn tidal power issues, noble Lords may Baroness, Lady Byford, nuclear has a major role to have seen the announcement on Monday, when the play in the future, but I do not see it as a substitution Department of Energy and Climate Change produced for what we hope to achieve in renewables. We wish to a shortlist—essentially, a mixture of barrages and see a balance. innovative lagoon schemes. Importantly, we also announced £500,000 of new funding to further develop Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for embryonic technologies such as reefs and fences. The that. I see a balance, too, but I believe that nuclear progress of those technologies will be considered before could play a bigger part and help us in conserving our decisions are taken on whether to go ahead with a wildlife. That was why I raised the matter in the Severn tidal power scheme. committee when we had the opportunity to talk to It is interesting to reflect on what my right honourable Ministers about it. It seemed to me then, as a mere friend Ed Miliband said in making that announcement. Back-Bencher, that we have one department doing one He said: thing and another doing another thing, and then this “We have tough choices to make. Failing to act on climate Bill comes through. Clearly, if we can have a concerted change could see catastrophic effects on the environment and its effort, we can have better solutions. Personally, I do wildlife, but the estuary itself is a protected environment, home to not rule out a barrage, but I think that it brings vulnerable species including birds and fish. We need to think problems with it. On the construction side, there is about how to balance the value of this unique natural environment clearly a climate change/emissions balance; whatever against the long-term threat of global climate change. It is vital we seek public views and collect all information we need to make construction goes ahead, one is clearly looking for sure our climate change actions are ambitious yet fair”. such a balance. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that I was not suggesting I also reflect on the message from the Welsh Assembly that the nuclear station should be down at Hinkley, Government Minister for the Environment, Sustainability when other sites not in sensitive areas would not fall and Housing, Jane Davidson, who said: within the remit of these discussions. We recognise the “Harnessing the power of the Severn Estuary tides could serious future demands for us to produce enough make a significant contribution towards achieving the UK targets for renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions, but we must energy, particularly from renewables. However, when I ensure that environmental issues are taken fully into account”. was listening to what was going on in the committee, it seemed that nuclear was not included, when I felt that That fairly reflects the balance here. In view of our it could, perhaps, contribute quite well. previous debate about devolution and the concern that this will not all hang together, it is good that we have had the same response from the Welsh Assembly Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I certainly Government in respect of the Severn. That encourages accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was not me for the future. suggesting Hinkley as the only site, but at least two of Perhaps I should now turn to the amendment. In the sites are on the Severn. That would create the same preparing a marine policy statement, we must consider grid problems, particularly as Scotland has counted an extremely wide range of issues and policies. The itself out. Even if you accept the economic case, which intention is to bring together all policies capable of I do not, or the energy efficiency case, which I do not, having an impact on the marine area. This is the first the number of sites is limited. time that that has occurred and, at the end of it, we want a coherent and integrated statement of policy 9.15 pm that will make a real contribution to the achievement Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Life has moved on a bit of sustainable development in the UK marine area. since the committee met, because with the takeover of Clause 42(1)(a) explains that the marine policy British Energy by EDF and its firm proposals on new statement will state general policies that contribute to nuclear—with the first new station coming on stream the achievement of sustainable development in the in 2017, if I remember rightly—I have every confidence marine area. To do that, the policy authorities will that we will see the kind of developments that the need to consider a wide range of factors when drawing noble Baroness wants. There are also indications that up the statement, such as the legislative commitments, other companies are interested in investing in new national policies and targets relating to the marine nuclear. On the other hand, we know that all but one area covering sectors ranging from fisheries, oil and nuclear power station is due for decommissioning by gas, offshore energy and ports. They will need to 2025, so the new developments taking place will tend consider information and trends on different uses, the to replace existing nuclear development. That is why it resulting pressures and likely changes. They will need is important to do everything that we can to encourage to consider how to deal with interactions in uses and renewables, too. There has to be a balance. what guidance to provide to decision-makers to help The noble Baroness raised a question about the them to resolve priorities. They will also need to grid. Access to the grid is a very important matter. consider the interface between the land and sea and Having met a number of renewables companies, I the policy on regional and international interfaces. know that there is concern on that. She will know, Naturally, some policies feature higher in our however, that there has been a transmission review by consciousness than others at any given time. Mitigation Ofgem and that we are clearly exercised by the issue of of climate change and security of energy supply are 327 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 328 foremost in our minds and they will be two major development”. The noble Lord is trying to put a bit of considerations when the MPS is being prepared. As flesh on that, but we immediately run into problems, the noble Lord knows, the Climate Change Act imposes because he has picked two particular issues, whereas a duty to lay before this House and the other place a other noble Lords would like to see others included. programme of policies and proposals that contribute We find it difficult to put a definition of sustainable to the achievement of sustainable development and set development in the Bill, for reasons that I have given out how we will respond to the risks facing the UK as in the past two days. I do not pretend that this is easy. I a result of climate change. Clearly, those policies and know that noble Lords around the Committee are programmes will need to be reflected in our marine working hard to come up with some other definition. policy statement. The same applies to our policies on All I can say is that the Government would be happy energy and security of supply. We are already engaged and willing to talk to noble Lords on this matter. I in producing national policy statements under the recognise that there is concern, particularly about Planning Act that will set out policies on national Clause 2. However, it is not easy to find a resolution. energy infrastructure. We do not dispute the importance of reducing Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister, greenhouse gas emissions or of ensuring a secure because I was just going on to say that the phrasing in energy supply for the UK. As a Minister in the Clause 42(1)(a)— Department of Energy and Climate Change, I know “contributing to the achievement of sustainable development”— that that goes to the heart of what the department is is the very wording that we condemned in Clause 2. about and why it was established. Our concern, which We said that it was not strong enough and not what the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller, Lady Hamwee and the Bill should be about. This is not what the marine Lady Young,identified, is that we fear that the amendment planning statement should be about, either. It should would change the overall context and focus of the be a bit more beefy. The idea behind the amendment marine policy statement by setting the contribution to derived from a concept that the Committee has accepted the achievement of sustainable development within before, which is that this Bill is part of a daisy chain of the specific context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions legislation: the Climate Change Act, the Energy Act, and securing energy supply. the Planning Act and now the marine Bill all coming As I said, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions together. and the security of energy supply, alongside all the The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, was concerned other important issues, such as conservation, marine that the marine planning statement could not consider industries, marine heritage and coastal communities, marine development over 100 megawatts because a ought to be considered in the round. The duty contained national planning statement would deal with that. I in the marine policy statement and the fact that it must would like the Minister to say, if he is able to, that the contribute to sustainable development set the right marine policy statement would have to incorporate context and balance. even those things on which it did not make the final Although we have spent some time on particular determining factor. Marine policy statements should debate, it is an important one, as it goes to the heart of have a policy on all activity. Indeed, Clause 42(1)(a) what marine planning statements and marine plans talks about, are about. On that basis, it has been an extremely “the achievement of sustainable development in the UK marine useful debate. area”. I have read this carefully and I do not think that the Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Perhaps because we are fact that these matters are not within the competence post-dinner, the Committee has, at times, seemed to be of the MMO excludes the marine policy statement all over the place and has taken a bit of a walkabout. I from considering them. feel like the chap at the sheepdog trial, with everyone scattered all over the place. However, we all know that Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not sure that that is we are not very far apart on these issues. There must what the noble Lord said. I thought that he meant the be possibilities for achieving what all we want from power to give consent in relation to offshore renewables this Bill. that went above the threshold which fell to the IPC. As I think the Minister accepts, I was genuinely The marine policy statement will, I suspect, be a rather trying to be helpful in tabling these amendments. The more general statement. As I have said already, I Bill needs to have clear statements. I could have produced, expect and confirm that it will be consistent with any as the Minister well knows, an Amendment 33-type national policy statement on renewable energy. The list, which would have included all the factors referred IPC will also be informed by advice that it is given by to by the noble Baronesses on the Liberal Democrat the Marine Management Organisation. Benches. However, the Minister advised me that that was not a good idea. Two does not really constitute a Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am encouraged by the list, just the beginning of one. Minister’s comment, because it removes some anxiety that the marine policy statement would not necessarily Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I sense that this almost be comprehensive in the marine area. It reinforces the takes us back to Clause 2. Here we see the dilemma. argument—a very good thing—that the MMO has a Noble Lords are not satisfied with Clause 2, because it key role in the policy decisions that affect even the has a lot of technical language. They are not satisfied elements that currently under legislation fall to the with the words, “contributing to … sustainable IPC. It is very important that we emphasise this. 329 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 330

[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH] I am not sure whether he anticipates that there will be This is an important area of the Bill. I hope that several or one, but I am particularly concerned about noble Lords who have somewhat criticised my particular conflict. The MPSs must contribute, focus recognise that it has a purpose. “to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK marine area”. Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I apologise to I was in the Moses Room so I missed the debate on the noble Lord for intervening, but I have been thinking Clause 40 and my noble friend Lady Miller’s amendments about what the Minister just said and would like him exploring where the boundaries are. I will read that to elucidate one point. He said that the marine policy with interest. I wondered after I had tabled the statement would cover renewable energy. Would it not amendment, and too late to do anything about it, cover all energy, including oil and gas? whether I should have included as an issue here that we are talking about sustainable development in the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I was attempting to UK, period, or of the UK, including the marine area. respond to the debate, which has essentially been There seem to be a number of examples of possible about renewables. The marine policy statement will be conflict. In the best of all worlds, there will be no very wide and will embrace many factors. Our slight conflict. The policy statements under this legislation contretemps is that, within this and alongside it, there and under the Planning Act will emerge with no are the provisions of the Energy Act and the thresholds inconsistencies between them. But how do we get from under which certain nationally significant infrastructure here to there? Energy is an obvious area where there projects—I hope that I have the terminology right—fall could well be conflict. A development, such as a wind to be decided by the IPC. One achieves consistency farm or barrage, in one geographical area may affect through both the marine policy statement and the another geographical area. A development which will national policy statement. As I said in debates on the contribute to the reduction in emissions may be good Planning Bill, we must ensure consistency between for everybody on the land but may raise issues about the two. the effect on the immediate marine environment. Access to the grid was also referred to in the previous debate. Lord Taylor of Holbeach: It has been useful to have I am pretty sure my amendments to Clause 42 are that further elaboration, and I thank the noble Baroness, not the answer but at least they enable me to raise the Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for making that question and to probe the Minister’s optimism. clear. Indeed, my amendment does not actually say Amendment 89AA is essentially the same point as “renewable energy”; it talks about: applied to marine plans rather than marine policy “the need to maintain a secure and safe supply of energy”, statements. I beg to move. which is absolute across the board. Encouraged by the Minister, I suspect—at least, I Earl Cathcart: The noble Baroness raises a number hope—that we will come back to this area, because it of important points. I am sure there is no intention on will tie up with any amendments to Clause 2. I beg the Government’s part to produce inconsistent policies, leave to withdraw the amendment. but with so many departments involved and different marine policy statements and national policy statements being produced, it would be extremely surprising if Amendment 85A withdrawn. Ministers did not occasionally feel that their desired outcomes did not mesh as well as they had hoped with 9.30 pm statements already produced. I am in a slight muddle and I need clarification. The Amendment 85AA Defra document, A Strategy for promoting an integrated approach to the management of coastal areas in England, Moved by Baroness Hamwee says on page 12: 85AA: Clause 42, page 22, line 2, after “MPS” insert “or in “The UK Marine Policy Statement,”— another MPS” in the singular— “to be agreed by Government departments and the Devolved Baroness Hamwee: In moving Amendment 85AA, I Administrations, will articulate our joint vision and objectives”. will also speak to Amendments 85AB and 89AA. It seems to say there is going to be just one marine This is an almost seamless continuation of the policy statement, one document, for all the devolved previous debate. I tabled these amendments to understand powers. The dilemma is that Clause 42 refers to marine how the consistency between the various marine policy policy statements, which confuses me. The Minister statements and the national policy statements will be also talked about marine policy statements on the last achieved. amendment, which makes you think, “Hang on, there The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is going to be more than one”. Then you wonder referred to Clause 2, which is about the Marine whether they will be like national policy statements, Management Organisation. One question here is about where there will be 12 or 15—one for renewable energy how the MMO will be involved in the creation of the and one for airwaves, et cetera. So I am afraid that I marine policy statements. But that is not the focus of am slightly confused. It is probably my fault and it these amendments. I appreciate that there will be probably is crystal clear to other Members of the marine policy statements for discrete areas, although I Committee, but I am afraid not to me. I should like noted that the Minister was referring to “the” statement. clarification on that. 331 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 332

Will the Minister please give the Committee a little to promote internal consistency within the marine more detail on how he envisages the statement or policy statement and to specify what should take statements being produced? Will they be drafted in the precedence if there is an apparent conflict within the separate departments and circulated to others for approval? statement, rather than dealing with conflicts between How will the different departmental responsibilities be the MPS and external documents. resolved where the statements overlap, bearing in mind Turning to Amendment 85AA, and in response to that at least six government departments are involved the noble Earl, it is important to emphasise that there in the marine area? Any contradiction between marine will only ever be one marine policy statement at any policy statement or statements will, I hope, be spotted one time, anywhere in the UK marine area. Clause 43(3) by the MMO before any real confusion is caused. makes clear that a later MPS will always replace an Where marine policy statements interlink with national earlier one, so that it is not possible to have two at the policy statements, the results could be more damaging. same time. This is to ensure clarity for decision makers. I hope that the Government will consider carefully the An MPS either exists and guides decision making in noble Baroness’s amendment. the region that has adopted it, or it does not. Amendments 85AB and 89AA take us into familiar Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Again, this continues territory, and concern the need for consistency, and our discussion of marine policy statements. Perhaps I the relative importance of the MPS, marine plans and may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that in national policy statements in the marine area. This the debate just before the break I outlined some of the falls outside the scope of the two subsections that are points she raised. I understand the problems that she the target of these amendments. Clauses 42(3) and and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have had, so I will 49(6) are about internal consistency within the MPS just briefly set out for them that, essentially, the marine or plan, not about consistency and conflict resolution planning system is a two-stage approach: first a UK with other expressions of policy. I have said a number marine policy statement and then a series of marine of times that we are fully committed to ensuring plans to apply the policies in the policy statement to consistency between the marine policy statement and particular geographical areas. Decisions on licensing the national policy statement. I hope that I have and consents in the marine area will then have to be clarified the position for the noble Baroness and that taken in accordance with the marine policy statement she might consider withdrawing her amendment. and the plans. The marine policy statement is to be agreed by the Baroness Hamwee: I will certainly withdraw the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, amendment. The determination of the Government to to which the noble Earl referred. I will come to the ensure consistency is not in doubt from what the question of one policy statement in a moment. The Minister says. However, I am still a little unclear about UK Government and the devolved Administrations how the legislation will support that. I appreciate that are called the policy authorities in the Bill. They a good deal of debate has gone before this evening’s comprise the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, exchanges that I may be ignoring. I wrote down the Welsh Ministers and the Department of Environment Minister’s comment on the list of policy authorities: in Northern Ireland. The Bill does not change the “If, as we intend, all four Administrations agree”. devolution settlement, but it provides for a form of I thought I was the Pollyanna around here, but I am executive devolution, which will allow the devolved clearly in good company. I will read what the Minister Administrations to produce comprehensive plans with has said, to make sure that I understand the process, the agreement of the Secretary of State. as distinct from the intent. I beg leave to withdraw I reiterate that the marine policy statement will Amendment 85AA. cover the whole of the UK marine area. If, as we Amendment 85AA withdrawn. intend, all four Administrations agree the marine policy statement, there is no question that we will deliver Amendment 85AB not moved. consistency throughout the United Kingdom. Significant incentives are built into the system to encourage Clause 42 agreed. co-operation between us, but it is a fact of devolution The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness that we cannot require other Administrations to agree Gibson of Market Rasen): Before I call the next group with us. Therefore, we have to provide for devolved of amendments, I have to inform the House that there Administrations to opt out of the marine policy statement is a printing error in the list of grouped amendments. and for the Secretary of State to work alone if that is Amendment 86GDE should read 86GZE. necessary. Clearly, that would be a matter of great regret and would diminish very much what we hope to Clause 43 : Preparation and coming into force of achieve through the legislation. statement The purpose of the noble Baroness’s amendments is to ensure that, should there be a conflict between the Amendment 85B policies laid down in the MPS and another MPS or Moved by Baroness Hamwee with any national policy statement, the policy in the 85B: Clause 43, page 22, line 12, leave out “may only” and MPS always takes precedence. Partly, the noble Baroness insert “must” is debating the MPS, but she is also taking us back to a significant debate we had last week about the relationship Baroness Hamwee: I had worked out the printing between the MMO and the IPC. However, that is to error earlier. We are all accustomed to hunting round misunderstand the purpose of the subsection, which is on the Marshalled List when we have long groups of 333 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][LORDS] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 334

[BARONESS HAMWEE] single MPS, and is why I have tabled these amendments. amendments. It did seem that that was the likely They are not elegant, but I wish to raise the issue. I beg explanation. Amendments 85BB, 85DZA, 85DA, 85DB, to move. 86GZA, 86GZB, 86GZC, 86GZD, 86GZE and 86GZF are grouped with Amendment 85B. Amendment 85BA Earl Cathcart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of for tabling the amendments. The most important is the Holbeach. first in the group. Amendment 85B would insert a The first of the amendments comes from a coalition duty on the Secretary of State and the policy authorities of organisations called the Wildlife and Countryside to produce the marine policy statement, rather than Link. It is appropriate for me to list at this point the leaving it open as an option—although I am sure that members of that coalition: Buglife, the Herpetological that is not the Government’s intention. There is a Conservation Trust, the Marine Conservation Society, strong possibility that disagreements and confusions the RSPB, the Wildlife Trust, the Whale and Dolphin will arise between the policy authorities when agreeing Conservation Society and the WWF. Amendment 85B the UK marine policy statement, and any delay will would impose a requirement to produce the marine presumably knock on to other critical parts of the Bill. policy statement, not just a power to do so. There is a So much cannot be done without the policy statement: concern that despite the enormous amount of work plans cannot be produced, development cannot be that has gone into the Bill to get it to this stage, authorised and conservation zones cannot be designated. without an obligation the MPS and the associated Later amendments will give us the opportunity to marine plans may not be produced. explore the detail of the MPS procedure, particularly the possibility of disagreement or derogation from the In the previous exchange, we referred to obtaining plans. At the moment, though, I shall focus on the agreement from all the Administrations. The Government’s possibility of early failure. It is clear that an MPS response to the report of the Joint Committee indicated involving all the policy authorities acting jointly, as that it was their clear intention to create an MPS Clause 43(1)(a) makes possible, would be by far the within two years of Royal Assent, as the Minister has best option, but the possibility of one or more authority just stated. We have been asked by the coalition to taking their own route must be considered. My obtain an assurance from the Dispatch Box regarding amendment in this group seeks to probe just what the timetable rather than seek to put a specific date in attempts the Secretary of State must make to ensure the Bill. It may well reflect how misguided I am in the agreement. The term “invited” in subsection (2) is very other amendments in the group when I read the comments vague. At what point is the decision made that a joint on the last group, but Amendment 85DZA to Clause 44 MPS is not possible? would require every policy authority to review the MPS, not just the authority or authorities that prepared I look forward to hearing from the Minister what and adopted it, and that an authority which did not stage the Government are at in the MPS’s development. prepare it would have the power to delegate the function, Are they developing it together with the other authorities, so these two amendments should be read together. or are they on their own at the moment, hoping that the others will sign up to it later on? I see no reason I could not follow whether Clause 46 covered every why this process cannot be started now, as it involves permutation of policy authorities which could prepare the Secretary of State, the Scottish and Welsh Ministers the MPS, and, because I became so confused over and the Department of Environment in Northern that, I was not entirely satisfied about whether the Ireland. How much time will the Government take to Secretary of State might have—I shall put it this overcome disagreements between authorities? The way—undue power as between himself and the devolved Government have expressed their hope that the marine Administrations. The Minister will be familiar with policy statement will be complete within two years of our concern, which he may think stretches to paranoia, Royal Assent. Will that be postponed if agreement is that the Secretary of State should not have more hard to come by, or will they carry on regardless on power than we think is proper. It occurred to me to their own? ask whether the Minister has a flowchart to show the combinations of authorities which can prepare, amend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This is a good group and withdraw the MPS, and whether one policy authority with which to end our deliberations today. It gets can commit or overrule another. down to the nitty-gritty of how this is going to work in practice. I reiterate that we have every expectation that 9.45 pm it will be possible to produce a marine policy statement Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Bill is helpful in this embracing the whole of the United Kingdom with the respect. Clause 42(4) states that, support of the UK Government and all the devolved “‘policy authority’ means any of the following— Administrations. If that is not possible, we have provision (a) the Secretary of State; in the Bill to deal with that eventuality, but we are (b) the Scottish Ministers; confident that it will be possible. Ministers always (c) the Welsh Ministers; stand here and resist the use of the word “must”, but (d) the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland”. the noble Earl should be in no doubt that we are committed to preparing a marine policy statement; we Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that, but want it to be jointly agreed and published by all the nevertheless I seek to understand how it will work UK Administrations. with the other clauses because it means, as he says, any The noble Earl has reiterated the point that he of them, which raises the question of the relationships made regarding the group that we were debating before between them. That is even more so if there is to be a when he asked about some of the practicalities of how 335 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL][28 JANUARY 2009] Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] 336 this will be done. There has already been close contact Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clause 43 says: with officials from all four Administrations and I “An MPS may only be prepared by— assure him that that will continue. All the Administrations (a) all the policy authorities, acting jointly,”— will have points that they wish to bring to the table that is the preferred option— and within the UK Government there are different “(b) the Secretary of State and any one or more other policy departments. The aim, however, is to involve everyone authorities, acting jointly”— as early as possible in order to get the kind of ownership, which would apply when, perhaps, one policy authority expertise and experience that will come from different has not been able to join in—or the Secretary of State. parts of the country. That is a fall-back position, but the problem with it is Our problem with the amendment is that it would that, while a marine policy statement can still be go against the whole principle of how we should take prepared and published as a statement for the whole this forward, by removing the requirement for the United Kingdom, it will not have as much force as one Secretary of State to invite the devolved Administrations would like in those areas where the devolved to participate in preparing a marine policy statement. Administrations have authority. That is why we much It would also be difficult and unusual to impose a prefer to use Clause 43(1)(a): that the MPS, statutory duty on all four policy authorities to jointly “be prepared by … all the policy authorities, acting jointly”. agree an MPS. It is possible that, despite our best efforts, agreement on an MPS may not be reached. It Baroness Hamwee: I well appreciate that the is difficult to place a requirement in law that all the Government cannot require agreement in legislation policy authorities hold the same policies for marine or in fact. The Minister has referred to working between matters. We have to have a construct in the Bill that officials, but there are different political imperatives encourages that agreement. The Bill has a fall-back and priorities. I asked about the timetable. Can the position if it is not possible to reach agreement, but we Minister say anything about that at this stage? must do everything we can to ensure that agreement is reached. I understand why Members of the Committee are Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not want to be too concerned. Bringing together the devolution settlement precise about the timetable. Clearly, 2010 is a critical and our collective intention of making this marine Bill date. work and have consistency is clearly a formidable challenge. Only so much can be achieved by legislation. 10 pm It also depends on the different parties working well Baroness Hamwee: It sounds like a good year. There together. All four Administrations have lots of incentives is a lot that I have not been able to take into account—it to make it work together. All the signs that we have is in Hansard but not yet in my head. My noble friend seen in the past few months are positive in that direction. Lord Greaves has several times told the Committee on While I cannot stand here and guarantee that a marine the local democracy Bill that he has been reading policy statement will be produced that commands the Hansard in bed. I do not intend to do that but I will support of all parties concerned, I assure Members of read it before we resume the Committee stage. I beg the Committee that we will work as hard as we leave to withdraw the amendment. can to achieve that. In so doing, we will want to work very closely and invite early participation of the devolved Administrations in the work that needs to Amendment 85B withdrawn. be undertaken. Amendments 85BA and 85BB not moved. Baroness Byford: Before the noble Baroness responds, I totally accept what the Minister says: we are all trying desperately to ensure that we get a common, House resumed. agreed theme. However, the Minister mentioned the fall-back position. Can he elaborate on that? House adjourned at 10 pm.

