| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Tourism
Baroness Anelay of St Johns asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Which regional development agencies are giving practical and financial support to initiatives which aim to generate domestic tourism; and what is the nature of that support.[HL1386]
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): All regional development agencies (RDAs) are essential partners in implementing the Government's economic and regeneration policy for regional development. As such, they are increasingly involved in promoting the tourism industry. Recent draft RDA corporate planning guidance requires them to liaise with regional tourist boards (RTBs) and co-operate in the production of regional tourism strategies. This co-ordination will ensure that tourism represents a vital, growing element of the regional economies.
The nature of RDA support is broad. For example, during the foot and mouth outbreak RDAs have provided assistance to rural businesses, including tourism, through a government funded £74 million recovery fund. Affected small businesses were eligible for assistance, such as marketing support, business advice and grants to help meet interest payments on bank loans.
Equality of Treatment: Election Candidates
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they intend the exceptions made by the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill to Parts II to IV of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to be read and given effect in accordance with the principle of proportionality; and[HL868]
Whether the exceptions made by the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill to Parts II to IV of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 must be read and given effect in accordance with the principle of proportionality so as to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on
- Human Rights and its First Protocol, and European Community Law; and, if not, why not.[HL1375]
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): The way in which the exceptions made by the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill to Parts II to IV of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 will be construed is a matter for the courts. The Government can give no assurance that alters that fact. Nonetheless the points raised by the noble Lord are important ones and bear examination.
The Government's view is that the selection of candidates falls outside the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive. Our view is that being a Member of Parliament is not an occupation that falls within the scope of the directive. Furthermore, we take the view that the directive does not apply to the electoral process: selection for election is not comparable to normal selection for employment. The principle of proportionality in this respect would not therefore be relevant.
Political parties are, of course, free to take their own legal advice on the point. As with any legislation, particularly where no specific measures are imposed, it is not for the Government to give guarantees that acts done under the legislation are lawful. Ultimately it is for the courts to decide.
It is not clear that the European Convention on Human Rights is engaged. The Government have, however, borne in mind when proceeding with this legislation that the convention could apply and that it might do so because Article 14, along with Article 3 of the First Protocol, is engaged.
Assuming that the ECHR is engaged, although the Government do not accept that political parties are public authorities for the purposes of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is accepted that there is an argument that the convention has horizontal effect, so that the Bill would be interpreted in accordance with convention rights as between private parties.
Assuming that the convention does have this effect, it will be necessary for any measure adopted by a particular political party to be proportionate in ECHR terms. The Bill is permissive. How a political party will use it is a matter for that party: it is about choice and flexibility. It is inevitable that parties will have to take their own legal advice about whether, and, if so, to what extent, the principle of proportionality applies. This is no different from any other case of permissive, non-prescriptive legislation.
Whether a particular measure chosen by a party is proportionate will ultimately be a matter for the courts to decide and, to the extent that the ECHR may be engaged, we would expect the courts to follow any human rights jurisprudence on proportionality.
As the noble Lord is aware, CEDAW (which relates only to discrimination against women) and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights give rise to international obligations for the UK.
The Government regard those obligations with the utmost seriousness. It is clear, however, that international obligations do not become part of
domestic law unless incorporated into it. Such international obligations do not in the Government's view give individuals a source of rights and obligations that can be enforced directly before the UK courts. In some instances the courts will construe legislation with the presumption in mind that it should be interpreted compatibly with international obligations, but this is the case only where the legislation is ambiguous. To the extent that these treaties would require the exceptions made by the Bill to be read and given effect in accordance with the principle of proportionality, our view is that it is unlikely that they will add anything further to any other considerations of proportionality.Civil Partnership Registration
Baroness Ludford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they have made any assessment of the impact on the societies of (a) Belgium, (b) Denmark, (c) France, (d) Germany, (e) Norway, (f) Iceland, (g) Spain, (h) Sweden, and (i) The Netherlands, of the decision of each to permit civil partnerships, including for same sex couples; and what plans they have to introduce similar arrangements in the United Kingdom.[HL1265]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Government have made no assessment of the impact of civil partnership registration in any of the countries listed.
Civil partnership registration and associated rights and responsibilities raise a number of complex issues which have prompted a growing debate within society, and the Government are watching this debate with interest.
These issues potentially have significant financial and administrative implications, and the Government cannot commit themselves to making any changes in these areas before undertaking a comprehensive analysis of all the implications. The Government will now be examining the issues in detail.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton
The Earl of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether Baroness Morgan of Huyton will be paid from Labour Party funds in connection with her duties in the Prime Minister's office.[HL1371]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is paid from government funds for the part of her work that relates to government business and from the Labour Party for the part of her work that is Labour Party business.
Lord Northbrook asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether Baroness Morgan of Huyton acquired pension rights as a result of her service as a Minister; and, if so, on what financial basis those rights were granted.[HL1534]
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: As a Minister of Her Majesty's Government, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was eligible to join the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF) if she so wished. All members of the PCPF are required to pay contributions, currently at a rate of 6 per cent, on their pensionable salary.
Mandelkern Group Report
Lord Milner of Leeds asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What progress has been made by the Mandelkern Group on better regulation since the last report to this House in March.[HL1692]
Lord MacDonald of Tradeston: The Mandelkern Group has met five times since March 2001 and at its last meeting on 12-13 November adopted its final report. This report was presented by the group's chairman, M. Dieudonne Mandelkern, to the Internal Market, Consumer and Tourism Council on 26 November and has been sent to the Presidents of the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of Ministers. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House.
The report represents a significant achievement. For the first time, representatives of all 15 member states have signed up to a document setting out in detail the actions that need to be undertaken in order to improve Europe's regulatory environment. It contains a number of concrete, practical recommendations and an action plan with realistic timings. In particular, the action plan asks the Commission to: establish a new, comprehensive impact assessment system, covering all Commission regulatory proposals, by June 2002; establish a central web-based consultation register for all EU consultations by June 2002; adopt a standard minimum 16-week consultation period from March 2002; spearhead a 40 per cent reduction in the volume of Community acts by June 2004, arising from a concerted codification of European legislation by the Institutions; launch a new targeted simplification programme by June 2002 of existing European legislation in all areas; and create throughout the Commission a centrally supported, effective network for better regulation by June 2002.
The Government fully support the Mandelkern Group's report and will be working closely with other member states and the institutions of the EU to seek acceptance and timely implementation of its main recommendations.
| Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |