| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. If this council is established and it attempts to direct a regulatory authority to amend its rules in a way which that authority thinks is totally contrary to the public interest, who will be the final arbiter? Will it be the Secretary of State or will it be, still, the Privy Council and Parliament?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is an interesting question. Perhaps I should explain the process under which that will operate. There would first be a process of discussion between the council and the regulatory body. If that proved to be unsatisfactory and the council suggested that there should be a rule change, there would then be further consultation. If at the end of the day the regulatory body was unable to agree with that, there would then be a direction made by the council. The expectation would be that the regulatory body would make the rule and that that would then go forward to the Privy Council for approval.
The noble Lord asked—I think this was really the question—what if the regulatory body then refuses to make the rule? It seems to me that that would mean the regulatory body would be in breach of the law. Clearly, that would be a difficult and serious situation. As regards the action that would be taken, we are in virgin territory. Certainly, we will need to consider that as we take this through. Clearly, it would be a serious matter for the regulatory body not to make the rule as directed by the council because the council would be making such directions in accordance with the powers it will have under the Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before we leave the subject, one of the concerns of the regulatory bodies is that no examples are given. Perhaps the Minister can come back at Committee stage and give some examples. I understand that his right honourable friend wrote yesterday to the General Dental Council, which had asked about the use of the direction-making power. His noble friend said that that power would be used in situations where the council considered that it would be desirable to do so for the protection of members of the public. That is an interesting and wide phrase. If the Minister could come with specific examples of what that would mean, that would assuage some of the fears that are aroused.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are two points to make about that. First, the clause in the Bill which states that that can be done only in relation to the protection of the public is an important safeguard for the regulatory body; and, secondly, I am always
happy to oblige and shall do what I can. I am always wary of "what ifs" as we go through the Bill because it is certainly my hope that this provision will never need to be used. One hopes that the way that this will operate is that sensible discussions will take place between the council and the regulatory bodies and that there will be general agreement about the way forward.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the council acts disproportionately, unreasonably or irrationally, then it would be open to the regulated body to seek an order from the administrative court quashing the decision of the council? Further, will he confirm that the Government have no plans to exclude that normal process of litigation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clearly, my Lords, we are not seeking to change public law in terms of the ability of any of these bodies to seek action in the courts. We are seeking to have a sensible arrangement where we have professional self-regulation and co-operation between the regulated bodies through the council. I very much hope that we are talking of a theoretical process which will never have to be used.
We go back to the Kennedy report which suggested that it would be important to have such a reserve power. I repeat: the Government are anxious to continue their discussions with the regulatory bodies. We shall of course consider the suggestions made by the committee that my noble friend has drawn our attention to.
Time presses on and perhaps I may just turn to the question of Wales. It is not for me to comment on the policy of the National Assembly as to the arrangements in Wales. I am glad that the meeting on Monday proved to be so successful. I think that it should be possible for the usual channels to agree a process whereby perhaps the clauses on Wales could be debated together. I suggest that we put that to the usual channels because I want to be helpful. So far as concerns the consultative process and the questions raised about the structures and strategies in Wales, I shall make sure that those comments are relayed back to the National Assembly.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, can the Minister explain why in Wales there was a three-month consultation period and only six weeks in England?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Surely, my Lords, it is the glory of devolution that each administration makes its own decisions on these matters. The Benches that the noble Lord speaks from surely should be the last to complain about that in view of their arguments on the issue.
I promised the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that I would respond in relation to the issue of local optical committees and how they can provide for wider representation. We know that we have to consider this matter. I can promise that there will be consultation with the profession about these matters.
I have not responded to every noble Lord, but I hope that I have covered most of the principal points in the Bill. I know that noble Lords are concerned that we create the right environment in the NHS for people at local level to make the most of what they have, to innovate and lead and to make changes on the public's point of view. I believe that this Bill gives us that. It is not a centralising Bill; it allows us to decentralise within the context of national frameworks and independent inspection. I have no doubt whatever that the NHS will rise to the challenge, take this matter forward with enthusiasm and deliver better services to the public.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. We have had a debate of almost five and-a-half hours. It has been a debate notable for its expert contributions. I am particularly delighted that we managed to tempt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, to speak on health after a gap of so many years. I trust that he will not leave it quite so long next time. His was a very thoughtful speech indeed.
The very few contributors to the debate—I calculate about three-and-a-quarter—who really welcomed the Bill did not express the mood of the House. Despite the Minister's customary reasonableness in responding to as many questions and issues as he could, and his almost hyper-optimism about the outcome of the Bill, I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and myself, and indeed the terms of my amendment, reflect more closely the mood of the House today.
There have been so many issues. In fact the Minister raised almost more issues of concern than he put to rest. That is the problem with the Bill. I am afraid that it will continue to raise deep concerns during further stages of the Bill. There are attractive options for decentralisation, but the Bill does not contain them. That means that there are stormy waters ahead for the Bill and—to mix the metaphor—there will be some very heavy artillery put in place during February before the Committee stage on quite a number of provisions in the Bill. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues take heed of the debate tonight.
The provisions of the Bill were not in the Government's manifesto. I noticed that the Minister agreed that we should stop tinkering. I suggest that we should stop tinkering and re-tinkering. It is not too late to change the terms of the Bill and indeed to withdraw it until a later date.
We have had a good debate. I thank noble Lords for their, both explicit and implicit, support for the terms of the amendment. I do not believe that any purpose would be served by putting the amendment to a vote, particularly with the Government Chief Whip treading the boards on behalf of a cancer charity tonight. So it would be extremely churlish of me to do so. In those circumstances, and with those gypsies warnings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Postal Services Act 2000 (Modification of Section 7) Order 2002
8.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 2001 be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will be happy to hear that this is a well thought-out and sensible piece of tinkering. It is a small measure which makes a modification in the regulatory regime for the postal services market.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Postal Services Act 2000, which came into force in March 2001, introduced a new regulatory framework for the postal market. It created the new postal regulator—the Postal Services Commission, known as Postcomm—with the primary duty to ensure the provision of the universal postal service in the UK.
Section 6 of the Postal Services Act 2000 prevents any person conveying a letter from one place to another unless that person holds a licence authorising that conveyance. Such licences are granted by Postcomm. Section 7 of the Act sets out exceptions to that, and Section 8 gives the Secretary of State the power to modify Section 7 but only where Postcomm has recommended that that should happen.
Section 7(2)(d) of the Postal Services Act provides that a licence is not required for the conveyance of an overseas letter out of the United Kingdom, but Section 7 does not allow a person to make a collection of letters for that purpose.
Postcomm has made a recommendation that this restriction should be removed. Before making such a recommendation, the Postal Services Act requires Postcomm to consult with the Consumer Council for Postal Services, licence holders and such other persons as Postcomm considers appropriate. Postcomm undertook its consultation as part of the consultation process in relation to its published proposal to grant a licence under the Postal Services Act 2000 to G3 Worldwide Mail (UK) Limited. The consultation found that there was a unanimous view in the postal services industry that that sector of the market should be deregulated. It revealed clear support for Postcomm's proposal to modify the legislation, so that a licence will not be required for the collection of such letters. Postcomm says that introducing that modification would be deregulatory and would have no cost to postal operators.
The modification to the legislation contained in the order achieves the desired effect by amending Sections 7(2) and (3) of the Act. A licence will no longer be required for the collection of letters for their conveyance out of the United Kingdom. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 2001 be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
9 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the Minister explained, the order will cure another anomaly that has been found in the Postal Services Act 2000. I thank the Minister for that clear explanation of the order.
I have often complained to your Lordships about the tendency for the Government to produce enabling Acts, delegating legislative powers to Ministers, but, in this instance, the power is serving a useful purpose. However, I also point out to your Lordships that the method used in this case is an order requiring positive ratification by Parliament, rather than the negative procedure that is often sought in primary legislation. I welcome that because it means that the order will receive the scrutiny of both Houses. It has already been before a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the other place, at which it was debated and received approval at a sitting that was attended by 14 Members and took about 30 minutes.
As I said, we do not oppose the order. In fact, we support it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page