GC 75 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 76

I am very happy to ask that question on the corporation’s Grand Committee behalf. Amendment 96 amends Clause 12(1)(e), which excepts Wednesday, 28 January 2009. a petition, “made under and in accordance with any other enactment”. The amendment is tabled partly to probe what that Local Democracy, Economic Development means. Taken together with Amendment 98B, which and Construction Bill [HL] would insert a new subsection, my amendment is Committee (4th Day) intended to clarify the position. It sets out a number of instances where it seems to us that the council will find 3.45 pm difficulty in applying the Government’s scheme to specific circumstances that apply. Yet if a petition The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness appears to be valid, it will have to be dealt with Harris of Richmond): If there is a Division in the according to the statutory scheme. In order to probe Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will this issue, I shall set out examples of some of the adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and difficulties that a prescriptive, top-down, nationally resume after 10 minutes. imposed scheme may have. One difficulty relates to petitions made under and in accordance with any other enactment. An obvious Clause 11: Petition schemes example is a petition for a mayor, but there may well be others. Amendment 89 The second is a petition in connection with a planning application that is under consideration by the authority. Moved by Lord Greaves The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, pointed out on 89: Clause 11, page 7, line 24, at end insert— Monday that petitions about a planning application “( ) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent a principal local will have to be dealt with there and then as part of the authority from receiving, considering and taking any action on planning process and regarded as a representation in any petitions that are presented to it that are not valid petitions in relation to that application. It would be ridiculous to accordance with its petition scheme.” deal with such a petition in any other way; therefore, it would have to be outside the scheme as laid down. Yet Lord Greaves: Just to give people a change, we can that does not appear to be the case in the Bill. talk about petitions. The problem with irony is that it The third is a petition made in connection with a does not look very good in Hansard, because nobody licensing application. Exactly the same situation applies can understand it. as to planning applications. If someone is applying for Amendment 89 relates to petitions which are not a licence to run a taxi or to amend the opening hours valid or active under the Government’s scheme. The of a local pub, for example, the council makes a amendment states the position clearly. We had some decision in a quasi-judicial capacity under the legislation discussion about this on Monday, and I think that the applying to that kind of licensing. Yet the petition Government will say that nothing will prevent the itself could hardly be said to be made under, and in local authority from doing as the amendment suggests. accordance with, an enactment. The enactments allow We have spoken about whether councils will nevertheless people to make representations but not necessarily a regard the Bill as the maximum rather than the minimum petition. provision. We will continue with these discussions as The fourth is a petition made in connection with we wrestle with this part of the Bill over the next few the annual budget-making process of the authority. weeks. This is the most important example each year of an I have had a specific request to raise the matter on instance where the council is making decisions according behalf of the City of London Corporation. It is not a to a set timetable—it has to. There is no point in a body I normally have a great deal to do with, but petition going through a convoluted system under the Mr Double, the Remembrancer of the corporation, Government’s requirements if it comes in the day has written to me. He says: before the council’s budget-making meeting; it clearly “It is part of the custom of London (what is now the City of has to be reported to that meeting and considered at it London) that local communities, gathered in wardmotes, should as part of the budget-making process. That is so be able to petition the Court of Common Council (the City’s obvious, and it is what a normal council will do as a administrative arm) to ensure that issues of local concern are matter of course in a common-sense, pragmatic way, addressed. By this method, individual voters can secure direct which is our argument throughout. involvement with the decision making body. The Court of Common Council is required to respond to such petitions and usually does There may be matters generally in connection with so by referring to the issues raised to a committee for detailed an item due to be discussed at an early meeting of the consideration and a report. council, a committee, a sub-committee, the executive, It cannot be the intention of the Bill that such examples of any other body or at a public meeting of a cabinet effective local democracy should be displaced by the new provisions. member who has delegated power to make decisions— Amendment 89 provides an opportunity for the Minister to sometimes those decisions are made in public by a confirm that existing arrangements”— cabinet member sitting as a chairman but making that is, in the City of London— decisions as a one-man committee, which is a strange “are unaffected by the new provisions”. way to make decisions but an open and public way for GC 77 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 78

[LORD GREAVES] probity and sobriety, which is more than can be said one person to do so. Whatever decisions are made, if for the first holder of that office. In 1571, when the they are made quickly, the petition clearly has to office was created, the initial appointment was of a circumvent all the other processes and simply be put drunken poet. to the meeting of whatever body is making the decision. Since I am citing the City of London as one of the It is so obvious, and it is what a sensible council will cradles of our democracy, I shall reinforce it with a do. Yet the Government are trying to tie councils up in case in the Westminster part of the constituency. Charles red tape, and people might well be able to come back James Fox, whom I greatly respect, was the Member and say, “My petition wasn’t dealt with correctly of Parliament for the City for 26 years, while I was the under the scheme, as you just considered it the day Member for only 24, so he gets the bronze medal for after the meeting and rejected it, without giving it the being the third longest serving Member for the City full consideration the scheme says it must have”. since 1283. He had the experience of fighting Midhurst, Councils carry out all kinds of public consultation. where there were only seven voters, and Malmesbury, More consultation takes place nowadays than ever where there were only 13, until he arrived in Westminster, before, by a factor of probably 10 or 20, perhaps more. where there were 6,000 electors, which was what I will A lot of people complain that there is too much describe as a serious election. So liberal was the franchise consultation; they do not want to be consulted again in Westminster, and thus nurturing and fostering and just want councils to get on with it. Nevertheless, democracy in this land, that when the Great Reform consultation is built into all kinds of things the council Bill came in, the franchise was tighter than the Westminster does. The council sets out a consultation process. one and therefore, as a result of the Bill’s passage, the Sometimes it is a statutory or semi-statutory process, electorate at Westminster fell. as under the local development framework. On this particular issue, the council just decided to carry out Lord Hanningfield: I support my noble friend’s consultation and then set up the scheme. It is ludicrous comments. I apologise for the absence of my noble for a petition on a matter regarding that consultation friend Lady Warsi this afternoon. She is not at all well. process to be considered in any way other than as part Whereas I was planning to participate much more in of that consultation process and for the council to the later stages of the Bill, I am now going to have to have a petition scheme preventing that happening. cope with doing so for most of this afternoon. I am sure that noble Lords with experience in these I support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, particularly matters can probably think of lots of other circumstances in what he said about flexibility. It is all very well there where the Government’s tightly organised scheme will being government guidance, but, as he said, there are not fit. Amendments 96 and 98B seek to set out some many different types of consultation and some petitions of the problems that the government scheme is likely are different from others. For example, if the closure to cause, to show the complexity of the issue and the of a school is proposed, thousands of people with need for flexibility. children in that school at that time will submit a Amendment 127 simply removes the Government’s petition. You obviously have to consider that but it is rather feeble attempt to deal with this problem, compared rather different from getting a petition about some with the much more positive and rigorous way of issue that the public are suddenly very concerned dealing with it as set out in these amendments. I beg about. I would like the Minister to acknowledge that to move. the provision is fully flexible.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful to 4pm the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for having given me the opportunity of speaking to Amendment 89, as it The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, enables me to apologise to the Minister for the Department for Communities and Local Government contumacious manner with which I treated her on (Baroness Andrews): I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monday, and to say that I am delighted to be able to Brooke. I certainly did not mind his intervention the speak on an amendment that is without controversy. other day, and his contribution today was extremely As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will know, the interesting and puts our deliberations into proper letter from the Remembrancer, the Parliamentary Agent perspective. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, to the City, was copied to me by virtue of my previous that he must not worry about the Bill, because it is membership of the House of Commons on behalf of excellent. I am sure that we shall all do our best by it. the City. I do not propose to rehearse what the noble I hope that I can reassure the City of London by Lord, Lord Greaves, said because I think he admirably saying that nothing in the Bill will stop the Remembrancer made the case the City asked him to. I join him in continuing his functions as he has done for at least hoping that the Minister can meet his and the City’s 400 years—I confess that I would quite like to know request. who the drunken poet was; there is quite a long list to Perhaps I may reinforce the reference to the City’s choose from. ancient practices, which were involved in the passage We are trying to make sure that we have in statute a the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, communicated. They scheme that will make it easier for all our citizens to go back a long way. The Remembrancer is the only know that the council has a way of dealing with local government officer in the land who is allowed to petitions which guarantees a response. A set of very go anywhere within the Palace of Westminster without reasonable, simple criteria will need to be fulfilled. let or hindrance. I have known the last four However, if additional petitions, practices and routes Remembrancers; they have all been men of the highest exist, there is nothing to stop local authorities dealing GC 79 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 80 with them as they wish. I cannot add anything to what that is, the Secretary of State in England— I said on Monday, when we had a long debate. We “may by order specify matters falling within subsection (2)(a) want to ensure that everybody in a community—not which are not to be regarded as relating to a function of the just those who are active in it and are well used to authority”. organising and signing petitions—has a clear notion Subsection (2)(b) refers to “relevant matters”. However, of how they might bring something to the attention of for the Secretary of State to issue a document that says the council. I think that that response deals with that planning applications are not to be regarded as Amendments 89 and 127. Amendment 127 would relating to a function of the authority is madness. This remove a helpful pointer on what a council might is not real-world wording; it is crazy. It may mean that want to include in its scheme; for example, it may help to lawyers, who will understand it, as perhaps will people to understand something related to the functions some of the rest of us, but you cannot tell a council to of a different and connected authority. exclude planning applications because they do not Amendments 96 and 98B relate in broad terms to relate to its function when they are one of the most the Government’s commitment, set out in the community important things that a council does. empowerment White Paper, that petitions on a few I get the impression that this legislation has been issues such as planning and licensing will be dealt with written by people who are on a different planet but I differently in order to reflect, as the noble Lord said, think that the Minister will already have gathered that existing statutory processes. Our stated intention is to from what I have said. In the mean time, although use the order-making power in Clause 14(4), which there are important issues here that still have to be will exclude those matters from the scope of the duty discussed and resolved, I beg leave to withdraw the to respond to petitions, as it is simply common sense amendment. to do so. We want to avoid setting up parallel routes Amendment 89 withdrawn. for considering local people’s concerns in those areas; the processes that exist are extensive and well known. Amendment 90 not moved. Petitions on those subjects do not need to go through Clause 11 agreed. that separate system. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, spoke about Clause 12: Valid petitions the need for flexibility, which raised some interesting Amendment 91 not moved. questions, particularly around consultation. We should reflect on that in the context of using secondary legislation, which would allow us to seek the views of Amendment 91A the sector before putting legislation before Parliament. Moved by Lord Greaves The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, 91A: Clause 12, page 7, line 28, after “addressed” insert “or capture the broad intention, although I suspect that presented” the drafting would be more complex. I hope that he can withdraw them so that we can reflect on the issues Lord Greaves: I shall speak also to Amendments 126 in more detail. I would be happy to discuss them with and 128 and the Question whether Clause 18 should him before Report. stand part. This group concerns a smallish number of miscellaneous issues which, nevertheless, need to be put on the record and probed. Lord Greaves: Amendment 127 relates to Clause 18, Amendment 91A brings us back to our old friend, and we will come to that in a later group. There are the definition of a valid petition. Clause 12(1)(a) says very serious flaws in Clause 18 at the moment, and I that, for a petition to be valid, it must be “addressed to think we will want to discuss them in detail later but the authority”. I simply want to add the words “or not now. presented” so that it reads that a valid petition has to The Minister said that a few issues will be excluded be “addressed or presented to the authority”. I am not by the powers in subsection (4), which I shall come to sure what the Government will say “addressed” means in a moment. However, I do not think that a few issues but, in my view, it means an address written down; in will be excluded if the provision is sensibly worded. I other words, at the minimum, it should say “to East think that a large number of issues will have to be Sussex County Council” or “to Cornwall County excluded, partly because very often petitions appear Council”, or whichever authority the petition is being not in a vacuum but in relation to something that the presented to, yet a large number of informal petitions council is already doing. I mentioned, for example, the that come in and have to be treated properly are not. I budget-making process. If what the council does in its read out two yesterday and shall repeat them: budget-making process is controversial, a lot of petitions “We as residents of Mansfield Crescent want a one-way will come in directly in relation to that and indeed to system”. lots of other decisions that are on the agenda or are That is not addressed to anyone. The second reads: about to get on to the agenda of a meeting. Therefore, “We the undersigned want to stop the speeding traffic on the issues that are already going through the council Chapel House Road”. system are very important, and I do not think that That is not addressed to anyone. I think that they were there will be only a few. presented separately to different committees of Pendle I have already said that, unless the wording in Borough Council. They might have been presented to Clause 14(4) is changed quite substantially, when people the town councils in Brierfield or Nelson, or they look at this legislation, they will think it is crackers. might have been presented directly to the authority Subsection (4)(a) states that, which has powers to do these things—that is, the “the appropriate national authority— county council. However, they were not addressed to GC 81 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 82

[LORD GREAVES] 4.15 pm anybody, so they would not have been valid for that Baroness Hamwee: On Clause 18 stand part, when I reason, according to the Government’s scheme, if the wrote to the Minister on 15 January—I was surprised word “addressed” means what I think it means. but pleased to receive written answers to all the points Amendment 126 relates to Clause 18. Some of the I had raised when I was simply warning of what I supplementary provisions in that clause are worthy of might mention at this stage—I, too, used the term discussion. Under Clause 18(2)(a), the principal local “confusing” about Clause 18. I said that allowing for authority’s petition scheme may include, non-statutory provisions but spelling out in primary “provision relating to petitions which are not valid petitions”. legislation what they “may in particular include” was I do not understand the purpose of these eight pages if certainly confusing to me. I do not understand where they can be ignored so that the petition scheme can in the hierarchy of legislative requirement—going down apply to invalid petitions. If there is to be a detailed from primary legislation, through secondary legislation, prescription of a valid petition, rather than telling statutory guidance, non-statutory guidance and so local authorities that they may include petitions that on—this might lie. do not fit the precise criteria laid down—for example, I understand the response that what is dealt with because every signature is not dated, which is one of here is in addition to the statutory provisions and the more ludicrous ideas—they ought to have a duty requirements that are in the earlier clauses—that is to consider them. Otherwise, there is a great risk that a implicit, but you have to think about that. It must be lot of valid petitions—for example, for a one-way the case but, as my noble friend said, a fairly technical system in Mansfield Crescent or for traffic calming on approach is required to reach that conclusion. Chapel House Road and hundreds of thousands of others all over the country—would be excluded because I was concerned, too, about the words “may in they do not fit. Therefore, I propose the insertion of particular”. It is terminology to which we have become “shall” instead of “may” in line 31. accustomed in legislation—it normally means “shall”, but perhaps that is another spectrum. The answer to Amendment 128 provides that a petition that clearly this was that they are practical points which might relates to a number of different authorities can be come to light when a scheme gets under way—indeed photocopied, either by the petitioners or by the council they are—and which are worth highlighting to local that first receives it, and that those photocopies should authorities for possible inclusion. Perhaps they are then be regarded as a true copy of the petition. The but, if so, their place is in guidance and not on the face Newcastle scheme makes that provision so that people of the Bill. can hand in true copies of petitions rather than the original. On a matter such as winter gritting—to pick Lord Patel of Bradford: Noble Lords have raised an issue at random—people might well want to present some pragmatic and sensible issues on which I hope I a petition to the town council, the district council and can reassure them. Certainly this is an area we could the county council, perhaps to the police and possibly discuss further. even to the Lord Lieutenant, although I am not sure what he would do with it. Clause 12 provides that valid petitions must be addressed to the authority that the petitioner requests I shall speak to Clause 18 stand part. Clause 18(2)(c) to take action. Amendment 91A would change this so relates to whether a petition handed to one authority that valid petitions must be addressed or presented to can be dealt with and passed to another authority. the authority. I am reliably informed that the term This paragraph seems to allow it, but other clauses, “addressed” should not be taken literally as an address which we will discuss later, appear not to. We need written on an envelope, as the noble Lord said, but some clarity to avoid confusion. rather in the sense of “aimed at”. As such, the act of presenting a petition to an authority clearly comes Lord Hanningfield: I shall speak to Clause 18 stand under the expression “addressed”; therefore the aim of part, but I support what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the amendment is achieved. said on the other amendments in this group. Clause 18 adds confusion. It allows local authorities to have Lord Greaves: This is a new doctrine. In the eight variations, and being a localist I agree with that, but it years I have been a Member of the House I have never contradicts some of what we have been talking about. heard that the words in legislation should not be taken I hope that the Government will think again on this. literally. I am concerned that if the legislation appears The system needs to be fairly flexible. If the Government before a court at some stage that is exactly what the want to give guidance and include all these matters in court will do. Courts look at the words and take them the Bill, the system must be flexible. to mean what they usually mean in the English language. As we have said, there are many different types of If the noble Lord is saying “addressed” can mean petitions. For example, some may be generated by someone shouting through a loud hailer outside the people wanting to change the position of a level town hall, that is one use of the word; but for a written crossing, which may not necessarily coincide with the document, “addressed” means that the name of the local authority’s point of view, but it is something on addressee appears on it. I do not understand why the which it could take advice and operate. As the noble Government are resisting the amendment when it is a Lord, Lord Greaves said, some may be generated by simple device for clearing up any possible confusion. what the council is doing at that moment. The whole issue needs rethinking, and that is why we have tabled Lord Patel of Bradford: I agree with the noble Lord the Question whether Clause 18 should stand part of that the word is somewhat ambiguous. My speaking the Bill. notes attempted to make that clear. However, a statement GC 83 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 84 in Parliament by a Minister on the Bill would be taken a photocopied document submitted to more than one into account by a court in seeking to work out what local authority. I hope that reassures the noble Lord the word means. We have a precedent for that in the and that he is prepared to withdraw his amendment. Pepper v Hart case. That means that it is important that the paragraph that I have just read out is clearly Lord Borrie: I have a further point about Amendment stated in Hansard. 91A. The Minister was perfectly correct in saying that, Amendments 126 and 128 relate to Clause 18 and if there is ambiguity in legislation nowadays, the House address the issue of the provisions which local authorities of Lords in its judicial capacity in Pepper and Hart may make in their petition schemes in addition to said that a ministerial statement in the course of the those set out in this chapter—such as the process of debate, which can be read in Hansard, can be used to dealing with petitions that are not valid, which are clarify that ambiguity. Surely, however, if there is an made to more than one authority and those made to opportunity in the course of the debate to clear up the one local authority but which clearly relate to the ambiguity by presenting in the Bill a better, clearer functions of another. Noble Lords have said clearly form of words, it would be better to do that than to what their feelings are on this. Amendment 126 would leave it open to doubt so that, in years to come, change the status of these issues from suggestions to somebody, somewhere, in some local authority—some requirements for inclusion in petitions schemes. solicitor at some expense—has to check Hansard for The issues we have listed in Clause 18(2) are practical 28 January 2009. I do not know whether he would points which may well come to light when a scheme even find it in the index very easily. It is usually better gets under way. They are therefore particularly worth to clarify an ambiguity, if there is one, before going highlighting to local authorities for possible inclusion any further with the legislation. in their petition scheme. I do not believe, however, that a scheme would grind to a halt if they were not Lord Patel of Bradford: The issues raised create included. Local authorities can take sensible decisions some ambiguity and it would be helpful to have the for themselves on how they approach these points and position clarified; therefore, between now and Report the range of others that will be important to them in it may be worth having another look at the phrasing. their local context. Inclusion of a list has a specific legal effect of Lord Greaves: I am very grateful for that comment. identifying the nature of the discretion being exercised I cannot believe that the Hansard of this Grand Committee by the principal authorities. A similar effect might be will not become a bestseller and be read by everyone in obtained by placing the list within guidance but, as the land. I read most of Monday’s proceedings in bed has already been said, that would be less certain, as last night. It was a great help in getting to sleep, so I guidance is simply suggestions on what can be taken am afraid that I missed the last two pages. When I up. Noble Lords clearly feel very strongly about this woke in the morning, I thought, “What’s this in the bed?”. issue, and it would probably be worth discussing it further. I should be happy to meet before Report to On the previous group, I was remiss in not thanking look through this in a bit more detail. the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who has temporarily left his place. I apologise to him for not having noticed that he was sitting behind me. Baroness Hamwee: The Government are arguing He is a far greater expert than I am on the City of that local authorities should have flexibility and then London. One of my noble friends has reminded me say that having a list sets out the sorts of things that that one of his predecessors as a Member of Parliament might be included. If they wish to achieve flexibility, for Westminster was John Stuart Mill, who I think in a they should not have the list at all because, by including recent poll of Liberal Democrats was voted as the one, they prescribe, limit and restrict what might be greatest ever Liberal, so the noble Lord follows in a added. I am happy to talk about this outside Committee fine tradition. and take the issues further. I have also been remiss in not adding my commiserations to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, Lord Patel of Bradford: We have highlighted the for not being able to be here today. We have been issues that we think are particularly relevant as a impressed by her interest and performance as the guide, almost. However, there is a point worth discussing Conservative spokesman in this Grand Committee on further before Report. the first Bill for which she has been responsible. I hope Amendment 128 provides that, that someone can pass that on to her. We look forward “a valid petition that is presented to one principal authority may very much to her being back next time—not that we be photocopied for the purpose of presenting the same petition do not want to see the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, concurrently to another principal authority”. as well. Clause 18(2)(c) already suggests that local authorities In looking at this legislation, I have three principles may wish to make provision in their petition scheme regarding what we should try to persuade the Government setting out how they will handle a petition which to change. The first is to question whether the legislation relates to the functions of another local authority. is a good thing. We sometimes win on that but usually Whether they will wish to set out photocopying we do not because we are told that the House of arrangements, I do not know, but it is certainly open Commons makes these decisions and it is not for us to to them to do so. In case there is any doubt about the say whether as a whole it is a good thing. Secondly, matter, I reassure the noble Lord that there is nothing and importantly, is the practical question of whether in this Bill that would make a petition invalid if it were it will work or whether it will cause problems. I hope GC 85 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 86

[LORD GREAVES] with them. If they wished to do so, they could add that the Government will agree that much of our recommendations, but I am not sure what they would probing on this business of petitions is done on that be because it is not my area. That is the sensible thing practical basis. We do not want a scheme that will not to do, and Clause 12(1)(b) seems to prevent it. work but will cause problems and make matters worse. Therefore, Amendment 92 inserts, Finally, even if we cannot get any changes at all to the “or to make representations to any other body in support of the meaning of the legislation, lawyers such as my noble matters referred to in the petition”. friend Lady Hamwee and pedants like me think that it That may include taking other measures to back that is important to at least establish what the words mean. up. It may be that the district council wants to mount Therefore, I am grateful that the Minister has agreed some kind of information campaign in favour of the to look again at the ambiguity. matter petitioned about. Perhaps the town council There is a difficulty with what the Minister said wants the matter to go up to the district council. It about local authorities being able to exclude certain seems sensible to put this provision into the Bill to things from the scheme because it would not work make it clear that not only can councillors receive locally. He said that local authorities can take sensible petitions about things that they are not directly involved decisions to exclude some issues. However, under this with, but they can take a limited amount of action on legislation, they cannot do that. Clause 14(4) says that them and refer them. the Secretary of State, not the local authority, will Amendment 111 inserts three paragraphs. The first make that decision. Local authorities will be able to states that, act only under decisions made by the Secretary of State. If the clause simply said that local authorities “a principal local authority that receives a petition on a matter that does not relate to the function of the authority but relates to could exclude things that it was sensible to exclude in a matter which is the responsibility of one or more of its partner their area for good reasons—in other words, if it left it authorities may fulfil the requirements of this Chapter by referring up to them and trusted them to do it—we would be the petition to that authority or those authorities”. very happy. The second states that, We are willing to meet the Ministers on all these “where such a reference takes place, the partner authority or matters at any time before Report to see whether we authorities shall deal with the petition according to the provisions can improve the legislation. We clearly have a difference of this Chapter as if they were the principal local authority”. of view on the quality of the legislation as it stands, This is important because otherwise the body that but if we can improve it we will be a little less unhappy receives a petition referred, for example, from a district than we would otherwise have been. I beg leave to council to the county council or from a district council withdraw the amendment. to a primary care trust, may just shrug its shoulders and do nothing about it because it has not been Amendment 91A withdrawn. addressed to it and therefore does not fall within the provisions of the Bill. The third paragraph defines 4.30 pm “partner authority”. These are important provisions in order for petitions to be taken seriously in an environment in Amendment 92 which we have a lot of different authorities with Moved by Lord Greaves different but interlocking and overlapping functions. Otherwise petitions will fall at the first hurdle by 92: Clause 12, page 7, line 30, at end insert “or to make representations to any other body in support of the matters being given to the wrong authority. referred to in the petition” Lord Hanningfield: I support the amendments. The Lord Greaves: I shall also speak to Amendment 111. noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has highlighted the We are still on the question of valid petitions and the problems in two-tier authorities and, as the leader of hoops that a petition has to jump through in order to a county council, obviously I recognise them. One be declared valid. Clause 12(1)(b) states that a valid tries to work with one’s district colleagues to resolve petition, them. “requests the authority to take or cease to take action described I am more concerne, however, with what could be in the petition”. called necessarily partner authorities, such as PCTs That seems to fly in the face of the view expressed in and so on. But there are also bodies over which local the previous debate, that authorities can receive petitions government should have some control; for example, that do not refer to their functions and on which they Network Rail. We talked about anecdotal evidence; I cannot take any sensible action, other than to pass have a problem in Frinton, a nice little town on the them to another authority and express a view about Essex coast. The town’s gates close it off from the rest them. of the world—Frinton used not to have a pub. The I have already referred to the petitioners of Mansfield residents love the gates; however, for safety reasons, Crescent, who want a one-way system, and those of Network Rail wants to change them; therefore there Chapel House Road, who want traffic-calming measures. has been a big petition. The county council is, of The only sensible way that Pendle councillors could course, the highway authority; but Network Rail has a deal with those petitions was to pass them to the statutory power to change things and, as leader of the county council, probably to the Lancashire local county council, I am getting the blame for it. I have committee of the county council, in order for it to deal received many e-mails and so on. GC 87 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 88

There needs to be clarity because, although we prescribe. I do not want to overstate the extent of the received the petition, it was Network Rail’s decision in burden which might be placed on the councils by the the end. I am sorry to add to the complications but we new duty to take steps after receiving a petition relating need to think through how one can deal with these to functions of partner authorities, because the obligation matters effectively. is to do what is appropriate. I stress that we are not trying to put councils under any duty to deal with Baroness Andrews: This is a useful debate because matters over which they have no effective control, but the way in which the principal authority relates to its it is important to make sure that they can act more partners, the connected authorities defined in the Bill, than as a post box, that they can act as advocates and and to bodies which are not strictly speaking its partners make that connection with a partner authority. is complicated. The example of the petition given by Amendment 92 would provide that valid petitions, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, demonstrated exactly those that trigger an acknowledgement, would include what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said about those requesting authorities to make representations the complication of a two-tier authority. People do to any other bodies in support of the matters referred not know who is responsible for what, or to whom to to. It would require them to act as advocates. It is right direct their petition, and part of the purpose of the that that is provided for, but the aim is better achieved Bill is to make that clear and to publicise it. by Clause 14 because it places a requirement on the On some of the broader issues about our approach, unitary and top-tier authorities to respond to petitions Clause 12(1)(b) certainly does not stop councils passing on issues of economic, social or environmental well-being on petitions to partner authorities or to anyone else. as well as those in relation to functions. Those types of That is part of their responsibility. I shall come back principal authority are well placed to respond to that. to that issue in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, made a telling Clause 14 requires principal local authorities in point about Network Rail. If a private-sector England and Wales to take steps in regard to petitions company—or a public-sector company such as Network relating to their functions. It also requires unitary and Rail—acted in a way that damaged a local community’s top-tier principal authorities in England to take steps economic, social or environmental well-being, the in response to petitions relating to an improvement in appropriate authorities should be required to respond the economic, social or environmental well-being to to petitions on those issues. Under Clause 14(2)(b), which any of the partner authorities can contribute. they are. They can take them up on behalf of their That is there for a purpose. It means that unitary and constituents even though we are not there talking top-tier councils which co-ordinate the local area about connected authorities. The problem with agreements—and therefore have the identified partners Amendment 92, however, is that it would extend that represented in this Bill, but in a slightly different form requirement to any body irrespective of whether it from the 2007 Act, which we discussed at some length— discharged functions over which the principal local bring everyone involved appropriately into the net. authorities had any influence, or where they were. We There are also performance indicators around the might find, for example, a pressure group urging a local area agreements which are shared and promoted local authority to act as an advocate to improve conditions by partners. This means that if, for example, a local in a sweatshop—there is no end to the possibilities person were to raise an issue such as GP opening that might come under the term “any other body”. It hours or crime and present it to the local authority, does nothing for the efficacy of petitions or for a local they would then—because of the local area agreement authority’s reputation to bring the local authority into and the way in which the connected authorities work effective engagement such as that, as I expect they in partnership—have the right to ensure that the local would agree. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the authority acted and that it presented and stated their amendment. case to partner authorities. That is basically what we are trying to achieve in this part of the Bill. Amendment 111 proposes almost the opposite It is possible that people will contact directly the approach. It provides that, instead of putting the case organisations responsible—they might go directly to for their communities’ wider concerns, principal local the PCT in the case of GP opening hours—because authorities would simply forward petitions on wider that clearly will be quicker and easier. However, if they issues to the relevant bodies—in fact, they would wash are not happy with the response they receive or they their hands of them. That is not in the spirit of what do not know about the PCT’s own arrangements, we are trying to achieve. A single point of contact is they can go to the local authority; they have that beneficial, particularly with two-tier authorities, but it further option. It will then be up to the authority to does not achieve the wider objective of increasing the decide how to respond, and it can do so in a wide community’s involvement in the interaction between number of ways. principal and partner authorities. It would also lead to some practical problems. I do not want overstate what the authority could do. It might hold a meeting with the public body The Bill achieves a similar outcome but more effectively. concerned to enable its constituents to put across their Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State the power to views. It might simply ask a PCT for a response to the make provision for the handling of petitions by any petition and send it on. It might respond to the petition type of local authority on the list. The Secretary of organiser and say that it does not think that the action State could therefore place a duty on those bodies to called for is necessary and that it does not intend to respond to petitions, but she would do so only if there take the matter forward. It has an enormous amount seemed to be a real need for it or the need had been of options, which we would not in any way wish to driven by the bodies. Moreover, she would do so only GC 89 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 90

[BARONESS ANDREWS] I hear what the Minister says. When I was reading this, after consultation, devising a system that would take I understood it to mean that petitions would be presented into account the governance structures of the relevant to those bodies, but if it also encompasses petitions bodies. I believe that the Bill will ensure that people that are presented to the principal local authority and can petition on a wide range of local issues. It also passed on to those bodies, that is an interesting and ensures that provision for the handling of petitions by wider interpretation than I had previously thought. I other local authorities can be made, if needed, in a think it is wider than how most people just coming to way that takes into account the nature of those it will understand it. Again, perhaps we might discuss organisations. the exact wording to make absolutely clear what it I am advised by the invisible people behind me that includes. Although I feel that there is further discussion there is a slight inaccuracy in what I said a little while to be had on the basic issue, I beg leave to withdraw ago. A principal authority is only required to respond the amendment. to a petition relating to economic, social or environmental well-being as defined in the Bill if any of its partner Amendment 92 withdrawn. authorities could contribute. Under the flexibility allowed in Clause 19, they could of course respond in any way in any event, but they are only required to do so under Amendment 93 the conditions I have described. Moved by Lord Greaves 93: Clause 12, page 7, line 31, leave out “at least the specified 4.45 pm number of” Baroness Hamwee: Notwithstanding the Minister’s comment about flexibility, I should like it clearly Lord Greaves: We are still on the question of valid understood that local authorities can respond to anything petitions. This group of amendments questions a number they want. Including a provision about a “relevant of the requirements of validity set out in the Bill. In matter” consolidates the confusion to which the noble speaking to the amendment, I shall speak also to the Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred. Economic, social other amendments in the group. I am grateful to the and environmental well-being issues to which a partner Conservative spokespeople for adding their name to authority could contribute suggests that there is more the lead amendment. responsibility on the local authority, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid. We are not trying to avoid This all applies to restrictions on the question of dialogue with local people but to get straight who validity as it applies to petitions. Amendments 93, 99 carries the can and has the legal powers to do certain and 129 refer to the concept of a valid petition having things. I am sure that there is a lot that the local to have at least a specified number on the petition authority can carry only a few inches forward. It will before it can be regarded as valid. Amendment 100 not be able to solve the problem. refers to the provision that the petition must include a date on which each person has signed the petition, Lord Greaves: I am slightly confused because I presumably next to their signature. Amendment 100 thought we had an amendment relating to the issue of would remove that provision. Amendment 97 would a “relevant matter”. remove the provision that, “if the petition is in electronic form”, Baroness Andrews: We have. it must be, “made using the authority’s e-petition facility”, Lord Greaves: Where is it? which has been set up in Clause 10. Those are three specific restrictions that we would Baroness Andrews: It is Amendment 117. not like to see in the Bill. On the first of them, the question of a number, the problem is that circumstances Lord Greaves: That is right. I thought that we were differ according to different petitions. In a large unitary discussing this a little prematurely, so I will say no county such as Northumberland or Cornwall or a more about it at the moment. large shire county such as Lancashire or North Yorkshire The Minister suggested that Amendment 92 was where people are petitioning about a general policy—for too wide ranging. She will be pleased to learn that I no increase in the council tax precept from those agree with her; I put it down to probe and provoke, authorities in the coming year, perhaps, or for an and to get a discussion going. However, I am clear that increase of a certain amount to do a certain thing, the Bill is too narrow and that we should find a form although that is fairly rare nowadays—it is reasonable of wording somewhere in between. Perhaps we might for the authority to take account of the number of discuss that further with her, but it may well also refer people signing the petition. If, in the whole of to Amendment 117. Northumberland, only five people consisting of my I think that what the Minister said about Clause 20 noble friend Lady Maddock and her neighbours sign was wrong in this context. The clause is about the it, the authority is perfectly entitled to regard it with handling of petitions by other bodies and provides that degree of seriousness. If, on the other hand, that the Secretary of State in England and the appropriate 100,000 people sign it, the authority will regard it with national authority in Wales—the Welsh Assembly—may a different degree of seriousness. But that is all down by order, to common sense being applied by the authority, and “make provision for the handling of petitions by any body to the Government do not seem to be prepared to accept which this section applies”. that authorities are capable of that. GC 91 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 92

In different circumstances, a petition signed by six and say to them, “Sorry, your petition is invalid because people might be perfectly sensible. If the residents of you have not obeyed all our bureaucratic, narrow the street in which I live, where there are about a dozen instructions”. adults, send a petition to the local council with six Electronic petitioning is a very important matter. signatures, and I have refused to sign it because I am a The Bill requires local authorities to set up an e-petition member of the local council and therefore it is coming facility. We support that; we think it is a very good to me, that is a majority—six out of 11. That petition idea for them to have that on their websites. What we therefore deserves to be treated with every possible do not say is that that automatically excludes any seriousness by whichever body of the council is discussing other petitions gathered by any other people or any it. The residents might want the street lighting to be other organisations on their own websites. That seems improved, or something like that. to be totally restrictive. If the local Women’s Institute wants to gather a petition by electronic means, why These are matters that must be left to local should it not be allowed to do so? It can then present circumstances and local flexibility. When talking about that petition to the council, either by printing it off numbers, the Minister said that it was okay and that and handing it in, which will get a press story, or by all that the regulations would say was that the council sending it by e-mail, which might get a press story, but must set minimum numbers for petitions and can set it will not get a nice picture so they will probably print different minimum numbers for different purposes. We it off. are back to the council employing people to work out What are the Government going to do? What do those schemes and systems and having reams of detailed they think that councils should do if people organise requirements. Then the barrack-room lawyers in the petitions in this way? Are they going to reject them council, who may be council solicitors or councillors, just because they have been gathered by electronic will say that it does not fit and is not valid. That sort of means? It is a ridiculous bit of the Bill, and should be silly argument goes on—and the more detailed prescription removed. there is, the more that silly argument goes on. It is a fact of life. Whereas if people are left to take decisions Amendment 103 is probing. It simply suggests that in a sensible, common-sense, flexible way, without petitions should not be declared invalid because some being tied down and hidebound by these Gulliver of the people who have contributed to the petition and rules, they will get on a lot better. So we want to take signed it have not obeyed the rules, or are not valid out the numbers. persons to sign it. Therefore, if a council receives a petition signed by 200 people and it turns out that The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, said that in 25 of them do not live, work or study in the council’s his view a petition signed by two people from different area, and if the council has wasted a lot of staff time households was a letter, not a petition. That is fair and money working this out, it cannot reject the enough. Letters have to be taken seriously as well, petition because there are still 175 who do. Equally, if which is where the flexibility comes in. If some councils the petition includes more information than is required, do not respond seriously to what residents say, that is such as e-mail addresses, which nowadays it might fair enough. In informal conversation with the noble well do, or telephone numbers, that does not make it Baroness, Lady Andrews, the number “two” came up. invalid. I think I will get a sensible answer on that, but I asked her, “What happens if there is a petition from a it is something that has to be probed. little settlement with only three or four houses?”. She Amendment 121 refers to the six-month rule the said that two people might count as a petition, and I Government wish to introduce. It refers to Clause 14, agree with her. That sort of flexibility needs to be in a part of the Bill we have not yet reached, on how a the provisions. Therefore, we do not need national valid petition can become an active petition. This is rules, regulations, guidance and everything else; we another piece of extraordinary voodoo or local just need to be allowed to get on it. bureaucracy, where a petition first has to become a valid petition and then has to become an active petition. The requirement that people should put on the Only civil servants can dream up this kind of thing. document the date they sign it is ludicrous. Most The amendment refers to that part of the Bill. informal petitions will be declared invalid because Nevertheless, it is a restriction and states that if a they will not have dates on them. It is as simple as that. petition of the same or similar nature has been submitted Official petitions or petitions organised by political within the previous six months, it will not be an active parties or pressure groups will have the date on because petition. officials will know about the rules and regulations. However, such requirements will exclude the very people the Government say they want to bring into local 5pm democracy—people who are perhaps more excluded It may well be that a council wants to act sensibly. If from the system and do not feel at home with a council receives a petition, goes through its decision- bureaucracies, official systems, councils and so on. making processes and makes a decision and then an Such a requirement will exclude people and large identical petition is received three weeks later, the numbers of petitions. People wanting to draw up a council will simply write back saying that it has just petition about something happening in their area do made that decision. On the other hand, there may well not run off to the council or anywhere else to find out be circumstances in which a council wishes to reconsider what the rules are. They do not even look on the a decision within six months when it receives a petition internet. They go out and collect signatures and then disagreeing with the decision. For example, a highways they hand it in. You cannot turn around afterwards authority comes up with a programme of new puffin GC 93 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 94

[LORD GREAVES] a business constituent wrote to one of my average crossings, and a particular puffin crossing is not in the constituency colleagues in the House of Commons, programme, so people petition and ask why the crossing 14 people wrote to me, thus causing something of an that local councillors had promised is not in the scheme. imbalance in the ordinary correspondence. But no That petition goes through the system and is rejected taxation without representation: they were writing because there are no more resources for the crossing. about matters which their companies were perfectly Then, miraculously, three or four months later, for entitled to follow up. whatever reason, the council discovers that it has more On the common sense issue, because the two Cities resources to put into puffin crossings. It makes an are where they are, there were also people who wrote announcement that it has the money for three more to me after getting into difficulties with parking, having crossings and asks where they should be, and the same come from a long way away. It was perfectly clear, people then put in a similar petition asking for one of given that the two Cities cover quite a large area, that the extra three crossings. Are the Government saying the individuals who wrote to me would not have the that the council should reject that petition and say that faintest prayer of knowing which local councillor was it is not an active petition because it has already responsible for the parking attendants working for been discussed in the previous six months? That is Westminster City Council or the Corporation of London. nonsense. Because they were not an excessive number, I would The Government are proposing to lay down detailed, take up matters on their behalf, and thereby hangs a rigid rules when what is required is sensible local moral tale. flexibility. This argument is made all the time by the One of the people who wrote to me in just that way noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and by the Liberal was a photographer from Norwich who had contracts Democrats. The rule is unnecessary. If the Government all over the country. Out of good sense, because he want rules, it may be that the council should have the was used to being fined by the parking attendant power to reject a petition, but for legislation to lay ostensibly because his wheels were outside the white down that a petition is not an active petition in those lines, he took a photograph of every parking space in circumstances is absolute nonsense. which he parked his car so that he would have evidence to support a complaint about the fine which had been Lord Hanningfield: I support the noble Lord, Lord levied on him. As a consequence, the Corporation of Greaves. I thank him for the forensic analysis he has London decided that all its parking attendants would done of this part of the Bill. Without him going carry cameras so that when they accused somebody of through this in tremendous detail, some of these matters an offence they would have documentary evidence would not have arisen. I am grateful to him. which would be conclusive if the man complained. So This is getting a bit ridiculous. I do not like doing I wholly agree with my noble friend and the noble this anecdotal stuff, but I received a petition yesterday Lord, Lord Greaves, that common sense is a very from about eight people on Canvey Island about a valuable instrument to enable one to make these decisions. roundabout between two roads, and I will try to deal with it. I would not like to find any reason to rule it out of order. As a leader of a council, I would not like Baroness Andrews: I, too, completely agree. The to find any reason to rule any petition out of order. I example given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, proves would want to try to help and deal with the problem, why we need a definition of who should be eligible to whether the petition was signed by four, 10 or 5,000 submit petitions that includes the phrase “live, work people. To a certain extent, some of the regulation or study” and why we need a clear and accessible here is contrary to the first part of the Bill, which tries petition scheme. He is right that we are talking about to promote local democracy, its popularity and the common sense. That is what I would say to the noble way it works. If we were to rule all these petitions out Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in relation to his last point, for various reasons, it would be harmful. Any good and I shall say it again. There is nothing to prevent a authority would try to deal with problems that come in. principal authority responding to a petition which I was grateful that the Minister said she will have either duplicates a recently received petition or raises a discussions, but they need to be not simply with the matter which is outside the terms of reference of a LGA but with practitioners in the field—officials, not petition scheme or does not fulfil it. Councils can do necessarily elected people—who, in large authorities, that in addition to their formal petition scheme, and I have petitions about something or other coming in am sure that they will go on doing that. every day. Some of this could harm dealing with the The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has been rather public on a day-to-day basis because there is more rude about the Bill. I accept that he does not like the regulation than necessary. principle of it, but I have to take issue with his remark that this is something that civil servants have dreamt Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be brief. up. That is not fair to officials, who work hard and It is now 40 years since I was a councillor in the conscientiously; it is not fair to our parliamentary London Borough of Camden, and I am not going to draftsmen, who work very hard to put matters into produce examples drawn from that local government proper legal language and ensure that they are as clear experience long ago. However, by analogy, I shall as possible. Ministers are responsible for these policies; make reference to the decisions I used to have to make we do our best to improve the well-being of our as the Member of Parliament for the Cities of London communities, and that is what the Bill is about. It is and Westminster, where 14 times as many people work about improving the accessibility of influence and than in the average consistency. Therefore, every time enabling our communities—those who do not normally GC 95 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 96 think of themselves as being influential or having any are needed to trigger a full council debate. We want voice or power in the community—to exert more that number not to be inappropriately high. We have influence. suggested that we will set a maximum threshold in the When the noble Lord talks about the rules and White Paper Communities in control: real people, real regulations we have constructed, particularly regarding power because we do not want to exclude appropriate thresholds, I think that we are living on a different and legitimate requests for such a debate. Apart from planet. My argument on thresholds is that, with one that, there are no plans to intervene unless there is exception, we have made no rules. The threshold limits evidence that councils are setting thresholds so high as will be set by local authorities according to their to make their petition schemes nugatory. I hope the circumstances. They may well have a threshold for a noble Lord is reassured that we do not intend to use policy issue which covers the whole community, such guidance or orders to place additional requirements as council tax. But they may well specify that a small on councils. issue such as allotments which affects fewer people I have more sympathy with what the noble Lord can have a different threshold. It is entirely up to local said about the date. It would be open to councils to authorities. All we are providing for is that, if the respond to petitions which are not dated, and I am council feels it has to call a full council meeting, it has sure that many of them would choose to do so. The to have a maximum ceiling of 5 per cent. If authorities point about the date is that it is useful for authorities choose to set a nominal threshold of one or two to have a sense of how quickly signatures are collected. signatures, as Birmingham Council already does, it is A petition which has generated a huge number of up to them; they can do that. signatures in a fortnight is likely to suggest greater urgency than petitions which have accumulated signatures In this legislation we are trying to protect councils over a long period. The noble Lord referred the Committee from being legally required to spend time that they to several petitions which did not contain dates and judge to be excessive in responding to petitions. We are spoke about the lack of confidence of many people trying to make sure that they do not feel that they have about how to make a petition. Again, I will add this to to respond to so many petitions that petitioners will our discussion when we meet to talk about his concerns. end up with a superficial response. That would not serve any purpose. That is why we are leaving it up to Clause 12 provides that a petition is validly signed if authorities. It is not our aim to increase paperwork for someone signs it and states their name, address and councils. the date. Amendment 103 seeks to provide that valid petitions are not invalidated by some signatures not There is a contradiction in the noble Lord’s argument: meeting these requirements or by their not being signed he wants more prescription but, at the same time, he electronically. I do not think that there needs to be an accuses us of being too prescriptive. In this very express provision in the Bill for this. Certainly, principal important area, we are not. Overall, permitting local authorities will have no lawful basis to refuse to respond authorities to set appropriate thresholds would best to petitions signed by 5,000 people just because one or deliver our principles of allowing local people to have two signatures were not dated, and so on. I do not their say and to receive a response, while building on think that there is ambiguity in how the legislation is best practice and protecting councils from unreasonable framed at this point but, to the extent that the noble burdens. Lord is afraid that there is, I hope that my clear Amendment 129 raises related issues. It seeks to statement on the issue will reassure him. remove the power for the appropriate national authority to make orders or issue guidance on the thresholds for valid petitions which trigger an acknowledgement, a 5.15 pm full council debate and a hearing of a senior officer. Clause 14(1)(c) provides that principal authorities This power is useful because it helps to minimise do not need to take substantive steps in response to requirements on councils. We will abide by this principle petitions which duplicate those dealt with in the previous in issuing any guidance, but I do not think that there six months. Amendment 121 would remove the exclusion should not be any guidance at all on these issues. of petitions on the same topic as one received within Guidance is intended to clarify and assist. It can give the last six months. This would mean that local authorities local authorities a clear idea of what is expected, and were required to respond to repetitive petitions. All we we will work with local authorities to make sure that it are trying to do here is to protect councils from is fit for purpose. As I have said, we intend to issue a unnecessary work; it also identifies for local campaigners model scheme and suggest thresholds in guidance, that there are time limits, which will focus what they which councils can choose to adopt if they wish. This are trying to achieve. I can see that six months is an model scheme is a guidance, a starting point, and we arbitrary figure and that different periods might be will work closely with the sector. appropriate. A year would be too long to wait. I take As with other examples of guidance, councils will the point that that would be unfair, if new information not be required by legal obligation to slavishly follow came to light. I think that six months is a happy what is contained in it. I cannot for a moment think medium. I am inclined not to accept that amendment. that councils such as Essex or Sutton would believe Amendment 97 removes the requirement on authorities that they would be. From the drafting of the chapter it to respond to a petition in electronic form only, when is clear that councils have considerable discretion to made using the authority’s e-petition facility. Certainly, create and operate their own schemes within the a petition signed by a number of people, scanned and framework set down. The principal authority will e-mailed to the authority but not made using the simply set out in its petition scheme how many signatures e-petition facility is not a petition in electronic form GC 97 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 98

[BARONESS ANDREWS] I think that I accept the Minister’s assurances on for our purposes. That would count as a paper petition Amendment 103, which concerns extra information and would be considered in the same way, because it on the form. It was tabled for probing purposes to would not have gone through the other formulation. get those assurances, and I shall read what the Minister I can see that, on the face of it, removing the said in Hansard. That seems to be a fairly sensible way requirement that, to be valid, petitions in electronic forward. form can be made only through the authority’s e-petition The only argument that the Minister seemed to facility would have some merit. The noble Lord spoke come up with in favour of including a date was that it powerfully about that. It would require a response to would help local authorities to know how quickly the electronic petitions created on sites such as Facebook petition had been collected. I do not know of a single and the WI, but there are some serious practical petition that has ever come to an authority of which I problems here. It would be quite difficult to work out have been a member where that information has been whether a petition was validly signed. For the e-petition in doubt. There is an assumption that the people, facility, the authority can establish what counts as a particularly councillors, who deal with these matters signature. Clause 12(4) provides for that, and I said the have no idea what is going on in their area, and that other day that there is a requirement for the e-petition when they get a petition from someone, they have no scheme to include a UK postcode. With e-petitions idea who the person is, where they are from, what their outside a local authority’s control, there would be no background is, what their agenda is or what activity way to know what conditions applied. Also, it would has produced it—whether it is a group of local residents, undermine part of what we are trying to do, which is an organised pressure group in the area or a political to bring everything together in one place. It also party. We know all these things. We do not need dates renders prompt feedback difficult. to know whether a petition has been signed during the The amendment would also make it much more past fortnight or whether it has taken six months. We difficult to integrate petitions into other parts of the know what is on local websites and in the local press local authority’s website and its decision-making stories covering these issues. We know that if a petition procedures. Lambeth recently announced an e-petition is in response to an event that occurred a week ago, it facility which allows a petition organiser to link a has been signed in the past week. When I say “we” in petition with an up-coming council, forging effective this context, I believe, and hope, that I am referring to links between decisions and petitions in their areas. local councillors throughout the land. They are not Integration is possible only when an e-petition facility stupid, although the Government think that they are. is provided by the principal local authority and the The Minister indicates that she does not think that petition is made through that facility. In any case, in they are stupid but, in that case, why does she insist on response to questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord treating them as though they were? This two-tier system Hanningfield and Lord Greaves, local authorities do is to be found throughout this issue, and that is what not have to reject these petitions; they can answer we are trying to get away from. them as they choose to, as they do now. They have the discretion to accept them and respond to them. They The Minister reprimanded me for being rude about will not be legally required to do so, but they will be the Bill and about civil servants. I accept the second able to respond to them as they wish. reprimand but not the first. This part of the Bill is absolutely dreadful and I shall go on being as rude as I In the spirit of the debate, we seek to encourage possibly can about it. I do so, as I think I said on people to take advantage of new technologies if they Monday, partly because I want to rescue the Government have local concerns. I shall consider further whether from their own folly. When the Bill is enacted, they will current drafting would mean that petitions were rejected on be seen to be ridiculous, although the two Ministers technical grounds. I shall go on thinking about that. here are certainly not ridiculous. I respect them both greatly and I do not want them to be seen as that, but Lord Greaves: I thought that I was going to seriously the legislation that they are promoting is ridiculous. fall out with the Minister just then, but her last sentence was fairly emollient. So long as she continues to I have a caveat relating to civil servants: I do not say think—because she is a sensible, thinking Minister—we that a huge amount of diligence has not gone into all will consider that there is a possibility of light at the this; in my view, there has been far too much. Those end of the tunnel and we will go on discussing the people could have been doing a useful job. However, matter with her. this part of the legislation is clearly the result of a great deal of time and energy. I say that to local Everything that the Minister said in answer to these government officials all the time when they are doing amendments was based on the notion that there will the Government’s bidding. Civil servants do not just be a two-tier petition system in local authorities after have a responsibility to do Ministers’ bidding; they this legislation is brought in. There will be valid petitions, also have a responsibility to give Ministers sensible some of which will become active petitions, and then advice. If I criticise civil servants in respect of this, it is there will be the rest, and inevitably that will cause because they are not going back to Ministers and problems. We discussed this briefly on Monday. It will saying, “What you’re asking us to do is a load of result in a two-tier system and huge confusion. People balderdash”, and I believe it is. I could say that it is will go around saying, “That’s a valid petition”, and baloney, but I had better not pursue that or I might get inevitably people will then think that the others are into trouble. not valid. We must put in place a system whereby each local authority can cope with petitions in a sensible, I accept that the Minister is responsible, which is locally based and flexible way. why we are arguing with the Government. She said GC 99 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 100 that the Government will not use the guidance to add message, get the response wrong, tell some signatories further requirements. Speaking personally, I do not but not others, or not inform any of his fellow signatories believe her—guidance always provides additional at all. The local authority will have followed all the requirements. If it does not, what is its purpose? She steps the Government have set out but through some said that she did not want councillors to respond to so failure or error on the part of the single petition many petitions that it would be a huge burden with organiser, no one else who signed the petition will be which they could not cope, and that it was not the aim any the wiser. to increase the number of petitions. I thought that that The Minister said—and I hope that I am summarising was the whole purpose of the clause; it is certainly her comments correctly—that the provisions on petitions what we would like. We would like to see much more are not here just for the sake of it but will improve the activity and agitation, with people taking an interest interaction between people and their local authority in what is going on and submitting petitions, among and get them to feel engaged and enfranchised. Yet I lots of other things that they can do to take part in have suggested a scenario where the opposite could local democracy. So I am sure that the Minister did happen. not really mean that. What I have suggested is a worst-case scenario. As for the numbers and thresholds, you can have However, I have been trying to work out what benefits big issues covering a whole area but with a small might accrue from the provision. I have reached the proportion of people on the petition, and then you conclusion, I am afraid, that benefits will indeed accrue, have small local issues with only a few signing a but to the so-called “petition organiser” who all of a petition but who make up a higher proportion of the sudden now has an important role that is laid down in people. How is the council going to set these thresholds? statute, no less. Someone more cynical might start to I accept that they will be set by local authorities, but wonder if the kind of person who would dominate just working out the thresholds and the regulations petitions—an activist, one might call such a person—might will be a burden on them. spy in this provision an opportunity to seek influence I do not think that we shall get any further today. I and power for himself or herself. look forward to further discussion about this—I think. A “petition organiser” approved by statute would I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. wield influence and sway over other signatories. Indeed, a very cynical person might suggest that the sort of Amendment 93 withdrawn. activist who would most appreciate the creation of the role of petition organiser would be one who has failed 5.26 pm to get elected, or who has failed to get re-elected in the Sitting suspended. past few local council elections. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that 5.36 pm petitions should be about helping to solve genuine grievances. We drafted Amendment 107 in that spirit. Amendment 94 not moved. It would allow local authorities to respond to all the petitioners in the best way they see fit, be it by notice in the local paper, a library window, a group e-mail, or Amendment 95 whatever. The important thing is that people who sign a petition may be sure that they are being taken Moved by Baroness Morris of Bolton seriously, and not manipulated in some way. We have 95: Clause 12, page 7, line 33, leave out paragraph (d) included “valid signatories” in the amendment. That does not negate any criticisms we have made of the Baroness Morris of Bolton: I shall speak also to Government’s plans to distinguish valid petitions from Amendments 102 and 107 in the names of my noble non-valid ones. We are simply trying to show friends Lady Warsi and Lord Hanningfield. We are accommodation so that we can achieve a better piece somewhat puzzled by, and do not agree with, the fact of legislation. I hope that the Minister will take these that a petition must have nominated one person as its provisions away and consider them carefully. I beg organiser through whom the local authority will to move. communicate. On the face of it, this seems reasonable enough and I am sure that the Minister will reassure The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Paul): I the Committee that this provision is solely intended to remind Members of the Committee that mobile phones make things as easy as possible and minimise paperwork should be switched off so that they do not interfere or confusion, but I am afraid that we see flaws in with the recording. this plan. With regard to having a designated organiser in Lord Greaves: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, order for a petition to be valid, it seems odd, to begin Lady Morris, for moving the amendment. I should with, that the Government, having gone to such great like to speak to Amendments 95, 102, 108, 115 and and detailed lengths to set out every stage of a petition’s 136. With one exception, they are about petition organisers. life and what the local authority must do at every Once again, the Government are saying that unless stage, then effectively wash their hands of what happens there is a clearly defined petition organiser on the to it. The local authority will dutifully go through all petition, it is not valid. This again is an undue restriction the steps required, then communicate back to the to put on primary legislation or, indeed in guidance. It single petition organiser who might lose the letter, can be left to councils’ common sense and ways of miss the phone call, delete the e-mail, mix up the working. Some councils will want to codify that. GC 101 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 102

