| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: My Lords, taking the last point first, simply buying a piece of land does not give people the right to do what they want with it. They must apply for planning permission and follow the process. The implication of the noble Lord's question is one that I completely reject—that just because someone has bought land he can do what he likes with it, irrespective of the planning rules.
I cannot answer the first part of the noble Lord's question, simply because the legislation is not in full force at present. Only time will tell how the local authorities take it up. As he knows, there are new procedures in the Housing Bill regarding Gypsy encampments. I hope that a revised circular 1/94—the existing circular is not working well—will go a considerable way to solving the problem. But planning permission is needed in the cases of these developments.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that, despite the government amendments to the Housing Bill, which go far to provide the kind of authorised sites which would obviate the problems to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, refers, there is still a residual need for the Secretary of State to be able to direct a local authority to provide an authorised site when there are unauthorised encampments and/or evictions?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I would be in trouble if I gave a detailed answer to that question, mainly because it would be taken completely out of context, not by my noble friend but by others. The old system did not work under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, when local authorities were forced to provide a site. Circular 1/94 succeeded that provision and has not worked out completely satisfactorily.
At present there are some 3,500 caravans on unauthorised developments. The problem is not evenly spread around the country, as many local authorities have provided sites for encampments, and the system works extremely well. In that case, it is much more difficult for people to do what has been
1 Nov 2004 : Column 12
done in the case that we are discussing—to jump the queue by arguing that there are not enough sites and that therefore such action must be taken, in the hope that the courts will support them. That is not a satisfactorily way in which to proceed; frankly, it is a way in which to create anarchy and discord between communities, and we do not want that to happen.
There are plenty of examples in the country of the system working extremely well. We want to ensure that best practice is followed by all. I hope that the combination of the new legislation and the new circular will bring that about.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would the Minister say what distinguishes this particular group of people from the rest of the population, who are expected to obtain accommodation for themselves and their families in a normal way?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, these people have got accommodation—it travels around with them. It is not illegal to have a nomadic life, but there are sets of rules and norms that must be followed as to making encampments and settlements and bringing about developments. What has been done wrong in the past is to treat those matters separately. With the changes in the legislation brought about by the planning and housing Bills, and the new circular, we are mainstreaming provision. In that way, when local authorities consider the totality of housing needs for their area, they will take everybody into account, including those with problems of access due to disability and other reasons, those who may need temporary or key worker accommodation, and sites for Travellers and Gypsies. If they mainstream the provision, we are less likely to have the problems that we have been discussing.
Pensions Bill
Clause 1 [The Pensions Regulator]:
Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 1:
"( ) The persons appointed under subsection (1)(c) shall include at least one appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of employees and at least one appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of employers, in addition to others with a knowledge of life assurance business and administration of occupational pension schemes."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 121.
This is a very important Bill. It attempts among other things to restore a sense of security to members of occupational pension schemes, and establishes a regulator with more powers than previous bodies of a similar kind. The amendment is similar, though not the same, as the one that I moved in Committee. Membership of the regulator is important from the
1 Nov 2004 : Column 13
point of view of acceptability and credibility. In Committee, the amendment that I proposed was rather more detailed and, in the view of some Members of the Committee, rather prescriptive. But I want to insert a requirement that bodies representative of both employees and employers are represented on the governing body of the regulator. Amendment No. 121 would repeat that requirement later in the Bill with regard to the board of the Pension Protection Fund, which is also established by the Bill. Similar, although not precisely the same wording, has been used in relation to the PPF.
We know that the Government will ensure that there are people on the regulator's governing body with a professional knowledge of life assurance and pension schemes, but we want to ensure that two other categories are also represented: employers and employees. I know that in the past governments have always ensured that those categories were represented on previous bodies that have dealt with pensions. It so happens that for a number of years I was a member of the Occupational Pensions Board. I was a Minister's nominee on that occasion; the TUC was separately represented, as were employers. There were also people there with a great deal of experience of the pensions industry. When I was first appointed, we were under the very wise and experienced guidance of our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
The Occupational Pensions Board had very limited powers, and the intention is that the bodies established under this new Bill will have much more power. In the light of the recent experience of the pensions industry, much more will be expected of the body. In such circumstances, credibility and acceptability is even more important. That is why it is important to set out in the Bill which categories will have an absolute entitlement to representation.
It should be emphasised that I am not seeking in this amendment to provide for specific representation with accountability to report back or anything like that. I simply want to ensure that, when these important bodies are established, those most concerned—which means most of us with an interest in occupational pensions—will feel that the important decisions are being made by people with a direct knowledge of the way such decisions are likely to impact on those directly affected.
Therefore, although the rewording is not very marvellous, I shall be satisfied if my noble friend the Minister accepts the principle. Perhaps rather better wording can be devised. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, but I hope that the Minister will not accept the principle of the amendment. As the noble Baroness said, she raised this issue in Committee but, naturally, withdrew it for further consideration. I agreed then, and I agree now, with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on the basis that I,
1 Nov 2004 : Column 14
too, do not like shopping lists in legislation. Indeed, I have a track record in that respect if anyone cares to look it up.
That said, I am aware that the Occupational Pensions Board, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was a distinguished member, did indeed have designated seats for union and employer representatives. However, life moves on. I am almost certain, although I have not double-checked it, that OPRA did not have such dedicated seats. None the less, that body did have non-statutory employee and union representatives. From what the Minister said in Grand Committee, I am quite sure that any reasonable Secretary of State, in—as the Bill says—consultation with the regulator, will review the balance of the board.
So I do not much like the idea of appointees with knowledge of no less than four specific topics, especially as two members will be executive and by definition will have experience of the life assurance business. There may be only three non-executives, but I still believe that experience will show that more are required, though not necessarily in that particular respect with these particular skills.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, we have some sympathy with the intention of the amendment. The problem is that it is worded a bit too restrictively and the word "representative" is probably not appropriate; it has a slightly corporatist flavour. It would be very disappointing if people with this sort of experience were not on the board representing either individually or in combination. I think that the amendment, as the noble Baroness has moved it, is rather too formal and too rigid. I do not think that we would support it in this form.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |