|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is coming to the end of her speech and there is still a little time, will she confirm whether, as reported in this morning's newspapers, Robert Mugabe is a Knight Commander of the Order Bath? And is she really going to say nothing about the UN panel and all its revelations?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am happy to pick up on those points. Yes, Robert Mugabe does have that honour; he was awarded it in 1994. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked a number of questions with respect to issues he says he has raised in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about extending the sanctions to spouses. The noble Lord will know of the debate and discussion within the EU in terms of the roll-over of our current sanctions. Given his experience, he will understand why it has not been possible to extend the sanctions to spouses. The same applies to travel loopholes and assets. Furthermore, pensions are the responsibility of the Government of Zimbabwe. I have answered the question on asylum.
In conclusion, links with the people of Zimbabwe remain strong. That is clear from the nature of the debate in the House today. We will continue to do all we can to work with them to produce the kind of Zimbabwe we know that they want.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, it would be invidious to single out any of the admirable speeches we have heard throughout the debate. I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have attended. I extend special thanks to my noble friend Lady Chalker. I am particularly pleased that she was able to join the debate. I was also interested to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I thank everyone most warmly, especially the Minister whose knowledge of the subject I deeply respect. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under Section 4(5) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. It raises the statutory ceiling for High Court judges from 106 to 108. This ceiling was last increased from 98 to 106 by the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1999 to meet the anticipated increases in workload following the implementation of the Human Rights Act.
I want to stress that the numbers in post will be increased only if and when the need arises. Putting the statutory instrument in place now will enable the Lord Chancellor to respond almost immediately to a sudden influx of work in high priority areas.
Noble Lords will be aware that the High Court handles a broad range of cases in areas such as crime, family, social exclusion and asylum. It is not always possible accurately to predict patterns in workload. The High Court is already at its full complement and so the power to make the two additional appointments
This includes work in the Crown Court. In 1998, High Court judges sat for 3,250 days in the Crown Court; in 2001, they sat for 3,486 days. The Government are committed to tackling crime and this may result in an increase in the amount of work on criminal cases in which High Court judges are involved. The involvement of High Court judges is also required for many high profile inquiries and for chairing or participating in tribunals such as the Employment Appeals Tribunal and parole boards. The nature and amount of this work is harder to predict, and the flexibility that the order would create is necessary again to be able to respond to any changes in workload in these areas.
The Lord Chancellor approved the authorisation of three new deputy High Court judges on 31st December 2002. However, part-time appointments will not provide the long-term flexibility afforded by an increase in the complement. The Lord Chancellor believes that increasing the capacity of the court with two further judges will provide the flexibility needed to make additional appointments if they are required.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I should declare an interest as my brother is a retired High Court judge. I was brought up on the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. If the order helps to alleviate that problem, we should go along with it.
Secondly, does the Minister expect to come back to the House in the near future with a request for a further increase in the number of judges to reflect the rise in appeals and judicial reviews flowing from the provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002?
First, the previous increase in 1999, from 98 to 106, was made in expectation of a greatly increased workload resulting from the Human Rights Act. In fact, the increase in the workload has been substantially less than expected because the number of
Secondly, the Minister referred to criminal cases and high profile inquiries. It is not obvious why more cases in the Crown Court should be tried by High Court judges as opposed to Crown Court judges than has been the case in the past. I wonder whether the Government are being entirely frank. Is it not the case that this increase is being made largely as a result of the increased burden from immigration cases? If so, that is nothing to concealindeed, it is welcome. Obviously, there need to be sufficient people on the Bench to deal in good time with cases that arise. If it is the case that there has already been a substantial increase in the amount of work resulting from immigration and asylum seekers, this is not simply, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, a question of looking to the future. It means that the increase is largely caused by those circumstances.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord for their support for the order and also for their questions. I shall be entirely frank with your Lordships' House. Of course we are increasing the number of judges because of the generalised increase in workload, but I would be disingenuous if I did not make it plain that there has been a large increase of work as a direct result of increases in asylum activity.