[LORD GREAVES] Pendle, along with many other authorities, is not up to I referred on Monday to councils that had provided speed with the use of its website in these matters, and me with advice on what they do. City of Bradford the Government should encourage them to be more Metropolitan District Council has a sensible two-page so. However, they should not produce lots of detail on protocol for petitions handed in at the council office. how to do it in national legislation. It states quite clearly: “When a member of the public hands in a petition at any Council office, the Receiving Department will issue an initial Lord Patel of Bradford: I welcome the noble Baroness, written receipt”. Lady Morris, who is standing in for her two noble It continues: friends. The amendments address principally the issue “The contact details of the lead petitioner must be obtained at of the petition organiser. Amendment 115 looks at this stage”. publishing information on a website. That is an entirely sensible thing for the council to Clause 12 requires one of the valid signatories to a make a rule about because the name and address of petition to be designated the “petition organiser” in the petition organiser can be obtained when somebody order for a petition to be valid. As noble Lords have is handing it in at a council office. That may not said, Amendment 95 would remove the requirement always be the case. For example, the East Sussex for someone to declare themselves the petition organiser council constitution states: for the petition to be valid. Amendment 102 is “Where appropriate, the Chairman shall refer the petition to consequential, removing the definition of “petition the Cabinet or relevant Cabinet member or, if appropriate, the organiser” from the clause. relevant Scrutiny Committee, and, where he or she does this, the Amendment 108 seeks to take a pragmatic approach person signing the covering letter accompanying the petition or, if to situations where a petition organiser has not been there is no such letter, the first signatory or another person identified. It requires that, where no petition organiser nominated by them, shall be invited to address the Cabinet, the relevant Cabinet member”, has been identified on the petition, or made themselves and so on. Then it will go on to the person whom the known to the local authority, the authority consider council tells what it is doing about it. That is sensible the first valid name on the list to be the petition practice. It means that petitions are dealt with sensibly organiser. I accept that this is a clear and simple and a common-sense decision is made about whom to approach and would solve the problem of the local communicate with. The Government say that the petition authority having a point of contact. I fear, however, organiser has to be named, which is too prescriptive. It that it could be considerably less attractive to someone should be left to councils and they will be all right. who had been deemed petition organiser rather than having volunteered for the job. It could come as quite a shock to someone to discover that, having put their name to a petition, they had been thrust into the 5.45 pm position of primary contact with the authority, with Amendment 115 is rather different, proposing that their name having been published on its website and the details of a particular petition should be placed on having to take decisions on whether to request a a council website. It states: review of its response. It might put someone off signing a petition in the future. That is not to say, of course, “When an authority has accepted a petition as being valid, it shall publish on its website the text of the petition, the name of that petitions should be dismissed out of hand because the petition organiser, the number of valid signatures, and information a petition organiser has not been identified—I need to about the way that the petition will be considered by the authority make that really clear. We would expect an authority and, where appropriate, the democratic arrangements that will presented with something that is manifestly a petition apply in its consideration”. but which fails to identify an organiser to do the The clear implication is that the decisions will then be sensible thing and contact one of the signatories. In put there as well. the two examples that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, That is an extremely sensible use of a website. gave, we would expect Bradford and Sutton would do Whether it should be set out in that detail in national the sensible thing and pick up the phone and say, “We legislation is a question on which the Minister might could do with an organiser on this one”, and seek one chide me, but it is a sensible thing for councils to do. out. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will not As with the previous matters relating to websites that press Amendment 108. we have discussed, councils need jollying along to Amendments 107 and 125 take a different approach make much better use of their websites for public to communication in situations where a petition organiser involvement and participation in their decision-making has not been identified. Amendment 107 would require side. the local authority to send written acknowledgements The Minister chided me on Monday by saying that to every valid signatory of the petition. Amendment 125 her officials had spent some time visiting Pendle council’s would require the same approach in relation to notification website to try to find out what it said about petitions and the reasoning behind the authority’s response to and could not find anything. I have been a little more the petition. Both amendments would allow the authority successful and have found what it says. It does not set to take these steps in whatever way it considered down a general scheme, but the agendas of each appropriate. Nevertheless, a requirement to contact meeting and the reports that go to them are put on it. every valid signatory to a petition inevitably conflicts The front page of the calling notice of the meeting with the principle that we make this as easy as possible states clearly that members of the public can turn up, for local authorities. There would be nothing, of course, speak to the committee and, if they wish, present to prevent an authority deciding to communicate directly petitions. The information is there, but, as I have said, with every signatory of a petition if it considered that GC 103 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 104 that was appropriate in the circumstances. However, Lord Patel of Bradford: I take that point on board. it should not be required absolutely of them in every case. There is a sense of helping people and guiding them in I also make it absolutely clear that the Government’s a direction that will let them have their innovation and intention is that “written acknowledgement” should lay down what they want to do, but not to do it include electronic communication whenever that is “properly” in the sense that I used that word. appropriate. For example, if there is an e-mail address, that is easily done; correspondence could be sent in Lord Greaves: A number of people in this Committee that form. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords, from across the parties, including one or two from and that they will agree not to press the amendments. the Labour Back Benches and the massed ranks of the Liberal Democrats, with strong support from the A petition is inherently about the power of Conservatives, have spoken from personal experience individuals—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady and knowledge of how these things work. We have Morris, made that point. It is about organising as a been saying, “This is how it works in the real world. group to call for action. Putting in place measures to This is what happens. Don’t do things that upset it”. ensure that they are taken seriously means that the role In response to amendments tabled with this intention, of a petition organiser is an important one. It is not we get the response that the Government do not agree unreasonable to ask that people consider this as part for this or that technical reason. The only silver lining of the way they organise themselves in submitting a to the cloud is that we are promised lots of discussions, petition, and identify someone to take on that role. We so we will have those discussions. hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said about people abusing that situation; that is something for us I am perfectly capable of being politically awkward to think about. However, as with the clause promoting to this Government or anyone else, as noble Lords know, democracy, it is the council’s responsibility to talk to and I shall be politically awkward about this petition people about their responsibilities as well and say how scheme if my worst fears come about at the end of it they can organise petitions properly and capacity-build because it is complete nonsense and will be a good thing people who might be anxious about that situation. to bash the Government with. However, that is not what we, across the parties, are trying to do now. We are trying There is one further amendment that touches on to get the Government to do sensible things about it. the issue of petition organisers. Amendment 115 would We all believe passionately in grassroots involvement place a new requirement on local authorities to publish and grassroots democracy, whether it is comfortable on their website details of valid petitions, including for us or not. I hope the Government accept that. the name of the organiser and the way in which they will consider them. Clause 14 already requires that I have one or two specific points. The Minister said local authorities must notify petition organisers of that people will be in dreadful shock if they are singled their response to petitions, and that they must publish out because they are the first name on the petition. this notification on their website. The amendment The first name on the petition is usually the person would require local authorities to publish details of who has collected the names. In Newcastle, it is in the petitions at an earlier stage, and to do so for all valid council’s constitution that that person is regarded as petitions received, whether or not they related to matters the organiser. I do not know how many petitions a about which the authority had any control, were vexatious year Newcastle City Council gets, but it must be well or abusive, or were the same as other petitions received into three figures, and I am not aware that there are in the previous six months. lots of people in Newcastle hospitals suffering from dreadful shock because the council has arbitrarily I see merit in the noble Lord’s suggestions, but I appointed them as the organiser of a petition. Let us wonder whether this is an issue, as he also suggested, have sensible arguments but not people thinking up that might be best addressed in guidance rather than arguments just to defend the original wording. A lot in the Bill. It is right that we leave that discretion to of councils, if they do not know who the organiser is, authorities. One can imagine circumstances, for example, already contact, and deal with, the first person on the in which publishing details of abusive petitions, including petition. That is what my council and lots of councils the name of the organiser, could inflame community do; it is common sense. tensions, especially at a local level. However, the noble Lord makes a very important point. I welcome his It should not be put in the legislation that such a views and would be happy to discuss this with him petition is not valid. I accept that it might not be further before Report. In the mean time, I ask him not dismissed out of hand, but we are back to validity to press his amendment. again. It is a question of stopping petitions being valid. Either “valid petitions” means something and creates an important distinction in the Bill—and it Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether I could pick must, because there are lots of barriers a petition must up on phrase that the noble Lord has just used and go through to become valid—or it does not. If it does suggest that the Government might try to find a way not, do away with it, but if it is important to the not to use it. I refer to “organising a petition properly”. Government, do not put up artificial barriers. If the Government want people to be involved in what We would rather have no guidance. We like minimal their local authorities are doing or not doing, which is legislation without guidance and prefer to rely on the what we all want, is not the best way to leave it to local local government community to spread best practice. authorities to treat what comes to them in a normal, That is our bottom line. human, straightforward, practical fashion? If I were to go to a local authority with a petition and be told 6pm that it was not organised properly, my faith in the local The Minister said that to publish the name of the authority would be reduced, not increased. organiser could inflame community tensions. I said on GC 105 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 106

Monday, giving an example in Colne, that there are guidance. The Government need to think about it if some circumstances where people might not wish a they have not already done so, because people are petition to be made public. A council has to deal with concerned. I am sure that the Children’s Rights Alliance that sensitively. However, the idea that, in general, the has written to the Government on this issue as much name of a petition organiser can inflame community as it has to us. tensions—presumably because their name has The third thing I wish to mention—and I was not connotations for a particular community; for example, quite sure where to bring it up in this whole issue of the Muslim community—is complete nonsense. I do petitions—was the situation that we have in not accept that argument one little bit. Northumberland. We have no district councils any more. Berwick-upon-Tweed’s district council has another Baroness Morris of Bolton: I apologise to the two months to go; that means that if someone wants Committee for my phone. I had it on “silent”, but it to take a petition physically to the full council, they is clear that I had a persistent caller. I hope that it have to go 50 miles. Of course, we will have area did not distract the Committee as much as it distracted committees; we have had them for years. I just hope me. that nothing prescribed in the Bill will prevent local I thank the Minister for his welcome. Although I people presenting their petitions to any devolved am standing in for my noble friends Lady Warsi and committees that the council may have. I am not very Lord Hanningfield, I feel that I am rapidly becoming clever at legal things, and I have not been able to an expert on petitions. I shall not sign one lightly discover whether provisions in the Bill might rule again. things out. Will the Government reassure me that, if Although the Minister said in response to our local people have a petition and go to their local area Amendment 107 that designating a single organiser is committee, that is quite acceptable? Common sense designed to make things easier, we have our concerns. I tells me that it is but, because the Bill is so prescriptive, am glad that the Minister recognised that there may be I should like to make sure that a problem with that has a problem with designating such a person, and I am not somehow crept in. Not that my friends on sure that my noble friends will look forward to entering Northumberland council, as it is at the moment, would discussions with him before Report. dare to refuse a petition. I ask those questions in the spirit of helpfulness. Lord Greaves: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 95. Lord Tope: We have already spent goodness knows Amendment 95 withdrawn. how many hours on this chapter, yet I see to my horror Amendments 96 and 97 not moved. that we are barely a quarter of the way through it. One hopes that the remaining three-quarters will move a Amendment 98 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled little quicker. List. The debate that we have had on the many amendments has made it crystal clear why both at Second Reading Amendments 98A to 103 not moved. and at the start of the debate on this chapter, people with experience of petitions in local government from Debate on whether Clause 12 should stand part of the all three parties, joined by the Local Government Bill. Association, urged the Government as strongly as we could not to go down this path. If they must make it a Baroness Maddock: I agree with my noble friend duty, that is fine, but they should not try to be prescriptive. Lord Greaves that the Bill is very prescriptive and it I have been wondering why the Government want to means that we are getting into a muddle. I am glad go down this path, since, once you start down it, it that the Minister has said that we will discuss some of becomes a bit like that snowball going down the the matters that noble Lords who have worked on hill—you have to add more and more to it. Many of local councils over the years think will create problems. our amendments have done just that to illustrate the point. I would like a couple of things to be put on the A lot of what was thought about in drafting this record. The Minister mentioned last week the ability Bill has, inevitably, been based on national rather than of young people to sign petitions. She said in passing local experience, for understandable reasons. It tends that young people could do it, but it would be nice to to be the case that what I will call national petitions have it on the record, because I have been approached are to some extent organised, usually by some body by the Children’s Rights Alliance about it. Will the with experience—often an organisation but it may be Minister assure us that the regulations allow young an individual. They are a lot more structured. Petitions people to organise and sign petitions, and that, if it at local level, however, are exactly the opposite; most must be done in the prescriptive way set out in the Bill, of them are spontaneous; they are created by a resident they, too, will be dealt with properly? feeling concern about a relatively small issue, who The other issue raised by the Children’s Rights wants to go out and do something about it. That is Alliance has been touched on in our discussion; that exactly what all of us here, the Government included, is, what happens if, for example, social services decide want to encourage. The more we try to be prescriptive to take away your child, and you do not like it and about it, the more we try to explain that even if it is raise a petition about it. Such issues would bring not valid it is not actually invalid and we can do what information about children into the public domain, so we want with it, the more complex it becomes, the I trust that it would not be a valid petition in the more of a barrier we create and the more uncertain normal sense. Will that be written down? It may be in petitioners become in dealing with it. GC 107 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 108

I think that all local authorities, or certainly the think that we have to make petition schemes more vast majority, are very experienced in dealing with visible and more accessible. petitions. We have been debating who is the petition Because some areas are much better at dealing with organiser. Many of these spontaneous petitions do this issue than others and because we want to ensure not come with someone designated as petition organiser. that there is no local disadvantage, we believe that the If it is not clear who the petition is from or who the matter is serious enough to invite a duty. We have organiser is, it is normal practice to write to the first followed the logic of that by creating in the Bill what I signatory of the petition. What else can you do, if you genuinely believe to be reasonable and minimal do not know to whom else to apply? Those people do requirements. If there is a duty, how does it work; that not automatically feel thrust into the limelight, in the is, who organises it, how do the local authorities Minister’s words; if they do not want to be thought of respond and so on? The logic of the clauses follows as the organiser, believe me they say so very quickly—and from that. they may well point you to the person who is actually We are genuinely trying to achieve a balance between initiating the collection of signatures. Many local a framework which is enabling and one which denies authorities—I should like to think, most—give petitioners the possibility of local authorities either maintaining the right to address the committee or full council when excellent practice or taking on undue burdens—impossible considering the petition. I would hope that all authorities and unreasonable burdens. We have tried very hard to that do that, such as my own, leave it to the petitioners do that. I have said that we will look at the definitions. to decide for themselves who is going to address the We will look at the things that we are requiring of committee or council. The person who goes from door people and we will do that in conjunction with the to door collecting the signatures may well not feel other parties as far as is appropriate before Report. I articulate or confident enough to speak to a committee have not made any promises, because we think that we in public, which can be quite intimidating, and would have tried hard and that we have the balance right. prefer to have one of the other signatories do it on However, we are certainly in the business of listening their behalf. That is perfectly normal, and indeed and talking, and I want that to be done in as frank and usual, practice. Ninety-nine times out of 100, this all reasonable a manner as possible, as is always the case. works very well. The more we try to prescribe it, whether in legislation or even in guidance, the more The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised three difficult it becomes and the more barriers are put in questions. She asked whether young people can sign the way of those who, probably for the first time and petitions. The answer is yes: the more the merrier. We possibly for the last time in their lives, are getting want young people to be fully involved in the life of together a small local petition about a local matter on the community and to have as much influence as which they have some concern. Therefore, we will possible in shaping the places where they live. She continue to pursue this issue. asked whether petitions would involve, say, children in care or children who are, in any sense, under the Like my colleagues, I look forward to discussing supervision of the children’s services. I think it is up to with the Minister how we go forward, but I do not the local authority to decide what is appropriate, and think that we will move from our position that by far certainly what is appropriate will be governed by the best way is to accept that the Government wish to confidentiality on a whole range of issues. So, yes, we make it a duty but we should leave it to the local would leave local authorities to decide, under authorities to do it in the best way that they can. Most Clause 14(1)(b), whether a petition is inappropriate to of them will have provision for doing just that. be dealt with. It is entirely for the petition scheme and those who frame the petition to decide whether people Baroness Morris of Bolton: We, too, oppose Clause 12 can go to their area committee to present it. We would standing part of the Bill. I simply add a request for the certainly not make any prescription about that. We Government to take the Committee’s comments away just want the process to be as simple and as accessible and to reflect on whether this clause really improves as possible. matters. 6.15 pm Baroness Andrews: As this is the first time that the Baroness Maddock: The main point of my question noble Lord, Lord Tope, has spoken, it is my very is whether there is anything hidden legally in here. I pleasant duty to congratulate him on his new family thought it was obvious that that is what they should acquisition. I am talking about his grandson, who I do but I wanted to check. understand was born at 10 pm last night. It is very nice, and I am sure that he will be an admirable grandfather. Baroness Andrews: Absolutely nothing is hidden. I have thought, and will continue to think, about our debate on Clause 12. I think that we all want the Baroness Maddock: It is because I do not understand same things. We all want to ensure that it is not simply this. the usual suspects and the usual activists who harass or challenge the local authority, chase after things that should happen when they do not, or put forward good Baroness Andrews: I hope that putting that on the ideas. We want this to be something that the community record will reassure the people of Berwick. as a whole, in much greater numbers and with greater diversity, feels that it can and should do. Therefore, we Clause 12 agreed. GC 109 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 110

Clause 13: Requirement to acknowledge valid Clause 14 is a muddle because it includes two petitions things. It mixes the procedure within the authority that a petition has to go through and the decision on Amendment 104 what to do with that petition. Clause 13(1)(b) is the beginning of the muddle. It reads, Moved by Lord Greaves “the acknowledgement must give such information about what 104: Clause 13, page 8, line 11, leave out “secure the following the authority has done or proposes to do in response to the results” and insert “include the following provisions” petition as the authority considers appropriate”. That is all-encompassing. What the authority proposes Lord Greaves: I shall speak also to Amendments to do about the petition may mean which committee it 109, 110, 112 to 114, 118 and 124. The Conservatives will go to to be discussed, by what other means it will have Amendment 106 in this group and I look forward be decided within the authority or what action the to the discussion about that. authority is going to take on it. If there is a petition to This is an important group of amendments because complain that all the gritting bins were not filled up it seeks to do what I am not sure I should do, and that during the recent bad weather, the authority can sort is to put into the Bill what the Government want in it that out by filling them up, making sure that they are but in a more sensible way than they have set out here. on the schedule for filling up in future and writing I have described it as the “more sensible scheme part 1”. back to say that it has done it. There are two different I might have described it as the “less silly scheme” as, things here that are mixed up and ought to be separate. ideally, we do not want any of this in the Bill. However, My amendments set out a procedure that divides if the Government are adamant that they want a great up the sensible ways in which the petition will be dealt deal of prescription and many of these detailed rules with. Amendment 104 and subsequent amendments for local authorities in the Bill, then more sensible are the first part of trying to sort this out. They deal provisions should be set out in a way which is easier with stage one and what to do when you get a petition, for people to understand and carry out. how to acknowledge it and how to deal with it. They Clauses 13 and 14 are in a dreadful muddle and this do not deal with the decision made about it, unless group of amendments seeks to sort it out, together there is an instant decision. I have tabled eight amendments with Amendment 123, which is the second part of that take this part of the Bill apart in detail and put it sorting out this part of the Bill. I had it in mind to put back together again, which is probably not the most Amendment 123 into this group but I forgot. However, understandable way to deal with this. I have come to it is important that the provisions in the eight amendments the view that I would have done far better to have to which I am speaking are taken together. Individually, deleted it all and written down exactly what I want. some of them would not make sense but taken However, I believe that what I am putting forward is together they seek to substantially rewrite this part of more sensible and logical than what is provided in the Bill. It is important that they are understood with the Bill. Amendment 123, which we will discuss in a later Amendment 104 removes “secure the following results” group, as being the second part of what I consider to in Clause 13 and replaces it with “include the following be a more sensible scheme. provisions” because Clause 13 does not deal with the If I understand it correctly, the Bill sets out a results of the petition, but with the procedure for four-stage process for dealing with a petition. First, dealing with it. Amendment 109 is about the first stage once the petition is presented or sent in, the authority response to the petition as it is set out in Clause 13(1). has to decide whether it is valid. If it is valid, it goes It includes the possibility that action can be taken into the scheme; if it is not valid the authority does immediately to deal with what the petition is asking something else with it, whatever that may be; it may for. If the petition asks for a simple thing where the ignore it or deal with it in some other way. Secondly, council is not doing what it should be doing and what there is a requirement to acknowledge a valid petition. its council policy says it does do, the petition can be The heading to Clause 13 is: dealt with there and then, and it does not have to “Requirement to acknowledge valid petitions”, proceed any further to become an active petition. although the clause is about more than simple Amendment 109 states that action can be taken and acknowledgement. that is enough to end the process. Thirdly, once a petition is acknowledged as valid, Amendment 110 deals with what happens if action the authority has to decide whether it should become is not taken. It suggests that the acknowledgement an active petition, and there are further tests to apply should provide that information and must give information to it. They are set out in the first part of Clause 14, about the way that the petition will be considered by which is entitled “Requirement to take steps”, which the authority and, where appropriate, the democratic is, again, not a terribly useful clause heading. I tried to arrangements in which the petitioners may participate. amend these clause headings, but I discovered from That is not terribly different from what the Government the Public Bill Office that that is not allowed. For are setting out in the Bill, but, in my view, it is a much reasons I do not understand, it is not possible to simpler and more straightforward way of doing so. amend clause headings. What you do if you substantially Amendment 112 is consequential. Amendment 113 amend the clauses so that the headings are meaningless, concerns whether an e-petition should be acknowledged, I do not know. I suppose there is a sensible way of which is a separate issue. It is a probing amendment to dealing with that. However, we are dealing with the ask the Government why an e-petition should not be clause as it is. Fourthly, the authority has to decide acknowledged. Amendment 114 seeks to establish that what action to take on the petition. acknowledgements may be made by electronic means. GC 111 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 112

