| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, while there is no opposition from these Benches to the order, I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions in relation to the cost of the new arrangements.
Have the savings which are likely to be derived as a result of the proposed merger of the Local Government Commission and the Parliamentary Boundary Commission been identified? If so, what are they?
Section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 gives the commission powers to promote public awareness of the institutions of the European Union. It is a curious section which has the potential to be very costly if either the Government or the commission itself require to take up the whole scale of publicity campaigns, of whatever nature, to do with European institutions.
In the light of that and my previous question, can the Minister give the budget which has been agreed as being appropriate for the first year of the Electoral Commission? Can he also indicate what cost savings are likely to arise as a result of the subsequent merger of the two commissions under one roof? I say Xunder one roof" advisedly because I hope that they will be brought together physically as well as metaphorically. Will the Minister confirm that the budget responsibilities for the commission will be borne by the Speaker's Committee? Can he give details of the budget which that committee has agreed for the year 2002-03?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support the order. Indeed, we warmly welcome it. I am not sure whether I should declare an interest as a member of the London Assembly, which falls within the order, but, as I am a London-wide member—and, happily, I do not think a change of boundary for the whole of London is in prospect—perhaps it is only a very small interest.
We are aware that turn-out is of particular concern to the Electoral Commission. No doubt that will be central to its views on appropriate boundaries. At
London borough level, I used to represent a ward which included parts of three different communities. That led to enormous confusion, not least as to why the boundary of the ward was in one case a railway and in the others went down the middle of residential roads. There seems to be little logic in people living in one polling district and identifying with not only a different community but with a different borough. Artificial boundaries do not promote identity with an electoral area. I am sure that the Electoral Commission will have this very much in mind.We support, too, the integration of boundary decisions at all levels to help reduce confusion. It is not too clear why, for instance, you might be voting in a ward in a part of one parliamentary constituency when you identify with and live in what you regard as a neighbouring borough.
I was a little confused by a comment made by the Minister in another place in the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. He said:
- XThose decisions will be placed squarely in the hands of an independent commission"—
- Xwhich is not to say that in the past decisions have been made other than on the basis of objective recommendations by independent people".
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the Minister rises to reply, may I do what I should have done and declare an interest as a member of a local authority? It is becoming very boring, but I believe that I should keep saying it.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall address, first, the two questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. This issue was considered in some detail in the Standing Committee in another place. It flows from old thinking about the nature of the Electoral Commission and the nature of the Local Government Commission itself. The Electoral Commission, which, under this order, is taking over the functions of the Local Government Commission, will no longer be the creature of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. It is outwith his control and his power. He will no longer have any responsibility for its budget. It operates completely independently from him, and it reaches its conclusions on electoral arrangements without in any way going near him.
For those reasons, the budget for the Electoral Commission, including the budgets necessary to support the work of the Local Government Commission, which is being transferred into it, cannot be part of the responsibility of the Secretary of State for fairly obvious reasons, in that he must have no influence over it. That is why, if I understand it correctly, the original 2000 Act placed the responsibility for the budget firmly on the Speaker's
Committee. As I understand it, as yet, the Electoral Commission has not submitted its budget to the Speaker's Committee. I should expect that it would do so—and this is speculation—shortly after the order is passed so that it can put a composite budget for 2002 before the Speaker's Committee. It is then that we shall know the proposed budget for the commission for 2002-03.Clearly, it is not a rubber stamp. The Speaker's Committee must then inspect the budget, and has powers to change or vary it as it thinks appropriate before it is affirmed in either its original or its modified form. Therefore, it is not a matter of truculence on my part. It is not possible for me—nor would it be right even if knew what was being proposed—for that to be done. It is a matter for the Speaker's Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the turnout in local government elections. I share her view that these are strong concerns of the Electoral Commission. We have already seen its report on the general election, which many noble Lords have read with some interest. I very much hope that we shall see a similar focus on what the commission can do, along with many others, to raise turnout in local government elections. I also share the noble Baroness's view that seeking to make electoral arrangements reflect natural communities, so far as one can grasp such slippery concepts, is highly desirable—as I believe the commission is charged. It is not meant merely to take an arithmetic approach, but to look at the communities as well.
It was perhaps a teasing question as to whether my honourable friend in another place had implied that the independence of the commission should not be seen to reflect on past political decisions in these matters. I am sure that he was probably referring to the fact that, while all politicians, one trusts, have always acted honourably in these matters, the issue is trying to convince the public that there is no trace of political interference. That is why there is such a distance in terms of the responsibilities and the budget itself.
I trust that my remarks have addressed satisfactorily the questions raised. I trust also that there will be a continuation of cross-party support for what we believe to be a strengthening of decisions on electoral arrangements and that the Electoral Commission will move forward with power and skill in addressing these difficult roles. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2001
8.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [5th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if approved, this order would be the first ever regulatory reform order to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, which received Royal Assent shortly before the general election this year. We therefore have an opportunity to make a little history.
The order is designed to extend permitted licensing hours from normal closing time on New Year's Eve this year until 11 a.m. on New Year's Day 2002. By adding to the existing hours, this would in effect allow on-licensed premises and registered members' clubs to open continuously—if they wish to do so—from 11 a.m. on New Year's Eve until 11 p.m. on New Year's Day 2002. This is a period of 36 hours.
XOn-licensed premises" include, for example, pubs, nightclubs and restaurants. XRegistered members' clubs" are non-profit-making clubs such as the Royal British Legion, working men's clubs, and Labour, Conservative and Liberal clubs, which often run special events on New Year's Eve.
In addition, the order would permit the police, local authorities and any local resident to apply to the licensing justices for a restriction order limiting the additional hours on grounds of likely disorder or disturbance. The final decision on whether to grant such a restriction order would be for the justices after considering the evidence.
The tourism industry, which includes the hospitality industry, has had a dreadful year. The effects of foot and mouth and the awful events on September 11th have been immensely damaging. The order is an opportunity to give the hospitality industry a small boost at a very difficult time. Ordinary people, too, will benefit by having the opportunity to enjoy themselves when and where they want on a night of national celebration.
I want to thank the members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House, who have spent considerable time scrutinising the order and who have worked closely with the Government to agree appropriate terms for it.
The committee had concerns about the timing of the order and about the legal interpretation of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. In its report of 21st November to the House, the committee explained its reluctance to approve this order if the effects of Section 1(4) of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 would have subsequently prevented it approving an order in respect of licensing hours at the Golden Jubilee. Section 1(4) is referred to in the reports as Xthe two-year rule" and it prohibits an amendment to the same provision in primary legislation twice within two years. However, following advice from Treasury Counsel, the committee has noted in its report that:
- XThe restrictions currently applying to the sale of alcohol on all New Year's Eves and during the Golden Jubilee have been transferred from Part III of the Licensing Act 1964 to this Order. These provisions can subsequently be amended without falling foul of the 'two year rule' contained in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001".
The timing of the order was also an issue of concern for the parliamentary committees concerned with regulatory reform because of the limited time that magistrates would have to process applications for restriction orders before New Year's Eve. The committees, however, accepted the assurances given by the Magistrates' Association in a letter to the House of Commons committee. It said that magistrates would still support the order becoming law as late as mid-December, and that licensing justices were willing and able to deal with any applications for restriction orders in the time available.
The timing of the order provides no time for licensees to appeal against a restriction order imposed by magistrates, and the appeal provisions were removed from the order on grounds of practicality. However, I can assure the House that future orders—for example, the one concerning the Golden Jubilee—will restore these provisions.
Finally, I can confirm to the House that the terms of the order are fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The order was approved in another place on 28th November and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [5th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page