To put the matter in context, in 2002 asylum-related judicial review applications amounted to 59 per cent of all civil judicial review applications, making it the single largest category of administrative court work. That makes it plain that there has been a significant increase. Of the 5,578 civil judicial review applications received in 2002, some 3,308 were asylum-related and the administrative court received, on average, 276 such cases per month. That is one of the key pressures which has led to our belief that the flexibility that the order will give us is justified so that we can be ahead of the game in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, asked about cost. My understanding is that there will be no additional cost to the Exchequer as a consequence of the order. The intention is that the flexibility afforded by the order will be met within budget.
The background to the Bill requires some technical explanation. Sections 14 to 16 of the Harbours Act 1964 empower the Secretary of State to make harbour orders. Such orders are required, for example, to establish or reconstitute harbour authorities or to confer on existing harbour authorities additional powers to construct harbour works or to manage their harbours.
The procedure for making harbour orders is set out in Schedule 3 to the 1964 Act. Schedule 3 provides for objections to the making of a proposed harbour order to be sent to the Secretary of State within a six-week period from the time the proposal is advertised. Where such an objection is made and not withdrawn, the Secretary of State mustand I emphasise "must"hold a public inquiry to consider the proposal unless he determines that the objection is trivial or frivolous. The result is that a public inquiry must be held even if there is only one outstanding objection, unless the Secretary of State determines that the objection is trivial or frivolous. Secretaries of State rightly rarely categorise objections as such. An objection made by a local resident who expresses a concern is unlikely to be determined to be trivial or frivolous.
In a number of cases, a single outstanding objection to an order has necessitated the holding of a public inquiry, which clearly gave rise to considerable expense and delay. I shall briefly quote two examples. The first is the Felixstowe dock and railway harbour revision order. Noble Lords will know that Felixstowe is the largest container port in the United Kingdom and the fourth largest in Europe. The port applied in October 2000 for a harbour revision order to authorise major new harbour works of considerable local and national significance. By November 2001, all but one of several objections had been withdrawn, following provision of appropriate assurances and undertakings to bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. As a result of a single outstanding objection, lodged and maintained by a local resident, a public inquiry took place over seven sitting days, resulting in the making of the order being delayed until October 2002, which was nearly a year later. In his decision, the Secretary of State stated:
The industry's view is that if the Secretary of State had been able to deal with the objection by written representations, as provided for in the Bill, it is likely that the order could have been made in or around February 2002, avoiding considerable delay and substantial costs.
My second example is the Whitehaven harbour revision order 1996. In 1995, the Whitehaven harbour commissioners applied for a revision order to authorise the construction of a lock and other harbour works as a key part of an urgently needed scheme for the regeneration of Whitehaven town and the area.
As a condition of withdrawing their objections, they required that their bonds should be purchased at considerably more than their minimal market value. To resolve the issue, a number of private individuals contributed money to purchase the bonds and the order was eventually made in June 1996.
In that example, the current system was used to hold to ransom a public project of considerable local economic significance. The situation would not have arisen if the Secretary of State had had the power to consider their objections by means of written representations. The port industry feels strongly that the present position is unsatisfactory and that the Harbours Act 1964 requires amendment. I understand that there is no proposal to include in the next parliamentary Session a transport Bill that could be a suitable vehicle for such an amendment. I also understand that officials have given no indication of when parliamentary time could be found for a government Bill to achieve this. Hence this Bill tonight.
The Bill would bring the procedure for the making of harbour orders into line with the procedures for the making of highways or transport and works orders. The Secretary of State would retain a discretion to hold public inquiries in all cases. Where an objection was made by a relevant local authority or by a person whose land was proposed to be compulsorily acquired and who requested a hearing, the Secretary of State would be required to hold either a public inquiry or a public hearing. In other cases, the Secretary of State would have the discretion, instead of holding a public inquiry or public hearing, to deal with the objection by written representations.