Amendment 118 seeks to add a new paragraph to placed on the facility. That is why we do not include a Clause 14(1) if action has not already been taken requirement to acknowledge an e-petition. A further under Clause 13(1)(b). It simply says that the transition problem is that at the point it is placed on the facility, from a valid petition to an active petition—a slightly the local authority will not know how many signatures extraordinary and bureaucratic concept—does not have it will attract and how strongly the community feels to take place if action has already been taken at the about the issue, and, therefore, it will be unable to say first stage. If it has, you have to move on. what it proposes to do. Amendment 124 would leave out paragraph (a) of Clause 14(6) as a consequence of Amendment 109. On Amendments 109 and 110, I understand the Stage 2 of what happens with a petition is set out in noble Lord’s frustration with the legislation in front of Amendment 123, which we shall deal with later. him. We often face this problem when we are considering legislation. I have not served on a Bill where we have I hope that I have managed to explain what I am not had to wrestle with the internal logic of language, trying to do, as it is quite complicated. Clauses 13 and which is as it is because it has to convey precise legal 14, to as far as about the top of page 9 of the Bill, set meaning. That is the problem with parliamentary out what happens when a petition is sent in, how it will draftsmanship. In many respects, this Bill is clearly be dealt with by the authority and what the authority written, but sometimes one has to pin the corners will do prior to deciding what to do about the petition. down. It is extremely complex and muddled. In these amendments, I have tried to set out a simpler, clearer Amendments 109 and 110 together seek to replace scheme which would remove some of the muddle and the requirements to provide information which the allow the action on a petition to stop if the requirements authority considers relevant about how a petition will of the petition could be satisfied straight away. If not, be treated with a more detailed description of what it would provide a means by which the petition could information must be given. Amendments 104, 112 and be passed to the authority in a sensible way. The 124 are consequential. Many of the suggestions the scheme that I am proposing is considerably shorter noble Lord has put forward in regard to the kind of than the one that the Government have put forward in information that he thinks the authorities should provide the legislation. I beg to move. and the way that they should do so seem sensible. However, I would argue that Clause 14(9) is as it is Lord Hanningfield: We have one amendment in this for a reason. It already makes provision for the group—Amendment 106—and it is very simple. I think acknowledgement to include confirmation that the that we have already raised the issue of a petition authority will give effect to the request in the petition. organiser monopolising a petition. Rather than revolving The language of the Bill is rightly somewhat more around one person, a petition should involve a group legalistic—necessarily so—but it leads to the same of people who want a grievance or problem to be result. If the council decides that it is prepared to resolved. Rather than a letter of acknowledgement, accede to the request contained in a petition, it can do we would prefer to see a simpler form of communication just that and send a single letter confirming the fact. acknowledging the petition. Therefore, we are opposed The need for the language in the Bill, which may to the possibility of one person promoting something seem complicated, is that we have to cater for a situation rather than it being a genuine petition. where an authority does not immediately concede that what is called for in a petition should be granted; that Baroness Andrews: I am very grateful to the noble may be done only after one or more other steps are Lord, Lord Greaves, for trying to clarify these clauses. taken. For example, more information may need to be I am afraid that he will get a disappointing reply but I collected or more views sought before the authority shall explain as briefly as I can why the language of will agree to go along with the request. In that case, we the clause is as it is. have to cater for a two-stage process—acknowledgement Amendments 113, 114 and 106 address the issue of of the petition followed by giving effect. In such a case sending an electronic acknowledgement to both paper we need to cater for how the petition organiser should and electronic petitions. I want to be absolutely clear be notified of the outcome and how the outcome that the Government’s intention is that written should be published. That is catered for in Clause 14(7). acknowledgement under Clause 13(1)(a) should include electronic communication wherever that is appropriate— One further small difference between the provision for example, when there is an e-mail. I take the point in Clause 13(1)(a) and Amendment 109 relates to the raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on the requirement for an authority to specify in its scheme when amendment but I do not have an immediate answer. I a petitioner can expect to receive the acknowledgement. shall read Hansard tomorrow in the context of what The amendment would remove that requirement. It is he said in the previous debate. not a heavy burden for an authority to have to give some indication of when it will aim to let people know that it has received and is considering, or has decided 6.30 pm to comply with, a request in a petition. It would be Amendment 113 seeks to remove the provision that regrettable if that element were removed. electronic petitions do not need to be acknowledged. This means that they would have to be acknowledged I appreciate the noble Lord’s hard work in trying to and that, of course, would be an extra and unnecessary untangle what he sees as an over-complex, legalistic requirement. Petitioners will know whether their petition provision, but it is like that because it is legally necessary has been received because it will either be rejected or to be like that in order to do what we want it to do. GC 113 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 114

Lord Greaves: I hear what the Minister says, and I some stage to put it into the council’s system. I assume thank her for that reply. I showed all this lot to two that the petitioners make that decision. Perhaps the local government officers, one a lawyer and one a noble Baroness will confirm that. That decision then person who deals with petition schemes, but their needs acknowledging by the council, does it not? replies were not parliamentary so I cannot repeat This is an extremely important group of amendments. exactly what they said. The lawyer, in particular, said I am grateful to the Conservatives for putting forward that it was some of the worst drafting he has ever seen. their amendment, as I think it makes a valid point and I pass that on. Certainly, when reading it, it took me a sounds eminently supportable. very long time to understand exactly how it would Somehow or other, Clauses 13 and 14 have to make work. I say again, I do not expect to agree with more sense than they do at present when the Bill leaves everything the Government do, but I do expect this this House. I hope that these amendments have made Chamber to attempt to ensure that legislation is clear some slight contribution to getting the Government to and understandable, even if we do not agree with it. think about that problem. If they would like to discuss I do not think that this legislation is either the matter with us further, we will do so. We certainly understandable or clear. In particular, I do not think want to see something better than what is in the Bill that Clause 13(1)(b) states what the Government intend coming back for discussion on Report. For the moment, it to—if I understand their scheme correctly. The I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. noble Baroness has not at any stage explained why there is this process, distinction and classification whereby Amendment 104 withdrawn. a petition becomes valid after it has passed certain hurdles and then becomes an active petition after it Amendments 105 to 115 not moved. has passed further hurdles. This is a recipe to put Clause 13 agreed. burdens on local authorities in dealing with the scheme locally, if they want to deal with it in that way. I should be happy to see the words “valid”and “active”disappear Clause 14: Requirement to take steps and for the legislation simply to say what happens to petitions at various stages along the process. Amendment 116 not moved. I do not think that I am putting more detail and more prescription in the Bill; I am taking some out. I Amendment 117 am really keeping the same amount that the Government Moved by Lord Greaves want to see, but putting it in a more understandable 117: Clause 14, page 8, line 25, leave out paragraph (a) and a clearer form. It might become clear if I do what I should have done originally and put all my proposals Lord Greaves: I shall also speak to Amendment 122, together as one and show how my version of the which is grouped with this one. This group that refers legislation would sit as a whole rather than as individual to relevant matters in relation to partner authorities amendments. I understand the need for legalistic language that we began to half debate earlier. It is about the and for legally tight language, which is why we were process that I mentioned in the last group by which a arguing previously that stuff in the Bill should not be valid petition, which has been handed in, has gone ambiguous. I do not accept the need for incomprehensible through the hoops, been determined as valid and has language. There is a difference. been acknowledged, becomes an active petition. The definitions of a valid petition and an active petition The problem of excluding petitions from this provision, can be found in Clause 22, but an active petition unless I have missed something, is that the simply has the meaning given by Clause 14(1) and the acknowledgement is not simply to say, “Yes, we have valid petition has the meaning given by Clause 12(1), got it, thanks”, but to tell people how it is going to be so those definitions do not take us much further. The dealt with. Clearly, if an e-petition is accepted on the petition has to go through a series of tests to establish council’s e-petition facility, the petition exists. At some that it is valid and another series to establish that it is stage, it will close and be dealt with. Therefore, it does active. So “active” simply means another layer of not need an acknowledgement to say, “Yes, we have assessment and sifting, with more chances for a council got it” because it has been there for some time. The to reject or restrict a petition. question is at what stage the council decides to do something about it—put it through the processes and It is not at all clear to me why there is a two-stage the system—and at what stage it tells the petition’s process between deciding that a petition is valid and organiser or signatories what it is doing. That is the deciding that it is active. To make it simple for councils question and the purpose of tabling the amendment. to undertake this and, more importantly, to make it Perhaps the noble Baroness would think further about simpler for petitioners to understand the process, surely that matter. it should be a one-stage process. Surely, all the reasons why petitions might be rejected as invalid and all the Moreover, who decides when an e-petition closes? things you have to do to ensure that a petition is valid Presumably it is the petitioners who say, for example, should be set out in the same section and in the same “Right, we have 200 signatures, and we now want the rules locally. council to deal with this”. Presumably, that process To determine whether the petition is active, you takes place once the petition stops being an active have to refer to Clause 14(1)(a), which says: e-petition on the council’s e-petition facility. I am not “For the purposes of this Chapter, an “active petition”, in sure how that works on the Downing Street website, relation to a principal local authority, is a valid petition made to but for a council there needs to be a clear decision at the authority where … the petition relates to a relevant matter”. GC 115 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 116

That will have them dancing in the streets. Amendment 117 local area agreement is about. However, trying to tie in deletes that paragraph. Meanwhile, Amendment 122 the wording in this way is restrictive, confusing and deletes subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 14, which will lead to a huge muddle, because some councils determine what is a relevant matter. Those three with very legalistic staff will have a monitoring officer subsections do nothing but restrict and confuse the who rules that it does not apply, and there will be a big issue of what a petition should deal with, or not. row about it. What is relevant? The first test is, The final insult is that the provision does not refer “a matter which relates to a function of the authority”. at all to petitions to district councils. It is clear that, as I have no problem with that; if a petition is something the local area agreement is put together by the county to do with what the council does, presumably the council in a two-tier area—we argued about this at council deals with it. But the second qualification for great length during the passage of the Local Government what is relevant is more difficult. Clause 14(2)(b) and Public Involvement in Health Act—the provision refers to, applies in this way. If the county council receives a petition about a district council function relating to “a matter which … does not relate to a function of the authority, but … relates to an improvement in the economic, social or the economic, social or environmental well-being of environmental well-being of the authority’s area to which any of the authority’s area, it can refer it to the district its partner authorities could contribute.” council, but if it goes to the district council and refers to a county council function, the county council cannot do anything about it under the Bill because it is not a 6.45 pm “valid”, “active” petition. If it goes to the district When an authority assesses whether a petition is council and refers to the PCT or any other partner active and should continue to be dealt with under the authority as defined, the district council would not be petition scheme, it has to think about whether it able to do anything about it under the legislation. The relates to an improvement. It might relate not to an Government might say, “Well, they’ll send it anyway”, improvement but to opposition to things that people but that is not the point. The point is that the Bill think make matters worse. It may relate to something defines “valid” and “active” petitions in great detail, that some people think is an improvement, such as a giving them a very special status, but then states, new road, and others think is a disaster and want to “Well, if petitions go to a county council, it can refer oppose in a petition. The question of what is an them to partners; if they go to a district council, it improvement will be wide open to argument. cannot”. That surely is wrong. I know that I am a bit The requirement to take steps will be in relation to sensitive about district councils and the respect and petitions which relate to the functions of partner or authority given to them in legislation, but this provision connected authorities. It is in relation also to the, is wrong and has to be changed. I beg to move. “economic, social or environmental well-being of the authority’s area”. Lord Patel of Bradford: The noble Lord, Lord We can argue for hours about what is economic, social Greaves, has almost answered some of his questions and environmental well-being. Why does the Bill have by analysing this clause. Clause 14(1) provides that to include these words? Why does it not just say, authorities must take steps in relation to petitions on “anything that the other authorities are responsible relevant matters. These are matters that relate to the for”? authority’s functions. I see that the noble Lord has no If a petition relates, for example, to a primary care problem with that aspect of the clause. In England, for trust, why do you have to start working out whether it unitary and top-tier principal authorities, relevant matters relates to an improvement in the economic, social or also relate to any of the range of issues set out in local environmental well-being of an authority’s area? It area agreements. The wording relating to environmental may be that the local hospital trust has just closed an and social well-being is taken directly from Section accident and emergency facility and there is a substantial 105 of the Local Government and Public Involvement reduction in the economic and social well-being of in Health Act with respect to local area agreements. people in the area as a result—or there is thought to This could include issues as varied as smoking cessation, be. When the authority closed the A&E at Burnley, it knife crime rates or the percentage of people on argued that the facilities at Blackburn were better and jobseeker’s allowance. As mentioned in previous debates, that it would therefore be better for everybody to go district councils in two-tier areas and councils in Wales 10 or 15 miles to Blackburn, forgetting that they might do not enter into local area agreements, and these find an hour-long ambulance queue at Blackburn provisions are therefore not relevant to them, as they because the local hospital was not coping. These are have limited ability to influence wider issues. arguable matters. Putting in the Bill that the relevant matter has to relate to an improvement to which any Lord Greaves: Will the Minister read out that sentence of an authority’s partner authorities could contribute again so that I can understand it? I am not sure it was is gibberish. If the Bill wants to refer to the functions right. of partner authorities, it should simply state that the relevant matter is not a function of the principal local authority but relates to a function of a partner authority. Lord Patel of Bradford: District councils in two-tier It should be absolutely neutral. areas do not co-ordinate local area agreements. The wording is not clear. The Bill, so far as I can understand it, appears to try to tie it in with the local Lord Greaves: The word “co-ordinate” is okay. I did area agreement, because it relates to the things that the not hear it originally. GC 117 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 118

Lord Patel of Bradford: They have limited ability to In trying to get things done, these people do not influence wider issues. There are some arguments around restrict themselves specifically to the things for which the edges of what counts as relevant, but I should they have functions, although clearly those things have make it clear that people can petition on issues that to take priority, because if a council does not carry out are not relevant, and principal authorities can, of its functions properly, it is in trouble. course, respond to those petitions if they wish—we It is absolute nonsense to say that a town such as have said that many times—but according to this Burnley—a town with a proud history that used to be chapter, they would not have a legal obligation to a county borough and an area with strong districts—does do so. not interest itself in the environmental, economic or Amendment 117 deletes the requirement in Clause 14 social improvement of the area. The noble Lord knows that petitions to which principal local authorities must Burnley quite well from his contacts there, and he respond should be relevant matters. The definition of knows perfectly well that Burnley Borough Council relevant matters is removed by Amendment 122. The gets involved in a number of projects—some of which experience of parish polls being held on the Lisbon he is involved in—over and beyond its direct legal treaty has shown that if legislation is not drafted responsibilities of providing services such as planning, carefully, there can be legal obligations on bodies to refuse collection, environmental health and so on. carry out engagement exercises about issues over which Therefore, excluding district councils is not how things they have no influence. We certainly expect councils to are done in the real world. treat misdirected but legitimate petitions sensibly, but we want to ensure that principal authorities can dispense When the noble Lord says that districts cannot with petitions on issues they cannot influence without influence this kind of thing but that the county can, any burden on the authority concerned. Does the that is absolute nonsense. There are partnerships. What noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wish to increase the burden are partnerships about? What is the Lancashire on district councils? They can do what they want with partnership, which includes district representation, about? petitions; the question is whether we should impose a What are the local strategic partnerships about? There duty to do so. is one in Pendle, one in Burnley, one in Hyndburn and one in Rossendale. The people involved in them spend Principal authorities can influence their own functions. their entire time trying to improve the economic, Upper-tier and unitary authorities in England are also social and environmental conditions. That is what in a position to influence improvements in local economic, they are set up for. The partnership includes the district, social or environmental well-being to which their partners the county, the health service, the FE colleges, local can contribute. The limitation on the types of petition businesses and all sorts of other people. Therefore, that require a substantive response by principal authorities saying that districts cannot influence these matters is hardly unreasonable. Nothing that relates to anything shows a lack of understanding of the real world on the over which a principal authority has any influence is part of whoever has produced the Minister’s reply. excluded. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. The Government keep saying that there is no problem relating to all the petitions that will be restricted and Lord Greaves: That was one of the weakest replies I will not be allowed to be valid petitions—and then have heard for a long time. I do not blame the Minister, restricted if they are valid and not allowed to be active for whom I have a great deal of respect, but I do not petitions—because the council will be able to deal think he tackled the basic issue. The Government are with them anyway or refer them to the appropriate setting out a formal scheme, the petition scheme, authority. I ask again: what is the purpose of setting which each authority will have, based on this legislation, up this highly structured, highly detailed system for that will deal with petitions that will become valid valid petitions and active petitions if you can just deal petitions and then active petitions. with those that are excluded from it in the way that you would have done anyway? The whole thing seems When they become active petitions, the authority absolutely crazy. will have to do something about them. However, as the Minister said, doing something about them might well The scheme is restrictive because it forces the principal be as little as taking a view on them and passing them local authority to set up a petition scheme for dealing on to the appropriate partner authority. That would with valid petitions and active petitions. That is what be perfect reasonable. It might be that the authority this legislation does. This part of the Bill means that, if would look at the petition and reject it. It would have a petition that does not refer to the functions of the to go to a committee, but that is fine. authority does not qualify as relating to an improvement I do not know whether Ministers and the people in the economic, social and environmental conditions who write this legislation have spent much time of the area and is not in a top-tier authority in a investigating what district councils do. I speak from top-tier area—in other words, if it is in a district—it my experience in Lancashire and across Lancashire. cannot go into the system. The legislation sets up this District councils within Lancashire County Council great scheme and then says that the petitions that do spend a lot of time discussing things for which they not qualify cannot go into the system. I think that this are not primarily responsible and which are not their issue should be thought through again. basic functions. However, they do it because they are With regard to the idea that districts do not take the local councils. It is the council that covers the part in local area agreements, I accept and understand Rossendale Valley, the towns of Pendle, Burnley and that the county council is responsible for co-ordinating its satellite towns, the great rural area of the Ribble the LAA. We all know that. But the idea that districts Valley or Hyndburn. The same applies in west Lancashire. have no part in it and are not in some areas the lead GC 119 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 120 players in some aspects of it does not belong to the consider the example of a petition calling for the real world. In places such as Lancashire which have council to purchase all its stationery from a local strong districts, the LSPs that really matter are at local company which was in financial difficulties, signed by district level. Some of the other bodies that really all the employees of that company. This petition would matter—the new multi-area agreement and the housing not be requesting anything unlawful, but authorities market renewal programme in east Lancashire, which should not be obliged to take active steps in response is far and away the biggest bringer-in of funds in the to such petitions, which aim to publicise an organisation housing area—are at multi-district level. They are not and promote its commercial interests. even at a county council level. So this needs thinking I genuinely do not think that local authorities will about again. abuse this provision and decline on spurious grounds to respond to petitions which are really innocuous. I Amendment 117 withdrawn. therefore believe that the drafting in Clause 14(1)(b) is preferable to that of Amendment 120, as it gives Amendment 118 not moved. principal authorities an appropriate level of discretion over which petitions they respond to. On this basis, I 7pm ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 119 Lord Greaves: I am not clear why the Government think that whether a petition is legal or calls for Moved by Lord Greaves anything unlawful should not be covered. The Bill 119: Clause 14, page 8, line 26, after “vexatious” insert “or” refers to petitions which are vexatious and abusive, which is less clear, and the Government should consider again the lawfulness issue. Lord Greaves: I shall also speak to Amendment 120. This is fairly straightforward and we can deal with it a I was interested in the noble Lord’s example. If I bit quicker, I hope. It is about the wording that the understood him correctly, he said that if a local company Government want to use in this legislation about that employed 100 people was in danger of closing petitions that are a bit naughty or nasty and therefore down, the employees of that company might petition will not be accepted. the local council to intervene and do something about it. I do not understand why such a petition should not As the clause stands, a petition can be rejected as be considered. It may be that the council would say, active—I am not sure why it happens at the active not “There is nothing much we can do”, but my experience the valid stage, but that is the argument that I was of both county councils and district councils is that if having 10 minutes ago—if it is, there is a local company in difficulty and there is “vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate”. anything the council can do short of intervening in a This is partly to probe what is meant by “otherwise commercial way, it will do it. For example, if the inappropriate”, which seems vague and ambiguous problems are not necessarily financial directly but are wording. I am inserting as an alternative the words, to do with access to the company—it cannot get “calls for anything that is unlawful”. pantechnicons in and is therefore having to relocate to We had this debate on the e-petitions on Monday—or some foreign place such as Preston or Birmingham—the a similar debate—but there is a need for standard council might well step in and provide a grant or work wording and understanding in the Bill over the reasons out ways in which access to the company can be why petitions can be rejected. The Government may improved. So I am not sure that the noble Lord’s simply say that they can be rejected and leave it to the example was a very good one. Again, it comes from a common sense of councils, but I do not imagine that lack of knowledge and understanding of what local that argument will get very far. I beg to move. authorities do nowadays—how they get involved in their local economy, how they talk to local companies and how, within reason, they try to assist those local Lord Patel of Bradford: I hope that I can clearly companies to thrive and survive in their areas. outline why the words that we have used have been This is not a major point and we probably will not used. Clause 14 requires principal local authorities to come back to it, but nevertheless it requires a little take one or more steps in response to valid petitions thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. which meet the criteria set out in subsections (1) and (2) and are therefore active petitions. Subsection (1)(b) Amendment 119 withdrawn. provides that there is no duty to take any substantive step in relation to petitions which are vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate to be dealt with. Amendments 120 to 122 not moved. Amendment 120 removes the exclusion for petitions which are “otherwise inappropriate” and replaces it Amendment 123 with an exclusion for petitions which call for an action Moved by Lord Greaves which is unlawful. This would give principal authorities less discretion over which petitions they were entitled 123: Clause 14, page 9, line 7, leave out from “that” to end of to refuse to respond to. It is possible to think of line 44 and insert “an active petition is dealt with as follows— numerous situations where what a petition calls for is “(a) if the petition is presented to a meeting of the not unlawful, but is nevertheless damaging to community authority, the meeting may resolve— relations or inappropriate for other reasons. For instance, (i) to deal with the matter there and then, GC 121 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 122

