Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
1 MARCH 2004
Mr John Saunders, Ms Elizabeth McElhinney and Mrs
Susan Sutherland examined
Q20 Mr Burnett: My final point is did it
affect any profession other than that of solicitors? I do not
know—I should know—for example, can patent agents
or anyone like that appear in courts and avail themselves of that
immunity?
Mr Saunders: I believe that may be so.
Q21 Mr Burnett: Did you consult with all
those professions?
Mr Saunders: No. We consulted with those who
would be most likely to be affected by the repeal. As I say, the
repeal actually would have no effect anyway.
Chairman: There is a division in the
Lords so I will suspend the sitting so people can vote.
The Committee suspended from 5.05 pm to 5.13
pm for a division in the House of Lords
Chairman: Can we move
on perhaps from Part 1, Administration of Justice, to Part 2 which
is agriculture. Perhaps we can do it on the basis that if people
have particular points to raise on agriculture they will raise
them.
Q22 Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lord
Chairman, I have got two, and I realise we had better get a move
on. Section 95 of the Agriculture Act 1947 allows orders to be
made for the production of cereal goods. It is said this has never
been used and will not be. It is not just food crops but other
crops as well and I wondered, for instance, if there was a move
afoot to grow material for turning into fuel, rather as they do
in Brazil, and if that became Government policy whether they would
not find themselves in need of the powers in section 95 in order
to achieve an adequate production of material of that sort? I
wonder, therefore, whether this is as obsolete as has been said?
That is one point. The other very obscure point is about the Wool
Board. We are repealing, apparently, all the powers, if they have
not been repealed, to keep the Wool Board going and, on the other
hand, there are Statutory Instruments as late as 1991, which is
after all the other material has been repealed, which apparently
continues to govern it. I do not understand the legislative scheme
under which the Wool Board is still being kept going because I
cannot find the power to look at that nor can I find the Statutory
Instrument.
Mr Saunders: I do not claim to be an expert
on wool. On the first point about the Agriculture Act, 1947, all
I can say is the powers under that section have not been exercised
for the first half century after which they were made available
and it seems wholly improbable they ever will be. That is the
opinion of Government and every one else we have consulted. On
wool, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1958 regulates wool and
we are not doing anything to affect that.
Q23 Viscount Colville of Culross: Were the
Statutory Instruments made under the 1958 Act because I do not
think they were? They were made under something which was deemed
to continue in force by virtue of the 1958 Act.
Mr Saunders: I do not know the answer to that
one. All I can say is that none of the repeals here is affecting
the position of the wool marketing provisions of that Act.
Q24 Viscount Colville of Culross: Those
powers still exist?
Mr Saunders: I believe so. I know more about
what I am getting rid of rather than what I am saving. I believe
that nothing in this Bill will undermine any orders relating to
wool.
Viscount Colville of Culross:
Very well, my Lord Chairman, but so long as the thing exists there
must be powers to handle it. If we are told those powers continue
to exist then I have no doubt we can carry out these repeals.
I was not happy about it, I must say.
Chairman: Thank you. Any other points
on agriculture?
Q25 Mr Steen: Can I just ask, my Lord Chairman,
do we know if any of the agricultural repeals we are proposing
have ever been used? Have they always been redundant?
Mr Saunders: No. Some of the powers in Acts
being repealed in this Bill, Agriculture, would have been used
in the past. But we are talking about Acts which were passed just
after the Second World War when agricultural conditions were very
different from what they are today. None of the powers have been
exercised recently.
Q26 Chairman: I take it that the Acts which
are being repealed are ones which could affect policies which
are no longer being operated, is that correct?
Mr Saunders: That is correct.
Q27 Sir Patrick Cormack: Has there been
full consultation with agricultural interests in determining which
Acts or parts of Acts are to be repealed @ASLINK@or@AFLINK@ is
this entirely a legal exercise?
Mr Saunders: It is not entirely legal but I
am afraid, in the area of agriculture, most of the repeal candidates
are self-evidently obsolete because of the nature of the powers
being given.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not dispute
that, my Lord Chairman, but I want to know how the procedure works.
I am just wondering whether when you have determined which Acts
or parts of Acts in your judgment should go—I am sure your
judgment is right 90 per cent of the time—do you send a
list of those to any agricultural interests so they can reply
and say: "We entirely concur with this"? Who has had
the opportunity within the agricultural community to agree that
your pruning exercise is agriculturally acceptable?
Q28 Lord Christopher: The NFU was not consulted
on this, which I would have expected it to be, which is not to
say there is any reason why it alone should be. Similarly, on
employment neither the CBI nor the TUC was consulted, which I
thought odd.
Mr Saunders: On the point of agriculture, the
report summarises those we did consult at the end of Part 2, page
80, and it shows, for example, the Meat and Livestock Commission
were consulted, the National Hop Association were consulted, the
Agricultural Wages Board. It was perhaps not industry wide but
the consultation is pinpointed on those who would have an actual
interest in the repeal being proposed. One can always consult
more widely, of course.
Q29 Chairman: You consult the various Government
departments, is that right?
Mr Saunders: Indeed.
Q30 Chairman: But not, do I understand,
for example, the CBI or whoever it may be, is that right?
Mr Saunders: No. If the CBI or the TUC have
an interest in a particular repeal we would consult certainly.
Q31 Chairman: When one finds at the end
of the comments on particular repeals that you have consulted
the Department for the Environment or whoever it may be, does
that mean there may be other people you have consulted also?
Mr Saunders: The report just summarises. It
summarises the numbers of consultees. Other people will have been
consulted. I would be surprised if anyone had not been consulted
who might have a legitimate comment to make on a repeal candidate.
The notes give more details about the individual consultees.
Chairman: Are there any
other points on agriculture?
Q32 Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lord Chairman,
could I ask is a record kept of those who you consult? I am not
criticising, I just wondered what the procedure was.
Mr Saunders: The major consultees are listed
in the notes on the Bill. Sometimes so many consultees are involved
we list only the principal consultees. Sometimes there are many
smaller organisations who we have to consult and we do not necessarily
put them all into the list.
Q33 Sir Patrick Cormack: Is there a list
somewhere where they are recorded?
Mr Saunders: Only in our files.
Q34 Sir Patrick Cormack: I speak as a member
of the National Council on Archives. What if a historian in the
future wants to know who precisely was consulted? It does not
take a tremendous amount of paper, you use enough already anyhow,
to list. If I can give a not exact analogy: whenever a Select
Committee of either House receives written representations from
those who do not appear before it as witnesses, they are at the
very least listed so one knows. I am just slightly concerned because
I infer from what you have been saying that the historian in the
future will have no knowledge of who was consulted.
Mr Saunders: Historians will have every chance
to find out because for every repeal exercise which the Commissions
undertake a full list of those who are consulted is kept.
Q35 Sir Patrick Cormack: That is all right.
Mr Saunders: It is just they are not included
in the notes because the notes would be twice the size they are
at present.
Q36 Chairman: It may be that the notes could
be usefully expanded on future occasions to include more of the
people who are consulted, apart from just listing the departments
and so on. Although I notice other bodies are from time to time
mentioned, it may be that in the light of comments that will be
something the Commissions would wish to consider in the future.
Mr Saunders: Yes.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury:
It is a slightly odd notion, in a way, to consult in relation
to a piece of refuse collection or tidying up or forestry because
there is no substance in it or policy in it. I wondered whether
the anxiety about consultation is perhaps—
Sir Patrick Cormack: I
think that is a very spurious point because there was a time—when
I came to the House of Commons in 1970—when I used to find
people throwing out Pugin lockers because there was no taste for
them; indeed I rescued one or two myself. That was considered
refuse at the time.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury:
Different sort of refuse.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I
think one has to be careful of these things.
Chairman: Hopefully we
will reach Part 5 and come across amendments which are an illustration
of a proposal to throw out something which was found to be useful.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury:
Right. We are getting worried now.
Q37 Chairman: Group 2 of Part 2 is general
repeals in relation to agriculture. Part 3 is allotments and smallholdings.
Mr Saunders: In Part 3 the repeal candidates
are mostly technical provisions relating to the law on smallholdings.
The most interesting candidate is the Small Holdings Colonies
Act 1916 which was passed to provide work for ex-servicemen who
had served in the Great War. It provided them with land to produce
agricultural produce. Most of that Act has now been repealed.
The rump is being repealed by the present Bill. The other repeals
are very technical relating to the phasing out of cottage holdings.
Q38 Chairman: Any questions on Part 3? Part
4 is aviation.
Mr Saunders: Yes. All the candidates are quite
recent. The Air Corporations Acts of 1966 and 1969 were passed
to provide assistance to the old BOAC and BEA. The Civil Aviation
Act 1980 passed to facilitate the privatisation of British Airways
and the Airports Act of 1986 passed to facilitate the privatisation
of the British Airports Authority in 1986. Nothing of great interest.
Q39 Chairman: Any questions on that? Part
5, in introducing this I wonder whether you could also speak to
the amendments?
Ms McElhinney: Yes. Shall I just draw the Committee's
attention to four amendments which are contained in Group 4, Education.
These amendments concern the University Commissioners whose functions
ceased on 1 April 1996. The original proposal was to repeal sections
202 to 208 of the Education Reform Act 1988 which would have removed
references to the Commissioners. The Department for Education
and Skills have asked that the relevant statutory provisions should
be retained as they are still of use in interpreting other provisions.
Accordingly these amendments ensure that sections 202 to 208 of
the 1988 Act are left on the statute book for the time being.
| 