Neither the Highways Acts nor the Transport and Works Act 1992 expressly provide that, where objections have been made and sustained and where the Secretary of State has decided to proceed without an inquiry or hearing, he must deal with those objections by means of written representations. However, both those Acts provide that, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State must consider those objections. As a matter of practice, the Secretary of State will consider any further written representations made by the objectors and the applicant to the order when those representations are volunteered or made at his invitation. A similar procedure for written representations would follow on the enactment of the Bill when read with paragraph
Before closing, there are two matters that I should mention. First, the Bill is consistent with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, because it will apply similar measures to other legislation. In the case of a landowner whose land is to be subject to compulsory acquisition by means of a harbour order, his right to require a public inquiry will be maintained.
Secondly, the Bill would appear to extend to Scotland. However, that cannot be so. After the passing of the Scotland Act 1998, harbour matters in Scotland, such as the subject matter of this Bill, no longer fall within the competence of the Westminster Parliament but must be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, an amendment will be proposed in Committee to make it clear that the Bill does not extend to Scotland.
In conclusion, if the Bill is enacted, it will enable the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion in appropriate circumstances to speed up the process for making orders under the Harbours Act. It will reduce red tape and will be welcomed by the ports industry. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in the aims behind this admirably short Bill. I should declare an interest, having worked as a consultant in the ports business for some 12 years, although I have not worked in any UK port in the past two years. As a result of that work, I am fully aware of the frustrations that some ports have had over the years in relation to objections with their harbour revision orders.
The Bill is concise in its aims and will simplify procedures for ports. I hope that its use of alternative ways in which to deal with objections, through public hearings or written representations, will get round the ridiculous situation of having to have enormously costly and lengthy inquiries for even one objector.
As the noble Lord said, Felixstowe is a major container port. It has been extremely successful, but it might not have been as successful if your Lordships had not thrown out a Bill in 1979 which would have brought it into the dock labour scheme. It survived without union labour and went from strength to strength. Your Lordships played some part in the success of Felixstowe.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I support the Bill. I think that it is a useful and necessary deregulatory move and am pleased to associate these Benches with it. The opportunities available to objectors of a minor nature, or who simply use various ruses to delay very necessary works after exhausting the normal democratic channels, need to be expunged as much as possible from the statute book. Very many schemes, not just in ports, suffer from the problem.
I am pleased to support the Bill and will support other moves to allow the overruling of individuals or small groups of objectors to harbours and other schemes that have clear public benefits and have gone through the normal democratic channels.
Lord Luke: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for sponsoring the Bill on behalf of the British Ports Authority and the United Kingdom Major Ports Group. As he said, the aim of the Bill is to streamline procedures for handling objections to orders concerning harbour works. It is a technical measure designed to give the Secretary of State more discretion in deciding whether to hold a public inquiry when objections to a particular scheme are made, or whether to allow a hearing or receive written representations instead.
The Bill is designed to bring harbour procedures into line with more recent arrangements under the planning system, namely the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. Those allow hearings and written representations as alternatives to a public inquiry. That avoids unnecessary formality and expense, unless of course the Secretary of State feels a public inquiry to be the appropriate way forward. Here I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether the Government believe that the proposed changes in the Bill are likely to be compatible with the forthcoming planning Bill.
I have a few more questions for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the RSPB is happy with the Bill as it stands. Have any other agencies concerned with the environment expressed views on the Bill? I am
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, indicate that he is aware of the position with regards to Scotland. As the Scottish Parliament now has responsibility for these matters, is the Scottish Parliament about to introduce a Bill to bring the situation there into line with the one that will prevail in England and Wales when this Bill is passed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on introducing this modest Bill and on the universal approval that he has gained for it. The Government support the Bill's objective. That objective is to streamline the procedure for handling objections to harbour orders. It is a simple technical measure which will bring harbour order procedures into line with more recent arrangementsfor example, under the planning system.
Harbours in this country are managed by harbour authorities, which act as statutory undertakers, with powers conferred originally by private Acts of Parliament. The powers have been used to authorise the original construction of the port and to enable the harbour authority to regulate the safe and efficient use of its facilities. Harbour authorities are, of course, subject to a body of general legislation but their local powers remain important to the operation of our ports.
The harbour authorities need to be able to revise their powers from time to time to keep them up to date and to meet new needs. It may be appropriate to change the constitution of a harbour authority, or to move the harbour limit, or to update the powers it has to make by-laws and other local regulations.
New powers are also needed to authorise harbour worksmainly because works in tidal waters interfere with rights of navigation; and because the authority's regulatory powers have to be statutorily extended to any new facilities. A harbour empowerment order is occasionally proposed to create a new harbour authority.
Until 1964, a harbour authority's statutory powers could be revised only by private Act. The Harbours Act 1964 created a procedure to make harbour orders. These are statutory instruments made by the Department for Transport. The 1964 Act may have seemed modern in its day, but it has been overtaken on best procedural practicenotably by the Transport and Works Act 1992. This Bill would bring it up to date.
The procedure for making a harbour order begins with an application from the harbour authority, or would-be harbour authority in the case of an empowerment order. Applications are advertised so that people have a chance to object or make representations. That is important, particularly in the light of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, as to who has been consulted. It is entirely right that there should be this opportunity; and that it should be accessible.
Inquiries are, however, disproportionate in some cases. Harbour authorities can be deterred from making changes by the delay, uncertainty and cost. It is hard to plan a proposal without knowing whether just one objection might lead to an inquiry.
Inquiries are inaccessible to some objectorsespecially ordinary members of the public, who would often find a hearing or written representations less daunting. Only highly organised and well resourced objectors can afford expert representationalthough that is not always a good use of their funds. If the promoter is a large enterprise, there is a risk of lack of balance in the way opposing cases are presented. Even when objectors are well resourced and able to afford representation, it is not necessarily a good use of their money.
The Town and Country Planning Act and the Transport and Works Act allow hearings and written representations as an alternative to an inquiry. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that this does not always work as quickly, efficiently and fairly as it should do. But these procedures give objectors a full right to be properly heard, but without the formality and expense of an inquiry where that is not appropriate. I am pleased to see that the Bill preserves the right to an inquiry where land is compulsorily acquired or when the objector is a relevant local authority. That is what the Transport and Works Act does. It is very important in terms of satisfying the Human Rights Act.
A preliminary regulatory impact assessment shows that the change would cost nothing and would benefit ports (and objectors) of all sizes. We now have to move with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to work up a full regulatory impact assessment and, from that, move on to a wider consultation exercisenot with the objective of delaying matters but because there are other bodies apart from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which may have a general interest in these matters. A wider consultation exercise would include the bodies to which he referred.
I can assure the House that the Secretary of State would not use the new discretion to avoid inquiries where they need to be held. There are plenty of precedents from the planning system to guide us on when discretion should be exercised. I see no reason why the proposed planning Bill should make any change to that or cause any difficulty.
So far as concerns Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has made it clear that he will withdraw any potential references to Scotland. I do not know what the Scottish Executive will seek to do and, strictly speaking, it is not for me to answer. But we recognise that the Bill would make a useful contribution to our policy of streamlining planning and related procedures, and we wish the Bill well.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and welcomed the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord McIntosh for his demonstration of government support which is most welcome.
I shall not be drawn into discussing the dock labour scheme at Felixstowe of some 25 years ago. I agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that people may delay projects. Nevertheless, consultation is still necessary.
I cannot comment on the Transport and Works Act 1992 as regards Scotland, but certainly it does not apply to railways in Scotland, and I do not think that it applies to anything else. If one wants a railway in England, one usually builds it according to the provisions of the Transport and Works Act. However, in Scotland the first private railway Bill has been introduced for the Stirling and Menstrie line. I think I am correct in that regard. However, as I said in my opening speech, I intend to table an amendment to remove any reference to Scotland for the reasons I gave.
I am grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lord McIntosh about the regulatory impact assessment and the fact that the Government are moving quickly towards a full assessment. I certainly agree that there needs to be wide consultation with the organisations that will be interested in the matter and will wish to participate, along with the ports bodies, in consultation to ensure that everyone agrees that the Bill is worth pursuing. As I say, I am grateful for the support of noble Lords who have spoken. I commend the Bill to the House.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|