[LORD GREAVES] do, which is to refer it to a committee which has got (ii) to refer the matter either to a committee of the the power to do something about it. Therefore, in a authority or in the case of an authority operating principal local authority—for example, a district executive arrangements to the executive, with an council—that does not operate executive arrangements, instruction to deal with the matter as it feels appropriate or refer it back with a recommendation a petition about housing will not go to a scrutiny to the council, or committee, it will go straight to the housing committee. (iii) to refer the matter to a partner authority pursuant In a council operating area committee arrangements to section 13(1)(c); the petition will go to the area committee. If it is (b) if the petition is presented to a committee of the within the purview of the area committee to do something authority or in the case of an authority operating about it, it will. If the council has an executive, and the executive arrangements to the executive, that body shall matter clearly needs an executive decision, it will go to either determine the arrangements for dealing with the the executive. That is the real world. That is how it petition by the authority or refer it to a partner works. That is the sensible thing to do; not to divert authority pursuant to section 13(1)(c); the petition via an overview and scrutiny committee, (c) if the petition is presented in any other manner it shall be with all the time that will take to put the thing on referred by the chairman of the authority to an agendas, hold meetings and then refer it probably appropriate committee of the authority (which in the case of an authority operating executive arrangements back to the council. The council will then refer it to a may be the executive) which may deal with the petition, body, a committee or the executive that can do something determine other arrangements for dealing with it by the about it. authority or refer it to a partner authority pursuant to The Government have not set out in Clause 14(6) section 13(1)(c); the most obvious and usual way that a council will (d) where an authority operates executive arrangements and deal with a petition. I can only say that that is because the matters referred to in the petition are functions of the authority, the petition organiser may require the they do not understand how councils deal with authority to make arrangements for the petition to be petitions. By and large, petitions go to committees, considered by an overview and security committee of the executives, other bodies of the council, executive authority.” members, cabinet members or whoever has the authority to do something about them. Lord Greaves: This is what I call the “more sensible Clause 14(6) says that the scheme must include scheme—part 2”. The amendment seeks to remove certain things. Then it includes a number of things everything from subsection (5) to the end of the clause. that will happen in some cases as a result of consideration One reason for removing the wording is that it is of the petition by the appropriate committee of the muddled—it includes a number of aspects which ought council or public body, such as, not to be muddled in the way they are—but the main “holding an inquiry…holding a public meeting”— reason for doing it is to introduce the second part of there is a radical idea— what I was trying to do in the group that started with “commissioning research”, Amendment 104, and that is to help the Government to put their petition scheme into a reasonable format or, which people can understand and which sets out clearly “giving a written response to the petition organiser”. what should happen. These are consequences of the decision-making process. To put the contents of subsection (6) in primary They are all mixed up and muddled together in a legislation is quite extraordinary. It states: totally unsatisfactory way. Therefore, what I suggest in “A principal local authority’s petition scheme must secure that my Amendment 123 is a logical step-by-step process the steps which may be taken by the authority pursuant to by which a petition is dealt with. Once it has been subsection (5) include the following”. decided that a petition is active, under the Government’s A few meetings ago we had a debate about the word scheme, it goes to the appropriate body in the authority “include” that the noble Lord, Borrie, did not like. The that makes a decision on what to do about it. steps include, That decision might include commissioning research. “giving effect to the request in the petition”, To put commissioning research into a petition scheme but if my proposals are accepted the matter would is quite extraordinary. Why commissioning research? have been dealt with way before it got to the stage of Is this another consultant’s charter? There are far too an active petition. If you are going to do it, you just do many consultants in local government. Of course, if a it; you do not go through the bureaucratic process of major issue is raised and the council does not have making an active petition. information about it and nobody knows what is going However, steps such as, on, you might commission research, but it is not something you put in a petition scheme. What you put “considering the petition at a meeting of the authority … in the case of a principal local authority operating executive arrangements, into a petition scheme is which bodies on the council referring the petition to an overview and scrutiny committee of shall deal with the petition and who they then tell the authority”, what they are doing about it, and particularly how and, they will involve the petitioners and other members of “in the case of a principal local authority not operating executive the public in that decision. arrangements, referring the petition to a committee of the authority The scheme I have put forward is clear, sensible and with power … to review or scrutinise decisions made”, in the real world. The Government’s scheme is a are procedural matters within the authority. That is all muddle, some things in it are odd, and I am not sure it right but they do not include what most councils will is entirely in the real world. Of course, overview and GC 123 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 124 scrutiny committees can be involved if people think “petition scheme must secure that the steps which may be taken the process should happen that way. My amendment by the authority”, says if the petition organiser wishes the petition to go and it then gives an indicative list of potential actions. to the overview and scrutiny committee, then that is It illustrates to the local community the range of his right. I am not removing that provision; I am things that the local authority can do in order to saying that it is not automatic. respond. The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord It is a bizarre idea that petitions should automatically Hanningfield, focused on the fact that “giving effect” go to overview and scrutiny committees, rather than to usually means a cabinet member taking an action, and committees, which can do something about the petition that is what is encompassed in paragraph (a). The much more quickly. The idea that a petition organiser processes outlined in the noble Lord’s amendment are should be able to require an overview and scrutiny about giving effect. We have not gone into the detail, committee to deal with it is on a par with what the as the noble Lord has done in his amendment. The Government calls the Community Call for Action, actions listed in the amendment are about the internal which is coming into practice fairly soon, and allows processes that the councillors would go though. I members of the public and councillors automatically respect and understand that, but they are all contained to refer something to scrutiny. It is on a par with that; in the notion of giving effect. it is the same sort of thing. That is okay. However, it The idea of the indicative list is to flag up to citizens really should be voluntary from the point of view of and the local community that other things can happen, the people organising a petition. Otherwise, people including commissioning research. We hope that there would be putting forward good petitions that just will be many instances where the local authority can get tied up in overview and scrutiny and never go immediately carry out the action and give effect to the anywhere else. request in the petition in some of the ways that the I ask the Government to look at this very seriously noble Lord refers to in his amendment. However, and not just to react against it because I put it forward there are more complex issues. For example, if a and they did not. Clause 14 is a muddle. I am not petition puts the case for additional youth facilities, suggesting that my drafting is perfect—I am not a there may be a need to find out exactly how many parliamentary draftsman—but I am suggesting that a young people are using the existing facilities and what clearly set out and understandable scheme ought to be their local ambitions and needs are in relation to the put in here, rather than the Government’s current facilities that they might have. That can come under muddle. the heading of commissioning research from young people. 7.15 pm Lord Hanningfield: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves: Does the Minister honestly think Lord Greaves, said. When I read the Bill, I thought that if an item about youth facilities goes on the that the Government were trying to kick these petitions agenda as a petition and the council is taking it into touch because overview and scrutiny committees seriously it would not refer it to the next meeting for a do not take decisions. They scrutinise the executive report on the situation, to get exactly the information and what is going on, and sometimes they can take six that the Minister is talking about? That is how councils months to produce a report. They normally set up a work. It may be that if that information is available it working group and things such as that. The Government will be presented to the meeting—if there is a decent set up the legislation under which we operate. My chairman who says that it should—at the same time as authority, which is a large authority, has an executive the petition. They are the committees that make the that takes all the decisions. The council deals only with decisions, and they are not included in this at all. the budget, and perhaps the waste plan, and everything else is decided, by the Government’s orders, by the executive. If decisions are to be taken about these Baroness Andrews: No, because we did not actually petitions or about something to be done, as we heard want to write that detail into the Bill, for the many earlier, the cabinet or the portfolio holder does it. That good reasons the noble Lord has given us on many is the only way to get things done. Referral to the instances. However, the instance that he gives is a very overview and scrutiny committee is a way of kicking good one—and, yes, I would expect it to be referred to most petitions into touch. If we wanted to get rid of the youth committee. But in my home town of Lewes one for a while, we would refer it to that committee. there was a campaign for a very long time for somewhere The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right on this. I do special for young people to go. Nobody knew how not understand why the Government put that in. many young people had that particular ambition or what they actually wanted. No committee in the world I have tabled many amendments to legislation in could simply invent something without asking young this House, and many times I have been told that people what they wanted. That is what we mean by detail is not put in legislation but in regulations or commissioning research. I cannot really see the objection guidance issued later. The detail in the Bill about to that or see how we are at odds on that matter. petitions is ridiculous and I ask the Government to think again. They cannot really mean to prescribe all The other things on that list are there simply to that detail—that is a job for officials—rather than give indicate the range of actions that the local authority a clear duty and clear guidelines. I ask them to please may take in support of the work of councils in their think again. respective responsibilities. I take the point about overview and scrutiny; it is only one example on that list. I take Baroness Andrews: I shall first address the issue of the point about detail; we are continually wrestling prescription. Clause 14(6) states that the, with the balance in what we think is important detail GC 125 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 126

[BARONESS ANDREWS] petitions rather than to anything else that the council in an area of policy that we have not addressed in may do or receive representations on, is fatuous. The legislation before. There are disagreements in this Government will make themselves look ridiculous, Committee about whether we should try to do this, and I am trying to stop them doing so. but having embarked on it we thought that it was The Minister then said that the scope of the steps to important to give an indication of the sort of scope be taken is by way of illustration, but it ought not to that the local authority should offer by way of illustration. be in primary legislation. It is ridiculous that the Sometimes it will be immediately clear that the Government are saying in primary legislation that: elected members of the local authority and its committees “A … local authority’s petition scheme must secure that the can act and carry out the action, and inform the steps which may be taken by the authority … include the following”. organiser immediately about that. I respect what the Perhaps they can put in lots of other things as well if noble Lord has said and what he is trying to do in they have time to waste doing it. If the Government the amendment, but we have come at it slightly differently. really want to prescribe how a council deals with What he has tried to do in this amendment is encompassed petitions, they should set out the process. Much of by the notion of giving effect. We could certainly put what is in the Bill is halfway outcomes. Since we have the kind of process that he outlined in guidance to just had Burns Night, I am tempted to quote Burns, make it clear, but his amendment imposes an administrate although I am not sure that it is a good idea with a arrangement while our clause does not. It says that Yorkshire accent. He wrote: steps may be taken to secure the result that is of the “O wad some Power the giftie gie us greatest benefit to local people. On that basis, I cannot To see oursels as ithers see us”. accept his amendment. The poem ends by saying that you will not engage in “foolish notion”. This is foolish notion. I beg leave to Lord Greaves: The Minister accused me of wanting withdraw the amendment at this stage, but it will have to put more detail in the Bill. I have just counted up to come back. and my proposals take up 28 lines while hers take up 35, so I think that it is not more detail although it may Amendment 123 withdrawn. be different detail. The problem with what is in the Bill Amendments 124 and 125 not moved. is that it is partly process stage 1 and it is not inclusive. It does not include what most councils will do most of Clause 14 agreed. the time. Clause 15 agreed. Baroness Andrews: I am sorry to go on, but giving effect, as I said to the noble Lord, encompasses the Debate on whether Clause 16 should stand part of the processes that he spoke of. Giving effect is what local Bill. councils do in their daily business, whether they are cabinet members or members of committees. That is Baroness Hamwee: The clause raises a contentious what we aim to do by putting it in the Bill, to encompass point and we on these Benches strongly oppose it. It exactly what he wants to see in his amendment. provides that a petition can require an officer to be called to account; in other words, it moves a constitutional Lord Greaves: I have to say that I disagree. When issue in a way that fails to recognise the role of subsection (6) in particular reaches the light of day, it democratically elected councillors, who are the will result in belly laughter throughout local government representatives of their community. It fails to recognise and will not do the Government’s reputation any good that responsibility for everything that a council does at all. I admire the Minister for her attempts to defend lies with the elected members in the final analysis. I am this part of the Bill, but the Government should look really using shorthand. I am very aware of the time at themselves and consider the whole thing again. and I am also aware that the Government are prepared The Minister said that these are areas that we have to discuss this with us between now and Report in not previously put in legislation. Do we have to legislate order to deal with the concerns. to tell councils that they can hold a public meeting, as the Bill does? All the councils with which I have been 7.30 pm involved have held public meetings of various kinds Of course, overview and scrutiny committees will fairly frequently. My own council holds an astonishing themselves require officers to come before them, but number of public meetings. Depending on how you that is a matter for the members. If members of the define a public meeting, never a week goes by without public said, “We need to have X hung out to dry”, in a two or three of them. Residents can turn up and take method akin to a kangaroo court or a witch hunt, part in single-issue or community meetings—they are perhaps against a junior officer, that would be entirely not ordinary council meetings. In my experience, most wrong. It is for the members to summons the officers. public meetings do not arise from petitions; most of I asked CIPFA whether it had any comments on a them are from deputations. Deputations go to committees later part of the Bill concerning auditing. Rather to of the council—in particular, to area committees—and my surprise, I received a copy of its response to the they raise an issue. That area committee will then say, improving local accountability consultation, which “Let’s have a public meeting”. Alternatively, they are concludes that, regular public meetings connected with ongoing “the current framework provides effective reassurance to the investment projects. The idea that we need in legislation general public”— to tell councils that they can hold a public meeting, it refers to the duties of the chief finance office and and to do so in legislation referring specifically to may well refer to the monitoring officer— GC 127 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 128

“and would be concerned about any public right to petition to democracy. It is getting out of hand—and this provision hold officers to account cutting across the existing statutory in particular is out of hand. If we took it to an arrangements and may prejudice the actions of the Responsible extreme, perhaps the civil servants sitting behind the Finance Office or Auditor in respect of public expenditure”. Minister today could be questioned by the people I had not expected support to come from that area— outside about what we are doing here today. That is certainly not when what I thought that I was asking what the clause really means. If you did it nationally, about was auditing local authority companies—but somebody could petition the noble Baroness, Lady CIPFA is absolutely right. Andrews, to bring forward her civil servants to be As I understand its briefing, the Local Government questioned. I am sure that none of us would want that Association is also opposed to this measure. It made to happen, because we believe that this is a representative suggestions about enabling authorities to require the democracy despite the fact that, as I explain to people appearance of chief officers and others from, essentially, outside this Chamber, one of the most frustrating partner authorities. However, I think that that was in things about this job is that you come forward with the spirit of, “If you’re going to do this, you should do your ideas and you know jolly well that the people that as well”. I did not table those amendments because sitting behind or somewhere near the Minister will I did not agree with the underlying principle. send her notes telling her why she has to say no to This is a very contentious clause. I think that, what you want to do. It would be very nice to be able again, it has failed, as has the whole of Part 1 of the to question them, but we cannot do that. However, I Bill, to understand what representative democracy is say in all seriousness that the Government really need about. We oppose Clause 16. to think about what a representative democracy is.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I tried, inadvertently Lord Hanningfield: I support the proposal from the and wrongly, to raise the issue that I now want to raise noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Officers are appointed briefly. It is on the same point and I raise it in a to serve the whole council; they are not there to benign, rather than a malignant, manner. Before we second-guess the political will of either the administration get to Clause 16, Clause 14(5) states: or anybody else. This is very dangerous territory. I “A principal local authority’s petition scheme must secure have been in positions when officers have said the that, where an active petition is made to the authority, the wrong things. I can remember that once one of our authority must take one or more steps in response to the petition”. officers was actually in our council chamber trying to Clause 16(2) says that, hang one of the other officers in effigy, so when we “the petition requests that an officer of the authority (whether had a council meeting there was a scarecrow hanging identified by name or description) be called to account at a public from the roof who was supposed to be one of our meeting of the authority”. officers. He had said things that he should not have That is one sanction. Then, at the top of page 11 of done about the waste programme. I endorse what has the Bill, Clause 16(7)(a) says that, been said: it is the members who take the decisions, obviously with officer guidance—but it is exactly the “the exercise by an overview and scrutiny committee of the authority of its power under subsection (13)(a) of section 21 of same as in Parliament. We are getting into very dangerous the Local Government Act … to require the relevant person to territory here. attend before it to answer questions”. My question, which is shared with the trade union Baroness Andrews: I am very well aware from the UNISON, is: can the Minister inform us of the kind of debate that this is something that noble Lords opposite criteria that would guide a council in deciding whether want us to think about. As I have said, we are happy to to use a public meeting or a scrutiny committee, or talk about this before Report. However, I should like both, in dealing with a petition of this kind? The noble very briefly to set out what we are trying to achieve. I Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quite rightly and fairly, raised take the point entirely, and I want to reassure noble this issue. I have in mind the Baby P petition. I recall, Lords that this is not, as they suggest, any attempt to many years ago, attending very angry public meetings subvert the notion of representative democracy. It is but they related to issues. Phrases such as “witch not an attempt to place officers in the front line of hunt” or “hanging out to dry” can be bandied about debates which would be more properly matters for and may very well apply if someone is invited to a councillors, and it is not an invitation for public bullying meeting. I am anxious only to ensure that the Minister or harassment. It is not a replacement of proper and the Government are satisfied that, if a petition disciplinary procedures by a kangaroo court; there are includes a demand that a person be brought to a protections built in. public meeting, they know what they are doing. I understand the arguments that the noble Lord made about potentially blurring the lines of accountability. Baroness Maddock: I strongly support my noble It is absolutely essential that everybody understands friend in this matter. I have been a councillor for many that elected members are accountable, just as we are. It years. There have been times, particularly recently, is not my civil servants who are accountable; we stand when things that the officers have done have been up and it is up to us to defend ourselves. Ultimately, it acutely embarrassing for us and which we would not is citizens’ votes that do that accounting. The provisions have allowed to happen. Nevertheless, I strongly believe in Clause 16 do not undermine that fundamental that we are a representative democracy. In all sincerity, principle. What we are trying to do is to provide local I really think that, when we are talking about localism people with an additional opportunity to participate and devolving power, Ministers and civil servants need in the scrutiny of decision-making. The definition of to think carefully about how we operate a representative “public meeting” to which my noble friend referred is GC 129 Local Democracy[LORDS] Local Democracy GC 130

[BARONESS ANDREWS] Lord Greaves: I am— always the same: public meeting means overview and scrutiny committee in that context. There are not two Baroness Andrews: I have not finished my argument. types of public meeting, but I can explain that to him in a letter which he can then hand on to his colleagues. Lord Greaves: But what the noble Baroness is saying is not true. My second point is that, essentially, all these provisions build on existing practice. All principal local authorities Baroness Andrews: It is not true what I am saying? I have set up overview and scrutiny committees of elected am telling the noble Lord what is in the Bill. members whose purpose is to hold authority decision makers to account. Clause 16 confers the same public Lord Greaves: It states that, hearing function on overview and scrutiny committees “the petition requests that an officer of the authority (whether whether or not the council is operating executive identified by name or description)”. arrangements. Subsections (6) to (9) of the clause are Baroness Andrews: Yes, but that still does not mean complex but they are as they are because they have to that he is not there strictly because of the job he does cover non-executive as well as executive arrangements. and the responsibility he holds for the area of policy. As we know, overview and scrutiny committees We expect that it will usually be the chief executive meet in public. Rightly and properly, they already and a senior officer responsible for the area of policy. have the power to require officers to attend meetings It will be for the local authority to decide how that is and provide evidence. We built our evidence, for example, managed. around discussions we had with the Society of Local Clause 16 requires, as a minimum, that the head of Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, paid service and the most senior officers responsible SOLACE, which replied to our consultation paper on for the delivery of services come. It is up to the improving local accountability. It noted that senior overview and scrutiny committee to decide which of officers regularly attend public meetings to explain the officials would be most appropriate in relation to council decisions and answer questions. I shall give a the service that is the subject of the petition. few examples. Tewkesbury Borough Council’s scrutiny committee reviews best value performance indicators I shall say a little more about how the scrutiny will and quarterly requires managers to attend meetings; be carried out. It is extremely important that it is West Devon Borough Council requires lead officers to appropriate and fair. Officers must not be exposed to turn up alongside committee chairs if progress on inappropriate public scrutiny, harassment or bullying. performance indicators is unsatisfactory; and so on. Therefore, Clause 16 provides that the grounds for attendance at a meeting of the overview and scrutiny We are building on established practice and taking committee must relate to the officer’s job and cannot it further. Citizens will be able to call in their petitions relate to his personal circumstances or character. Guidance for overview and scrutiny committees to look at issues under the Local Government Act 2000 is already in which are important to them and to ask for evidence place to cover the way in which overview and scrutiny from key officers to inform their examination of those committees should conduct themselves when questioning issues. an officer of the authority, the appropriate seniority of witnesses to ensure that junior officers are not put Lord Greaves: The Minister has just hit the nail on under undue pressure and so on. Some local authorities the head: overview and scrutiny committees do not have charters; for example, City of York Council has overview and scrutinise officers as individuals; they developed a charter for scrutiny witnesses. carry out overview and scrutiny of the functions of The only innovation introduced by this provision is the authority. The individual officers are called to give the ability for local people to have a little more scope evidence, quite rightly, because of their positions in to invite overview and scrutiny committees to invite the authority. The authority will perhaps scrutinise their officers to come and discuss their responsibilities benefit payments, but it does not decide as a policy to within the scope of the jobs that are delivering the scrutinise the officer who is in charge of benefit payments. services with which people are concerned. The overview If the proposal was that the petition should be able to and scrutiny committee has the discretion to say that call for scrutiny of a particular area, that would be an that would not be appropriate. entirely different matter. Amendment 130 removes the power for the appropriate national authority to make an order or provide guidance Baroness Andrews: If I had been allowed to continue in relation to specifying the officers who would be my argument I think the noble Lord would have been called to give evidence. I reassure noble Lords that any satisfied on that point. order or guidance in relation to this will be focused We have built in strict controls around the provision. squarely on supporting authorities to respond effectively. We clearly do not want this to create an excuse for a We do not intend to use it to create red tape. We want kangaroo court or witch hunt, or harassment or bullying, to keep that to a minimum. Throughout this process, and the best people to decide how these provisions we will be working very closely with the Local Government should work in the context of the petition scheme will Association, but I am very happy to talk to noble be the local authorities. That is why, for example, the Lords. I understand their concerns, so we will talk to petition scheme has to specify how many signatures each other before Report. will be needed before an officer can be required to attend a public meeting. It will be for the officers to determine Baroness Hamwee: I shall add one further thing which officers are liable to be called to account in this because I think it is worth putting on the record. It is way. the danger of confusing democratic accountability GC 131 Local Democracy[28 JANUARY 2009] Local Democracy GC 132 with undermining the ability of local government continue to oppose the whole of this clause. It is not officers to act as independent advisers to the elected susceptible to amendment to make it an appropriate council by leaving them open to the pressure of public provision. opinion and lobbying. That is an extension of the point that is worth making. Clause 16 agreed. I appreciate that it is not the intention of the Government to allow the extreme scenario that I Lord Patel of Bradford: I think this may be a painted with very broad brushstrokes, but it could be convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn the effect of this clause. I do not say this lightly, but until Tuesday at 3.30 pm. the Government have this completely wrong. When we are in Grand Committee, we do not vote, but we will Committee adjourned at 7.49 pm.

WS 19 Written Statements[28 JANUARY 2009] Written Statements WS 20

This paper is aimed at stakeholder organisations Written Statements and other interested parties to enable further, more detailed discussions to take place as we move through Wednesday 28 January 2009 policy development towards implementation. Copies of Realising Potential: Developing Personalised Conditionality and Support—A Discussion Paper on Benefits: Conditionality Review Next Steps in Implementing the Gregg Review will be placed in the Library of the House. Statement Children: Early Learning and Childcare The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Statement Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of Luton): My right honourable friend the Secretary of The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, State for Work and Pensions (James Purnell) has made Department for Children, Schools and Families (Baroness the following Written Ministerial Statement. Morgan of Drefelin): My right honourable friend the In December 2008 Professor Paul Gregg published Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families his review on the effectiveness of the balance of (Ed Balls) made the following Written Ministerial expectations and support for working-age benefit Statement. claimants. This was entitled Realising Potential: A I am today announcing the publication of a new, Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support. cross-government strategy document, Next Steps for Copies are available in the Library of the House. Early Learning and Childcare: Building on the 10-year Today my department is publishing a discussion Strategy for England. paper setting out further details about how it intends Five years into our 10-year strategy, it is the right to take forward the recommendations of that review time to take stock of, identify and address new and to help many more parents with younger children and future challenges as we move progressively towards employment and support allowance claimants to prepare the establishment of early learning and childcare as a for work. modern, universal public service for all families. We believe that developing the progression to work We have come a long way in delivering on the approach proposed by the Gregg review will support agenda that we set ourselves in 2004. Thanks to hard families, promote employment and help eradicate child work across the sector, parents now have access to poverty. Therefore this discussion paper outlines our more flexible, affordable and better quality early learning latest thinking on how this approach will be designed and childcare than ever before, and many more families and tested out. The framework we plan to establish is are benefiting from new rights and services. It will take one where more claimants: time for the children who have had these opportunities actively engage with their adviser on an ongoing to demonstrate the long-term benefits, but there are basis; already signs that changes could help promote the consider, discuss and agree an action plan social mobility of future generations. The latest foundation comprising activities they think will improve their stage profile results show that 21,000 more children prospects of moving back into work; and achieved a good level of development at age five than in the previous year. And the lowest achievers are undertake these agreed work preparation activities starting to catch up; the gap between their achievement as part of their own journey towards employment. and their peers has narrowed for the first time. This means creating a model where advisers have We are determined to keep improving early learning the necessary skills and capabilities to encourage claimants and childcare because these are crucial long-term to co-own, co-produce and take responsibility for investments. Good-quality early learning and childcare their journey back to work. is vital for ensuring all children, but especially the We want to test the full model proposed by Professor most disadvantaged, reach their full potential. It supports Gregg of higher support and expectations. Because we parents into employment, which is the best way out of know that the availability of childcare is so central to poverty. And it relieves the time and emotional pressures enabling parents to realise their aspirations for paid that families face in balancing work and home life. In work, we will pay for any additional childcare that a time of global economic downturn, where parents claimants need to carry out their action plan. We will face increased financial and emotional pressures, these also test out whether offering an improved financial priorities are as important as ever. incentive for parents to try out work supports them to Alongside the recent New Opportunities White Paper, make the full transition from benefits to work. this document sets out some clear commitments and The current Welfare Reform Bill aims to create the firm proposals. In other areas we have identified the necessary legislation for this approach, initially through case for action and need to develop plans through a series of pathfinders, subject to parliamentary approval. discussion and consultation. We want this to be the These pathfinders will cover around a fifth of new and beginning of a wider conversation with parents, people existing ESA claimants and a similar proportion of who work in the sector, providers, agencies, children parents with younger children. Parents with a youngest and local government about how we can meet these child aged between one and two will be expected to challenges. That is why the Government are also launching engage with an adviser and agree an action plan, but today a consultation on our plans to enshrine our undertaking work preparation activities will be voluntary. historic goal of eradicating child poverty into law WS 21 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 22

(Ending Child Poverty: Making it Happen) and publishing The Government are determined that no child is a discussion paper on a new framework to help many left behind, and we create a fairer society for the more parents with younger children and employment future. This requires ensuring that all children have a and support allowance claimants to prepare for work good start in life and that the causes and consequences (Personalised Conditionality and Support, the of poverty are tackled. Gregg review). The consultation document sets out the four key We will place copies of the document Next Steps elements of the child poverty strategy: for Early Learning and Childcare in the Libraries of more parents in work that pays and allows them to both Houses. balance work and family life; financial support that is responsive to families’ Children: Poverty situations; Statement improvements in children’s life chances so that poverty in childhood does not translate into poor The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury outcomes; and (Lord Myners): My right honourable friend the Chief safe, cohesive communities that support children to Secretary to the Treasury (Yvette Cooper) has made thrive. the following Written Ministerial Statement. Alongside this document the Secretary of State for The Treasury, the Department for Children, Schools Children, Schools and Families is publishing Next and Families and the Department for Work and Pensions Steps for Early Learning and Childcare, and the Secretary are today publishing a consultation document on of State for Work and Pensions is publishing Realising proposals to legislate on the Government’s commitment Potential: Developing Personalised Conditionality and to eradicate child poverty by 2020. Support—A Discussion Paper on Next Steps in Every child deserves the best start in life. Where Implementing the Gregg Review. children grow up on low income, suffering either material Copies of the document are available in the Vote deprivation or falling too far behind their peers, they Office and have been deposited in the Libraries of the can be disadvantaged throughout their lives. Child House. poverty doubled in the 20 years from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, leaving far too many British children deprived of important opportunities in life. House of Lords: Cost That is why in 1999 the Government set an ambitious target to end child poverty in a generation. This Statement commitment has already driven considerable progress across government. The number of children in absolute The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of poverty has halved and 600,000 children have been Tara): Following a mistake in a Written Answer by lifted out of relative poverty to date. Had the Government HM Treasury on 26 November (WA 336), a number of done nothing other than simply uprate the tax and reports have incorrectly stated that the overall cost of benefit system, there would have been 2 million more the House of Lords in the 2007-08 financial year was children in relative poverty than there are today. £305.4 million or £423,000 per capita. In fact, the All families have benefited from increases in support current running costs in the 2007-08 financial year since 1997; households with children are on average were £121.5 million or £168,000 per capita. The total £2,100 better off in 2009-10 and families with children cost of the House, if capital expenditure is included, in the poorest fifth of the population are £4,400 better was £152.5 million or £211,000 per capita. off as a result of personal tax and benefit changes. The corrected Written Answer in the online version But too many children still suffer from poverty or of Hansard gives a slightly higher total figure of disadvantage. That is why we have committed to enshrine £153.5 million, because it includes the cost of funding in legislation our historic pledge to eradicate child the British-American Parliamentary Group, the Inter- poverty by 2020. The consultation document outlines Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary how the Government will use primary and secondary Association and the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary legislation to set a framework for achieving the Body. Government’s 2020 aims, including setting targets for the future. It will also set a requirement for the Government to report annually on progress. Improved accountability and a clear and comprehensive definition Northern Ireland: Consultative Group on of progress will provide a platform for a renewed the Past approach to break the cycle of poverty. Statement We believe that tackling child poverty and confirming our commitment to ending child poverty by 2020 is even more important during difficult economic times. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My right honourable Giving families real help now is important to help friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland people deal with the challenges from the global credit (Shaun Woodward) has made the following Ministerial crunch. But it is also about preventing the kind of Statement. long-term unemployment and worklessness caused by The Consultative Group on the Past will today be past recessions, which scarred communities and pushed publishing a report, setting out the conclusions from up child poverty across the country. the group’s work on how Northern Ireland society can WS 23 Written Statements[28 JANUARY 2009] Written Statements WS 24 best address the legacy of the events of the past review, adding two new renewable fuels to those eligible 40 years in order to help continue to build a successful for RTFO certificates and revising the definition of shared future. relevant hydrocarbon oil. The Government recognise the huge importance of Having considered the responses received to the this work and welcome the independent report. Dealing consultation, the Government continue to believe that effectively with the legacy of the past is one of the there is a need to progress with caution with regard to most demanding issues facing Northern Ireland today. obligation levels. It is of fundamental importance to the people of The Government have now decided to introduce Northern Ireland we find a way to build a shared legislation setting an obligation level for 2009-10 of future which avoids being overwhelmed by the past. 3.25 per cent, which is 0.25 per cent higher than the The group has listened to a wide range of differing Gallagher recommendation, and thereafter maintaining voices with great care and sensitivity. I am grateful to the planned increases in line with the Gallagher Lord Eames and Denis Bradley, and to all the members recommendations to reach 5 per cent in 2013-14. A of the group for their work. The Government commend draft order to amend the Renewable Transport Fuel the group for its integrity and commitment. Obligations Order 2007 (2007/3072) will be laid in The report makes a number of recommendations to Parliament shortly and will be subject to the affirmative which British and Irish Governments, and other procedure. It is our intention that if the order completes stakeholders, will need to give very detailed and careful the necessary stages it will be made in time to come consideration. These are important issues. We all need into force at the start of the next obligation year in to reflect carefully on the proposals. April 2009. I would also thank all those organisations, community Our decision on next year’s obligation level takes groups and individuals who engaged with the work of into account the views expressed in response to the the group over the past 18 months. consultation. In particular, this decision reflects concerns I have arranged to have copies of the group’s report about the effects of the discrepancy in the definition of placed in both Libraries of the Houses of Parliament. relevant hydrocarbon oil in the 2007 order. That definition excludes any fossil fuel which is blended with renewable fuel before the duty point. The result is that less fossil fuel than was intended is taken into account in calculating Police: Metropolitan Police Commissioner suppliers’ obligations, and therefore less renewable Statement fuel is required to be supplied than was intended. My earlier Statement of 13 November explained the background behind this issue (Official Report, House The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home of Lords, col. 67WS). Office (Lord West of Spithead): My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department We intend that the draft amendment order will (Jacqui Smith) has made the following Written Ministerial contain provision to revise the definition of relevant Statement. hydrocarbon oil for the next obligation period. To avoid problems with retrospective effect, we are not I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty the proposing that the amendment should purport to have Queen has approved the appointment of Sir Paul effect for the current obligation period, which started Stephenson QPM as the next Metropolitan Police in April last year. The full effect of the discrepancy Commissioner. I made my recommendation to Her issue on the volume of biofuel supplied in the first Majesty having regard to the recommendations made obligation year (2008-09) will not be known until after to me by the Metropolitan Police Authority and the end of this year. Our intention is that, by setting representations from the Mayor of London. this level, the overall amounts of biofuel supplied in Sir Paul has a strong track record of delivery and a the first two years are still broadly consistent with the clear vision for leading the Metropolitan Police Service Gallagher recommendations—ie, 5.5 per cent (2.5 per and delivering for the public both in London and cent plus 3 per cent). nationally. We also intend to add both biobutanol and renewable diesel to the renewable fuels eligible for certificates under the scheme, and these fuels will be defined as Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations they are in the draft order included in the consultation (Amendment) Order 2009 document. We will continue to keep the fuels covered by the scheme under review in light of emerging new Statement technologies. In looking forward, under the renewable energy The Minister of State, Department for Transport directive (RED) the UK will be required by 2020 to (Lord Adonis): I have today published the Government’s meet a target of 10 per cent renewable energy in response to part 1 of the consultation on the draft transport. Our current mechanism for delivering renewable Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) energy in this sector is the RTFO. The Government Order 2009 (including the addendum to the consultation). intend to consult later this year about the further The consultation, which closed on 17 December 2008, amendment of the RTFO that will take these sought views on provisions to slow down the rate at commitments into account, including the trajectories which the renewable transport fuel obligation (RTFO) of the UK targets, and further work on the sustainability increases year on year as recommended by the Gallagher of biofuels. This will form part of government policy WS 25 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 26 as we draw up our renewable energy strategy and Royal Mail action plan for meeting the UK’s 2020 renewable energy target, which needs to be submitted to the Statement European Commission during 2010. We will be engaging with stakeholders throughout this process to draw on their views and experience. The Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Copies of the Government’s response to part 1 of Regulatory Reform (Lord Mandelson): I am pleased to the consultation (including the addendum) have been announce today the appointment of Donald Brydon placed in the Library of the House and are available in CBE as the new chairman of Royal Mail Holdings plc. the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. The He will take up his appointment in March 2009. Government’s response to part 2 of the consultation, Donald Brydon is currently chairman of Smiths which sought views on longer term issues concerning Group plc and the London Metal Exchange. He will the future transposition of the renewable energy directive be joining the Royal Mail Holdings board as a non- and the fuel quality directive, will be published in due executive director prior to taking up his appointment course. as chairman. WA 43 Written Answers[28 JANUARY 2009] Written Answers WA 44

the men and women killed in Afghanistan. We have no Written Answers illusions about the challenges posed by those who oppose central government rule. But we have the right Wednesday 28 January 2009 strategy for delivering success, and members of our Armed Forces are resolute in doing what their country Afghanistan asks of them. Questions Afghanistan: Air Power Asked by The Earl of Sandwich Question To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Asked by The Earl of Sandwich have assessed the non-military risks and benefits of the Afghan Social Outreach Program and its effect To ask Her Majesty’s Government what response on rural development projects and local governance. they have made to the comments of the United [HL498] Nations Special Representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, on 17 December regarding the revision of The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth detentions and restrictions on the use of air power Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): Risk management has in populated areas. [HL496] been an important aspect of the development of the Afghan Social Outreach Program (ASOP), and a process The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth which the UK has been involved in. Non-military Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): The UK works constantly risks and benefits have been identified, including the to improve co-operation between international forces, need to have close co-ordination with other government Afghan national security forces (ANSF) and the ministries to avoid overlaps. The community councils Government of Afghanistan. We do not agree that the established under ASOP are designed to fill a hole in formal arrangements need revision, but endorse fully local governance left after the postponement of district the requirement to improve co-operation and council elections scheduled to take place in 2005. It is co-ordination between the ANSF and international intended that community councils will cease to exist forces. In December 2008, Commander ISAF, General once democratically elected district councils are established David McKiernan, issued a new tactical directive on in 2010. In insecure areas, ASOP forms a significant respect for Afghan culture, specifically house searches, step toward improvements in local governance, by during military operations. This directive has been offering communities a means to present priorities widely welcomed by the international community and and concerns to government. Rural development projects represents a further significant step by ISAF in its will not be adversely affected by ASOP councils, as efforts to minimise the impact of its operations on these offer a single forum for prioritisation and ordinary Afghans. co-ordination. Asked by Lord Dykes Agriculture: Incineration To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Question will consider the United Kingdom’s military presence in Afghanistan in light of the number of service Asked by Lord Taylor of Holbeach personnel killed there. [HL844] To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by the Minister for Farming and Lord Malloch-Brown: It is vital to the UK that the Environment, Jane Kennedy, on 24 November Afghanistan once more becomes a stable and secure 2008 (Official Report, House of Commons, cols. state, able to suppress violent extremism within its 847–48W), whether local authorities determining borders therefore contributing to wider regional security. applications for smaller incineration projects use Britain’s own security is at risk if we allow Afghanistan the same methodology as the Environment Agency; to become a safe haven for terrorists. and, if not, whether all local authorities use the UK forces, along with 41 other contributing nations, same alternative method. [HL707] are in Afghanistan at the invitation of the democratically elected Afghan Government, with the support of the The Minister of State, Department of Energy and vast majority of Afghans and at the request of the Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food United Nations. The reason we are there is to establish and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Local the right security environment in which accountable authorities regulate few incinerators. When individual and effective institutions can develop and where Afghan- authorities do so, they have discretion in the way they led reconstruction and development can be established. determine applications, provided they comply with all Our Armed Forces in Afghanistan consistently perform the legislative requirements and have regard to any their duties with bravery, commitment and relevant statutory guidance. professionalism. They have a difficult job to do and Statutory guidance to local authorities on handling the progress they have made is a credit to their proficiency applications for all installations they regulate under and dedication. However, that progress has come at a the Environmental Permitting Regulations is contained high cost, including loss of life. Every military casualty in the General Guidance Manual on Policy and Procedures is a tragedy and our condolences go to the families of for A2 and B Installations, published on Defra’s website. WA 45 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 46

Local authorities regulating animal carcase incinerators The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth under the same integrated pollution prevention and Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): Our ambassador to control regime enforced by the Environment Agency Azerbaijan has made clear to the Government of must also have regard to Defra guidance note SG10, Azerbaijan on several occasions that we share the Animal Carcase Incineration with Capacity of Less serious concern of the EU at the Azeri authorities’ Than 1 Tonne Per Hour, which specifies pollution decision not to renew the licences of foreign broadcasters control standards. Other smaller incinerators are regulated to transmit on national FM radio frequencies from by local authorities only to control air emissions, and 1 January 2009 and the detrimental impact this decision separate guidance on standards is also published for has on access to independent information throughout these. Azerbaijan. We have also raised this issue with EU partners in Brussels and the Czech Government as current EU Armed Forces: Aircraft presidency. Representations have been made to the Question Government of Azerbaijan by the presidency and the External Relations Commissioner during their recent Asked by Lord Lee of Trafford visits. The Azeri decision has also been criticised by the EU’s High Representative for Common Foreign To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the first and Security Policy, the Organisation for Security and Hawk 128 will be delivered to the Royal Air Force; Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and how many are expected to be delivered in 2009 and many others. each year thereafter; and what the official in-service date is expected to be. [HL687] The ban is inconsistent with Azerbaijan’s existing EU eastern neighbourhood policy commitments and with the principles of the future, deeper eastern partnership The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry which the Azeri Government have strongly welcomed. of Defence (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): The acceptance We continue to monitor the situation and to urge process for the Hawk T2 (128) has recently commenced the Government of Azerbaijan to reconsider the decision and delivery of the first aircraft is expected shortly. and permit broadcasting by non-Azeri broadcasters The current estimate, based on BAE Systems’ on FM frequencies. production plan, is that 22 aircraft will be delivered in 2009 and six in 2010. The in-service date of the aircraft is November Bailiffs 2009. Questions Asked by Lord Lucas Armed Forces: HMS “Endurance” Question To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to ensure that magistrates, Her Asked by Lord Astor of Hever Majesty’s Courts Service fines officers and bailiff companies are implementing page 9 of the National To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the Standards for Enforcement Agents covering vulnerable present status of HMS “Endurance”; and whether situations. [HL830] the circumstances that led recently to the flooding of her engine room while under way have been resolved. [HL575] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): The National Standards for The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry Enforcement Agents are intended for use by enforcement of Defence (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): HMS agents rather than magistrates or Her Majesty’s Courts “Endurance” is safe and stable and is currently berthed Service fines officers. However, both magistrates and at Mare Harbour in the Falkland Islands. The Her Majesty’s Courts Service fines officers routinely investigations into the circumstances that led to the consider the circumstances of defendants and defaulters flooding incident are continuing. as part of their decision-making process. Where issues of vulnerability are made known to them, these will be taken into account. Azerbaijan: Broadcasting Her Majesty’s Court Service contracts place a specific obligation on its private enforcement agents in respect Question of vulnerable members of society. This requires them Asked by Lord Hylton to adhere to and implement these standards while engaged on enforcement activities on behalf of Her To ask Her Majesty’s Government what Majesty’s Courts Service. They are instructed not to representations they are making to the Government take any action to levy distress without prior reference of Azerbaijan about the proposed discontinuance to the court where the individual falls into one of of local transmission of BBC broadcasts, Radio categories deemed as vulnerable. Complaints by members Free Europe, Radio Liberty and the Voice of America; of the public about the conduct of the contractor and whether such action would constitute a breach must be reported to Her Majesty’s Courts Service of Azerbaijan’s international obligations. [HL856] regional contract managers together with details of WA 47 Written Answers[28 JANUARY 2009] Written Answers WA 48 how those complaints have been dealt with and resolved. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and These are reviewed as part of the contract management Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food process. and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Defra The contract requires AEAs to provide a monthly has allocated new resources for the bee health programme management report to HMCS regional contractor to fund the implementation of the bee health strategy. managers on contractor performance. The report provides On top of its current £1.3 million, an additional details on the execution rate of warrants, training £1.137 million will be provided to the National Bee undertaken by contractor staff and any complaints Unit in the financial year 2009-10 and £1.158 million received by the contractor on action taken by their in 2010-11 to implement the first stage of the strategy. staff. Contractors must report any circumstances and Additional funds are also being provided for research, situations where a complaint or issue is raised by with £400,000 added to the existing £200,000 provision defaulters who consider the enforcement of the warrant for each of the next five years. £500,000 of this will be has been undertaken inappropriately or incorrectly. made available to a new research programme which These will include any situations involving those in the will consider the widest problems facing pollinators. vulnerable person categories. Any complaints or The details of the programme are still being worked correspondence received by contractors must be on and further information will be available in the investigated. In addition, Her Majesty’s Court Service near future. regional management will investigate the complaint to determine that the bailiff took the correct action or if the situation requires further investigation. Benefits Further reporting protocols in new proposed contracts Question will strengthen the control and monitoring arrangements available to HMCS on contractor performance. This Asked by Lord Steinberg includes quarterly and six-month assurance reporting. There is also a requirement for each contractor to To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the make an annual operation report reviewing their number of people receiving benefits has increased management of the contract. Combined, these reports in the past five years; and, if so, by what percentage. form the basis for the HMCS director of enforcement [HL513] to make an annual report covering the operation of all regional contracts. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, The reports received as the six-month and yearly Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of stages of the contract would be reviewed and reported Luton): The latest available information is that the on to the HMCS compliance and enforcement and number of working age and pension age benefit claimants main HMCS management boards as part of this report. has increased by 2.89 per cent over the five years to It is expected that the contractor will detail its procedures May 2008. Within this total, the number of working and processes and the agreed authorisation methods age claimants went down by 5.81 per cent, the number with each HMCS region and area within these reporting of pension age claimants increased by 7.03 per cent. requirements. Asked by Lord Lucas Charities: Fraud To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to proceed with regulations under the Tribunals, Question Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 allowing bailiffs Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester to use force against persons. [HL832] To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Lord Bach: The enforcement provisions in the Tribunals, cases involving allegations of fraud in charities Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 are far reaching have been investigated by the Charity Commission reforms. The provisions have recently undergone a in each of the past three years; and how long was comprehensive reassessment by Ministers to ensure taken to complete the investigation in each case. that they remain appropriate even under this difficult [HL766] financial climate. This assessment has now been concluded and a statement will be made shortly. Lord Patel of Bradford: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Charity Commission. Bees I have asked the commission to reply. Question Asked by Lord Taylor of Holbeach Child Protection To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Question Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno 26 November (WA 295), whether they will review the amount of funding for bee research in the light To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they of the average incomes for commercial and non- will issue guidance on the vetting and barring scheme commercial beekeepers. [HL338] to be introduced in October 2009. [HL658] WA 49 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 50

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): Guidance for the Office (Lord West of Spithead): I am unable to provide vetting and barring scheme will be issued in advance the information requested. The Criminal Records Bureau of introduction of the scheme. In addition to general (CRB) would need to perform a manual trawl, at guidance on different elements of the scheme, the disproportionate cost, of each individual local authority Government also intend to issue guidance tailored for registered with the bureau in order to access the financial specific sectors of the children’s and vulnerable adults’ implications of undertaking CRB checks. workforce. The CRB charges £31.00 for a standard disclosure Sectors will include education, health, social care, and £36.00 for an enhanced disclosure. The bureau volunteering, housing and transport. continues to process disclosure applications for volunteers free of charge. Common Travel Area Question Department for Transport: Staffing Questions Asked by Lord Laird Asked by Lord Bradshaw To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with Ministers in Northern Ireland To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the regarding the reform of the common travel area. anticipated employment costs, indicating all [HL679] emoluments, of the franchise managers, finance managers and contract managers in the Department The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home for Transport advertised in the Times on 16 January. Office (Lord West of Spithead): The UK Government [HL821] have been working in partnership with the Governments of Ireland and the Crown Dependencies, as well as the The Minister of State, Department for Transport Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Executive, (Lord Adonis): Salaries for these posts are within the to review the rules and operation of the common set pay bands. They will attract the usual pension and travel area (CTA) and explore how border security can other allowances which form part of the department’s be strengthened in the future. remuneration package, as follows: A public consultation was carried out between Posts Number of 24 July and 16 October on proposals to strengthen (all London based) posts Pay Band Salary (PB) and reform the CTA and the government response to this consultation and a full impact assessment were Contract Manager 3 PB4 £30287 to £34712 published on 15 January. Contract Manager 1 PB5 £36,080 to £42,240 Franchise Manager 3 PB6 £46,446 to £56,400 Franchise Manager 2 PB7 £57,232 to £69,497 Crime: Domestic Violence Assistant Finance 1 PB5 £36,080 to £42,240 Manager plus £1,250 for part Question accountancy qualification Asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Long-term 1 PB5 £36,080 to £ 42,240 Forecasting plus £5,000 for To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Manager accountancy qualification local authorities regularly hold multiagency risk Asked by Lord Bradshaw assessment conferences to identify victims of domestic violence; and how often. [HL543] To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether compensating savings are planned in the staffing The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home costs of the Department for Transport as a result Office (Lord West of Spithead): We understand from of filling the posts advertised in the Times on CAADA (Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse) 16 January for franchise managers, finance managers that there are over 100 multiagency risk assessment and contract managers. [HL822] conferences (MARACs) across England and Wales. Some MARACs overlap more than one local authority Lord Adonis: These posts are currently filled by area. MARACs are either held fortnightly or monthly, contractors, so there will be compensating savings by depending on the volume of cases. filling these posts with permanent staff.

Criminal Records Bureau Energy: Reserves Question Question Asked by Lord Hanningfield Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there they have made of the costs to local authorities of are proposals for the “mutualisation” of energy undertaking checks with the Criminal Records Bureau reserves in the European Union; and, if so, what is since the bureau’s inception. [HL800] their position on such proposals. [HL627] WA 51 Written Answers[28 JANUARY 2009] Written Answers WA 52

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Asked by Lord Hylton Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): There To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether are no proposals for the “mutualisation” of energy compensation will be payable by Israel for damage reserves in the European Union. The UK and other to United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools EU member states retain the right to determine the in Gaza. [HL523] conditions for exploiting their energy resources, their choice between different energy sources and the general Lord Malloch-Brown: We have made clear our concern structure of their energy supply. at attacks on UN sites and the mounting civilian casualties. Any claim for compensation would be a matter for the individuals concerned (or their relatives), Fishing: Vessels the UN and Israel. Question Asked by Baroness Uddin Asked by Earl Attlee To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many children have been killed in (a) the Gaza Strip; and small fishing vessels received an unannounced (b) Israel as a result of the current conflict between inspection in the past 12 months for which figures the two territories. [HL549] are available; and what percentage resulted in the vessel being detained. [HL722] Lord Malloch-Brown: According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health (on 21 January 2009) 412 children The Minister of State, Department of Energy and have been killed in the course of the current conflict in Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food Gaza. and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): No No Israeli children have been killed in the conflict. notice is given of any inspections carried out by coastal enforcement officers of the Marine and Fisheries Agency Asked by Baroness Uddin (MFA) staff in England and the fisheries staff of the To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many of Welsh Assembly Government. Vessels inspected at sea the women and children seriously injured as a result will usually receive notice of approximately five minutes of the current conflict involving Israel and the in order to ensure safe embarkation of officers. UK Gaza Strip have received appropriate medical care fishing vessels are not normally detained to port except in the Gaza Strip. [HL551] in special circumstances. Full details of MFA inspection procedures can be found on the MFA website at www.mfa.gov.uk/protection/conduct.htm. Lord Malloch-Brown: The UN reports that hospital In the calendar year 2008, coastal fisheries staff in and intensive care facilities remain overwhelmed. But England and Wales carried out 1,141 inspections on because of the situation in Gaza we do not have land of vessels under 10 metres in length, resulting in accurate figures. the detection of 10 infringements. Similarly, in 2008 We are strongly supporting international efforts to there were 78 inspections of vessels under 10 metres in alleviate the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including length carried out at sea within English and Welsh by providing funding of £26.8 million. waters, resulting in the detection of six infringements. No vessels were detained. Asked by Baroness Uddin To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many women and children from the Gaza Strip have been Gaza transferred to Egyptian hospitals as a result of the Questions current conflict involving Israel and the Gaza Strip. [HL552] Asked by Lord Hylton To ask Her Majesty’s Government what Lord Malloch-Brown: The department does not hold representations they are making to Israel about the such figures. alleged use of white phosphorus shells in Gaza. Asked by Lord Dykes [HL521] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth they have to secure Israeli compliance with United Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): We are very concerned Nations Security Council resolutions. [HL558] about reports of white phosphorus ammunition being used by the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza. We have Lord Malloch-Brown: The ceasefire now in effect in made this clear directly to both the Foreign Ministry Gaza is a critical part of UN Security Council Resolution and Defence Ministry in Tel Aviv. 1860. We are now working closely with our partners, Gaza is an exceptionally densely populated area including Israel, to ensure that it becomes the durable where white phosphorus used as an air burst is liable and fully respected ceasefire called for in 1860. We are to cause particularly horrific injuries to non-combatants. also continuing our efforts to support the peace process We consider such use in these circumstances unacceptable. and realise the goal of a two-state solution. WA 53 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 54

Asked by Lord Dykes Lord Malloch-Brown: The EU presidency issued a statement on 27 December 2008 clearly spelt out that To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they the Israeli Defence Force military response was will recall the British Ambassador to Israel until disproportionate. We supported that statement then the Israeli Defence Force has fully withdrawn from and will continue to support it. We have consistently Gaza. [HL559] urged Israel to avoid civilian casualties.

Lord Malloch-Brown: The Government do not believe Asked by Lord Dykes that such a move would help advance our objective of To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they an immediate and sustainable ceasefire. will discuss with the Government of Israel the Asked by Lord Dykes alleged misuse of white phosphorus shells by the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza. [HL779] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they received from the Government Lord Malloch-Brown: We are very concerned about of the United States about their decision not to reports of white phosphorus ammunition being used vote in favour of the latest United Nations Security by the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza. Gaza is an Council Resolution on Gaza. [HL563] exceptionally densely populated area where white phosphorus used as an air burst is liable to cause Lord Malloch-Brown: US Secretary of State Rice particularly horrific injuries to non-combatants. We made the position of the United States clear publicly consider such use in these circumstances unacceptable. in the UN Security Council. Our discussions with the Asked by Lord Dykes US in the wake of UN Security Council Resolution 1860 have focused on achieving the immediate, durable To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many and fully respected ceasefire envisaged in the resolution. children and women were (a) killed, and (b) wounded by Israeli weapons in Gaza since 27 December Asked by Lord Hylton 2008; and how many of those injured are still in To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment hospital. [HL840] they have made of reports in the New York Times about military fragments collected in Gaza which Lord Malloch-Brown: According to the Palestinian contained white phosphorous and were fired over Ministry of Health (on 21 January) 412 children and civilian neighbourhoods. [HL641] 110 women were killed during the conflict and 1,855 children and 795 women were injured. Lord Malloch-Brown: We are very concerned about We do not have figures for how many received reports of white phosphorus ammunition being used medical attention or remain in hospital. by the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza. We have made this clear directly to both the Foreign Ministry and Defence Ministry in Tel Aviv. Health: Diabetes My honourable friend the Minister of State for Question Foreign Affairs, Bill Rammell, has also made clear to Asked by Lord Harrison the other place that Gaza is an exceptionally densely populated area where white phosphorus used as an air To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the register burst is liable to cause particularly horrific injuries to of those with diabetes mellitus prepared under the non-combatants. We consider such use in these quality and outcomes framework lists only those circumstances unacceptable. 17 years old and over; and whether they will alter the register to include all those with diabetes mellitus. Asked by Lord Hylton [HL957] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether Hamas were willing to The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, extend the six-month ceasefire when it expired in Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): The December 2008. [HL643] quality and outcomes framework (QOF) records the number of people recorded on general practice diabetes registers in England. The register excludes those patients Lord Malloch-Brown: Hamas made clear through aged 16 and under because the care of children with increasing rocket fire on Israel and through its public diabetes is generally under the control of specialists. comments that it would not renew the ceasefire. The department has asked the National Institute of Asked by Lord Dykes Health and Clinical Excellence to oversee a new independent and transparent process for developing To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment and reviewing QOF clinical and health improvement they have made of whether the force being used in indicators for England from 1 April 2009 as part of Gaza by the Israel Defence Forces is proportionate; their role in providing guidance for the National Health and what discussions they have had with the Service based on evidence of clinical effectiveness and Government of Israel about whether that use is cost effectiveness. We launched a public consultation proportionate. [HL778] on the proposed new process on 30 October 2008. WA 55 Written Answers[28 JANUARY 2009] Written Answers WA 56

The consultation ends on 2 February. Subject to the not aware of any allegations that their human rights outcome of that consultation, any proposal for changes have been abused. Our embassy in Jakarta also to QOF indicators would need to be considered under understands that they are receiving legal advice as well that new process. as visitors. We will continue to monitor the situation. We regularly raise human rights concerns with the House of Lords: Annual Report Indonesian authorities and staff from our embassy in Jakarta visit Papua on a regular basis and raise issues Question of concern with a wide cross-section of interlocutors. Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon The most recent visit was 13 to 16 January 2009. To ask the Chairman of Committees further to Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill the House of Lords annual report 2007–08, whether To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in in future he will publish the cost of maintaining the deciding how to abide by the judgment of the heritage and integrity of the House’s buildings and European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v United collections separately from the House’s other costs. Kingdom, they will have regard to (a) the reasoning [HL949] in the judgment of 8 December 2008 of Judge Andrew Cheung in the Court of First Instance of The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Hong Kong in Chan Kin Sum deciding that a Tara): The cost of maintaining the heritage and integrity blanket ban on prisoners’ voting is unconstitutional; of the House’s buildings and collections is individually and (b) the Government of Hong Kong’s response. itemised on page 26 of the annual report 2007-08, but [HL785] it is included when calculating the overall expenditure of the House because it relates to one of the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry administration’s core tasks, as approved by the House of Justice (Lord Bach): As with previous legal challenges Committee. For clarity, I have also arranged for this in other jurisdictions on the issue of prisoners’ voting cost to be listed separately from all other costs in the rights, Her Majesty’s Government are studying (a) the next edition of The Work of the House of Lords. reasoning behind this judgment and (b) the response by the Government of Hong Kong carefully. The Housing Benefit Government must arrive at a solution that is best for the UK, and, to that end, remains committed to Question carrying out a second public consultation. Asked by Baroness Thomas of Winchester Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish the housing benefit review. [HL960] To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Bach on 15 January (WA 168–74), whether they will be able to ratify the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of Human Rights with appropriate reservations to Luton): The Government intend to publish a housing meet their concerns in relation to passports and the benefit reform consultation document in the first half right of abode. [HL938] of 2009. This will begin a formal period of external consultation on potential reforms to the housing benefit To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the system, as announced in the welfare reform White Written Answer by Lord Bach on 15 January Paper, Raising expectations and increasing support: (WA 168–74), which provision in Article 2 of the reforming welfare for the future. The timing of this Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on consultation has not been finalised. Human Rights confers rights in relation to passports and a right of abode on British nationals who do not currently have that right. [HL939] Human Rights To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Questions Written Answer by Lord Bach on 15 January Asked by Lord Harries of Pentregarth (WA 168–74), whether their concerns about Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human To ask Her Majesty’s Government what Rights are based on rulings of the European Court representations they are making about the violation of Human Rights; and, if not, what they are based of human rights in West Papua, and in particular on. [HL941] the arrests of Buchtar Tabuni and Sebby Sambon for supporting the recent launch of the International Lord Bach: The Government have no plans at this Parliamentarians for West Papua. [HL573] time to seek to ratify the Fourth Protocol with reservations. The Government’s concerns with Article 2 relate to The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth the particular nature of British nationality and Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): We have made no immigration arrangements which permit a person to representations on the specific cases of Buchtar Tabuni be lawfully within United Kingdom territory without and Sebby Sambom. We are aware that they are currently necessarily permitting them to be lawfully within all being detained by police in Jayapura, Papua. We are parts of United Kingdom territory.This may particularly WA 57 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 58 conflict with the provision under Article 2(1) that International Covenant on Civil and “Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State Political Rights shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence”. This Questions assessment has been made by the Government on the basis of the advice of officials and lawyers; there Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill would obviously be no substantive assessment of the To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the compatibility of British law and policy with these Written Answer by Lord Bach on 12 January obligations by the European Court of Human Rights (WA 111–12), what is the nature of the evidence or our domestic courts unless and until the obligations they wish to obtain from the United Kingdom’s were accepted by the United Kingdom. experience of accepting the right of individual petition under the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Independent Safeguarding Authority Women; and what is its relevance to the decision as Question to whether to accept the right of individual petition under the United Nations International Covenant Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno on Civil and Political Rights. [HL671] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what will be To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment the remit of the Independent Safeguarding Authority. they have made of the advantages and disadvantages [HL659] to individuals in the United Kingdom resulting from accepting the right of individual petition under The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home the United Nations International Covenant on Civil Office (Lord West of Spithead): The Independent and Political Rights. [HL672] Safeguarding Authority (ISA) was established under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. It is To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there referred to in the Act as the “Independent Barring are domestic remedies for breaches of the general Board”. The ISA will work with the Criminal Records right to equality without discrimination protected Bureau to deliver the new vetting and barring scheme. by article 26 of the United Nations International Specifically, the ISA will be responsible for establishing Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in areas and maintaining the children’s barred list and the beyond the scope of article 14 of the European vulnerable adults’ barred list. Convention on Human Rights. [HL673]

Interception of Communications Question The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): Given that only two applications, Asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer both found inadmissible, have been made during the period of nearly four years since the United Kingdom To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the accepted the right of individual petition under the Written Answer by Lord West of Spithead on Optional Protocol to the Convention for the Elimination 28 February (WA 136), why they do not know how of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the many interception warrants were refused when the Government wish to see which further applications Answer said that all the issues on applications are are made under this Optional Protocol, how they are weighed personally by the Secretary of State. handled by the relevant committee at the United Nations, [HL280] and whether their outcome demonstrates substantive benefit to people in the United Kingdom from individual The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home petition. This will assist the Government in assessing Office (Lord West of Spithead): The number of occasions the advantages and disadvantages of other individual on which the Secretary of State has refused to sign a petition mechanisms. warrant is not recorded centrally. Moreover, RIPA As the noble Lord is aware, the structure of places an obligation to keep secret all matters relating discrimination law in the United Kingdom developed an interception warrant, the warrant application, issue separately from the broad principle of equality founded and execution of it. Accordingly, it has been the policy on human rights. However, our discrimination law of successive Governments neither to confirm nor specifically prohibits unjustified discrimination in the deny in response to specific questions about whether a performance of public functions and the provision of warrant has been sought or issued. goods, facilities and services, and the principle that The only figures that are made public are those like cases should be treated alike is also recognised by published in the Interception of Communications our courts in the context of judicial review of Commissioner’s annual report. This makes it clear administrative action. Combined with the prohibition that “outright and final refusal of a warrant by the on discrimination in the protection of the convention Secretary of State is comparatively rare, because the rights, most of which are civil and political rights, requesting agencies and the senior officials within the under the Human Rights Act, there are a broad range Secretary of State’s department scrutinise the applications of means by which individuals may challenge with care before they are submitted for approval”. discriminatory treatment in this country. WA 59 Written Answers[28 JANUARY 2009] Written Answers WA 60

International Whaling Commission The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): We remain deeply concerned Question by the treatment of Bahai, Christian and other religious Asked by Lord Ashcroft minorities in Iran, and we are fully committed to raising the issue both bilaterally and through the EU To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they and UN. will place in the Library of the House the document Regrettably, the Iranian Government are increasingly or documents specifying the five options presented reluctant even to hear our representations, and deny for consideration to the United Kingdom and other that there is any basis for concerns about the treatment member nations of the International Whaling of religious minorities. Commission at the Future of the International Whaling Commission meeting in Cambridge in December 2008. [HL834] Iraq Question The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Asked by Lord Hylton Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food To ask Her Majesty’s Government (a) what action and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The they are taking to prevent attacks on ethnic and paper referred to is confidential. It is subject to revision religious minorities in Iraq; (b) what representations and a sub-group (on which the UK is not represented) they are making to the Government of Iraq about will meet later this month in Hawaii to finalise it. It providing restitution for land and goods illegally will then be distributed to commissioners and contracting seized this year around Mosul; (c) whether displaced Governments in early February. It will be discussed at people have been helped to return home; and (d) if an intersessional meeting of the International Whaling so, how many. [HL268] Commission (IWC) in March, and then revised and reissued as the basis for discussion of the future of the The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth IWC at the IWC’s annual meeting in June. If the paper Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): The UK continues to enters into the public domain, I will place it in the press the Government of Iraq at official and ministerial Library of the House. level to protect minority communities, and to take tough action against those responsible for violence and intimidation. Internet: Service Providers We have received no specific reports of land and Question goods having been illegally seized this year around Mosul, though we utterly condemn the violence and Asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer intimidation that minority communities in Mosul have To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether persons been subjected to. We are aware of long-standing working for internet service providers are prohibited disputes over land and properties, dating primarily from giving information as to the persons sending back to the early 1990s. My honourable friend the datagrams, recipients of them, and the contents of Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Bill Rammell) such datagrams; and whether any person disclosing hopes to discuss these issues with ministerial interlocutors any such information would be liable to dismissal from the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government at the next appropriate opportunity. or prosecution. [HL727] We welcome reports from UN High Commissioner for Refugees that due to the efforts of the Iraqi Security The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Forces many families—up to one-third of those displaced Communications, Technology and Broadcasting (Lord in some districts—have returned to their homes in Carter of Barnes): This department would expect internet Mosul, though we are unable to provide any independent service providers and any other company to ensure assessment of the numbers involved. The Iraqi that their operations conform to the relevant laws on Government have pledged grants of $851 per family data and access to data. Disciplinary measures are a to support those families as they return. matter for the organisations concerned. We do not monitor the terms of employment in the internet service sector. Israel and Palestine Question Asked by Lord Steinberg Iran: Discrimination To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps Question they are taking to contribute to a peaceful settlement Asked by Lord Hylton between Israel and Palestine. [HL511] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth most recent replies they received from the Government Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): Achieving a peace of Iran concerning persecution of and discrimination settlement in the Middle East is one of our top priorities. against Sunni Muslim, Bahai and Christian minorities We are in constant contact with all the key players to in Iran; and whether they will continue to raise secure an immediate and durable ceasefire in the current these matters bi-laterally and multi-laterally. [HL857] conflict. We also continue to pursue our efforts to WA 61 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 62 achieve a wider comprehensive peace in the region The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth through diplomacy and practical support to the Palestinian Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): We welcome the work Authority. of Robert Serry and the whole UN system in seeking both to alleviate human suffering and bring peace in Israel and Palestine: Quartet the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Question The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1850 on 16 December 2008 restated the Asked by Lord Hylton UN’s commitment to progress on all tracks of the To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action peace process in 2009. This was repeated in UNSCR they and the Quartet will take concerning the proposed 1860 on 8 January 2009, which also called for an demolition of 88 dwellings, housing some 1,500 immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. residents, in the Al-Bustan neighbourhood of East We are confident that the UN will continue to Jerusalem. [HL454] pursue these goals, and it will have the UK’s support in doing so. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): We have made it clear to Israel, with very few exceptions, that house demolitions in occupied territory are in direct contravention of National Security Forum article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. We will Questions continue lobbying the Israeli Government for an immediate halt to demolitions. Asked by Baroness Neville-Jones To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they Israel and Palestine: Tax intend to set up the National Security Forum as a Question non-departmental public body; and what its budget will be. [HL684] Asked by Lord Hylton To ask Her Majesty’s Government who chairs To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Israel the interim National Security Forum; and who are has paid to the Palestinian Authority the tax revenues its members. [HL685] for 2000–02 which were withheld because of the intifada; and, if not, what action the quartet will To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the take. [HL146] work programme of the interim National Security Forum; and whether they have received advice from The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth it. [HL686] Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): According to the International Monetary Fund all previously withheld clearance revenue has been released to the Palestinian Lord Patel of Bradford: The Prime Minister is Authority. considering who to appoint to the membership of the Interim National Security Forum. Invitations have Israel and Palestine: Weapons been issued to a number of candidates but the final membership of the forum is yet to be determined. The Question forum has not yet met and so no advice has been Asked by Lord Dykes received from it. Costs relating to the forum will be met from within Cabinet Office departmental spending. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they The Prime Minister will announce the membership of will consider a full embargo on weapons sales to the forum and the date of its first meeting in due Israel. [HL560] course. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): We already routinely refuse export licenses where we believe there is a clear Northern Ireland Office: Bonuses risk that they will be used for external aggression or Question internal repression. As with all conflicts, we will take into account the recent conflict and the conduct and Asked by Lord Laird methods of the Israeli Defence Force in that conflict in the assessment of future export licences. To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by the Lord President (Baroness Royall of Blaisdon) on 18 December 2008 (WA 71) Middle East Peace Process concerning bonus payments to staff of the Northern Question Ireland Office in the next financial year, what element Asked by Lord Hylton of the current pay settlements take the form of bonuses; and whether that system was agreed with To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment the appropriate trade unions. [HL796] they have made of the statements by Mr Robert Serry, United Nations Special Co-ordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, made on 2 and 4 December; Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Bonuses in the Northern and whether the United Nations and its agencies Ireland Office are paid for from budgets arising will take any action following the statements. from successive spending review settlements. The non- WA 63 Written Answers[28 JANUARY 2009] Written Answers WA 64 consolidated performance element of pay is 0.54 per The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home cent of the pay bill for staff at grades D2 to A and Office (Lord West of Spithead): Operations involving 8.6 per cent of the pay bill for the senior Civil Service. firearms are intended to bring an end to an imminent Special bonuses, which are also non-consolidated, threat to life or of serious injury. Under Section 3 of and for which staff at grades D2 to A are eligible, cost the Criminal Law Act 1967, the use of force for the 0.4 per cent of the pay bill. prevention of crime and apprehension of offenders Relevant trade unions were consulted about the and those unlawfully at large must be reasonable in all various schemes. the circumstances. The use of lethal force by police officers is subject to the same requirements as for any other use of force. Once authorised to use firearms, it Northern Ireland Office: Overtime is for the individual officer to ensure they act within Question the law. Asked by Lord Laird The use of firearms by police officers is closely governed by Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether overtime guidelines. payments are made to officials in the Northern Ireland Office; and, if so, how much was paid in each of the past five financial years. [HL876] Recycling Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Overtime payments Questions are made to Northern Ireland Office officials in accordance with the department’s terms and conditions of Asked by Lord Greaves employment. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assistance The following table shows the department’s (excluding they will provide to local authorities to assist them agencies and Executive NDPBs) overtime expenditure to dispose of recyclates in the present market conditions. for the past five financial years: [HL696]

Overtime Expenditure Financial Year (£ 000s) The Minister of State, Department of Energy and 2007-08 961 Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food 2006-07 935 and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The 2005-06 994 Government have taken a number of actions to assist 2004-05 1,070 local authorities with recycling in the present market 2003-04 872 conditions. Defra has stepped up monitoring and intelligence- gathering on recycling and reprocessing markets, working Olympic Games 2012: Football with the Waste and Resources Action Programme Question (WRAP), the Local Government Association (LGA), the Environment Agency and others. Asked by Lord Faulkner of Worcester The WRAP has increased the frequency of its To ask Her Majesty’s Government to what extent materials pricing report to fortnightly to provide up-to-date the stadia chosen to host football events at the 2012 price information and market intelligence as quickly Olympics comply with the Accessible Stadia Guidance. as possible and, with LGA support, has set up an [HL812] online Market Conditions Forum for local authorities to deal with any questions that are raised about current Lord Davies of Oldham: The London Organising market conditions. Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games The WRAP and the National Industrial Symbiosis (LOCOG) is currently recruiting an expert in accessible Programme are working together to try to find alternative spectator facilities, who will support the design teams markets for recyclable materials. The Government have when developing the overlay requirements for each also asked UK Trade & Investment for help in identifying football venue. In co-operation with the venue operator, possible alternative markets overseas. LOCOG will ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and related codes of practice, The Government have worked closely with the including Accessible Stadia Guidance, European and Environment Agency, which has taken a pragmatic British Standards. approach to the rules on storage of recyclable wastes to assist local authorities and waste management companies. Police: Shootings Asked by Lord Greaves Question To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the Asked by Lord Laird estimated loss to local authorities in the current To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there financial year and the next financial year due to the is or has been a shoot-to-kill policy by police in decline in the market for materials collected for (a) Northern Ireland, and (b) London; and, if so, recycling; and whether they will adjust their grants in what circumstances. [HL872] to local authorities to take account of that. [HL698] WA 65 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 66

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The extent of income Transport: Integrated Transport Authority losses to local authorities from the fall in the value of recyclable materials depends on the nature of local Question authorities’ contracts with waste management companies. Asked by Lord Hanningfield These vary from one authority to another. Some are contractually entitled to a share of the income from To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many the recyclates. Others have fixed-price contracts which local authorities have registered an interest in shelter them from market volatility. establishing an Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) Given this great diversity in circumstances, no overall under the Local Transport Act 2008; and when they estimate has been made. expect the first ITA to be established. [HL930] The Government have no plans to adjust the grants to local authorities. Following consultation with local authorities on the provisional local government finance The Minister of State, Department for Transport settlement for 2009-10, on Wednesday 21 January the (Lord Adonis): The six existing passenger transport Government confirmed their plans for the funding of authorities—in West Midlands, Greater Manchester, local authority revenue spending through formula grant, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, Merseyside and now subject to parliamentary approval. Overall West Yorkshire—will become integrated transport government grants to local authorities in 2009-10 will authorities (ITAs) on 9 February when the relevant be £73.1 billion, which provides an increase of 4.2 per provisions in Part 5 of the Local Transport Act 2008 cent over 2008-09 on a like-for-like basis. are commenced. The 2008 Act also allows for these ITAs to be restructured, and for the creation of additional ITAs. Sri Lanka We are aware that several groups of local authorities are currently reviewing existing transport governance Question arrangements in their area. Guidance on governance Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill reviews, including an indication of the likely timescale involved, has been published and is available at To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/localtransportbill/ will make representations to the Government of guidancegovernance.pdf. Sri Lanka urging them to set up an independent public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the killing of Lasantha Wickramatunga, the editor of the Sunday Leader newspaper, with a view to Waste Management identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to Question justice. [HL670] Asked by Lord Greaves The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth To ask Her Majesty’s Government where joint Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): We welcome the stated waste authorities are planned or have been set up commitment of the Sri Lankan Government to investigate under Part 11 of the Local Government and Public the killing of the Sunday Leader’s, chief editor on Involvement in Health Act 2007. [HL803] 8 January 2009. The UK has been clear that it is vital for the perpetrators of such reprehensible acts to be brought to justice following a thorough and independent The Minister of State, Department of Energy and investigation. Officials at our High Commission in Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food Colombo have emphasised this to President Rajapakse. and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): No joint waste authorities (JWA) have yet been established. The honourable Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Syria Ruddock) wrote to authorities in June 2008 asking Question them to come forward with expressions of interest in Asked by Lord Dykes developing a proposal for a JWA in their area. Such expressions of interest do not constitute a commitment To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they to applying for JWA status. Details of responses will will hold discussions with the Government of Syria be published shortly. to secure a cessation of the firing of rockets into Israel. [HL561] White Phosphorus The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): My right honourable Question friend the Foreign Secretary has been in regular contact Asked by Baroness Tonge with Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem during the Gaza crisis. In these conversations, he has consistently To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice urged the Syrian Government to use their influence they have received from medical professionals in with Hamas put a stop to the firing of rockets into the United Kingdom regarding alleged injuries from Israel. white phosphorus. [HL913] WA 67 Written Answers[28 JANUARY 2009] Written Answers WA 68

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): Neither Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food the department nor the Heath Protection Agency have and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Community sought advice from medical professionals in the United rules governing the labelling of wine marketed in the Kingdom regarding injuries from white phosphorus. European Union make no provision for the ingredients or products used in the process of winemaking to be Wine labelled. However, food labelling arrangements under Questions Directive 2000/13/EC require that ingredients derived from specific allergenic foods that are used in the Asked by Viscount Waverley production of wine, such as sulphites, be displayed on To ask Her Majesty’s Government why European the label using a “contains X” statement. Union wine producers are not required to declare the chemical content on wine labels. [HL592] The European Commission has published a proposal To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they for ingredient listings on alcoholic drinks. However, will discuss with other European Union member the Commission also proposes an exemption for wine, states the introduction of a requirement upon European beers and spirits pending a report by the Commission. Union wine producers to declare the chemical content There are currently no clear views from other member on wine labels. [HL593] states, which have yet to discuss this issue in detail.

Wednesday 28 January 2009

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No. Col. No. Benefits: Conditionality Review ...... 19 Northern Ireland: Consultative Group on the Past...... 22

Children: Early Learning and Childcare ...... 20 Police: Metropolitan Police Commissioner ...... 23 Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Children: Poverty...... 21 Order 2009...... 23

House of Lords: Cost ...... 22 Royal Mail...... 26

Wednesday 28 January 2009

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. Afghanistan...... 43 Interception of Communications...... 57

Afghanistan: Air Power ...... 44 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ...... 58

Agriculture: Incineration ...... 44 International Whaling Commission...... 59

Armed Forces: Aircraft...... 45 Internet: Service Providers...... 59

Armed Forces: HMS “Endurance”...... 45 Iran: Discrimination ...... 59

Azerbaijan: Broadcasting ...... 45 Iraq...... 60

Bailiffs ...... 46 Israel and Palestine...... 60

Bees ...... 47 Israel and Palestine: Quartet...... 61

Benefits...... 48 Israel and Palestine: Tax ...... 61

Charities: Fraud...... 48 Israel and Palestine: Weapons...... 61

Child Protection ...... 48 Middle East Peace Process...... 61

Common Travel Area ...... 49 National Security Forum ...... 62

Crime: Domestic Violence ...... 49 Northern Ireland Office: Bonuses ...... 62

Criminal Records Bureau ...... 49 Northern Ireland Office: Overtime ...... 63

Department for Transport: Staffing ...... 50 Olympic Games 2012: Football...... 63

Energy: Reserves...... 50 Police: Shootings ...... 63

Fishing: Vessels...... 51 Recycling ...... 64

Gaza ...... 51 Sri Lanka...... 65

Health: Diabetes ...... 54 Syria ...... 65

House of Lords: Annual Report...... 55 Transport: Integrated Transport Authority...... 66

Housing Benefit...... 55 Waste Management ...... 66

Human Rights ...... 55 White Phosphorus ...... 66

Independent Safeguarding Authority...... 57 Wine ...... 67 NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. [HL146] ...... 61 [HL685] ...... 62

[HL268] ...... 60 [HL686] ...... 62

[HL280] ...... 57 [HL687] ...... 45

[HL338] ...... 47 [HL696] ...... 64

[HL454] ...... 61 [HL698] ...... 64

[HL496] ...... 44 [HL707] ...... 44

[HL498] ...... 43 [HL722] ...... 51

[HL511] ...... 60 [HL727] ...... 59

[HL513] ...... 48 [HL766] ...... 48

[HL521] ...... 51 [HL778] ...... 53

[HL523] ...... 52 [HL779] ...... 54

[HL543] ...... 49 [HL785] ...... 56

[HL549] ...... 52 [HL796] ...... 62

[HL551] ...... 52 [HL800] ...... 49

[HL552] ...... 52 [HL803] ...... 66

[HL558] ...... 52 [HL812] ...... 63

[HL559] ...... 53 [HL821] ...... 50

[HL560] ...... 61 [HL822] ...... 50

[HL561] ...... 65 [HL830] ...... 46

[HL563] ...... 53 [HL832] ...... 47

[HL573] ...... 55 [HL834] ...... 59

[HL575] ...... 45 [HL840] ...... 54

[HL592] ...... 67 [HL844] ...... 43

[HL593] ...... 67 [HL856] ...... 45

[HL627] ...... 50 [HL857] ...... 59

[HL641] ...... 53 [HL872] ...... 63

[HL643] ...... 53 [HL876] ...... 63

[HL658] ...... 48 [HL913] ...... 66

[HL659] ...... 57 [HL930] ...... 66

[HL670] ...... 65 [HL938] ...... 56

[HL671] ...... 58 [HL939] ...... 56

[HL672] ...... 58 [HL941] ...... 56

[HL673] ...... 58 [HL949] ...... 55

[HL679] ...... 49 [HL957] ...... 54

[HL684] ...... 62 [HL960] ...... 55 Volume 707 Wednesday No. 23 28 January 2009

CONTENTS

Wednesday 28 January 2009 Questions EU: Welfare Benefits ...... 243 Prisons: Young Offender SP ...... 245 Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill: Pre-legislative Scrutiny...... 247 BBC: Disasters Emergency Committee ...... 249 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] Committee (3rd Day)...... 252 Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming Machines in Bingo Premises) Order 2009 ...... 311 Gambling Act 2005 (Variation of Monetary Limit) Order 2009 Motions to Approve...... 320 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL] Committee (Third Day) (continued) ...... 320 Grand Committee Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL] Committee (Fourth Day) ...... GC 75 Written Statements...... WS 19 Written Answers...... WA 4 3