HL Deb 07 April 1998 vol 588 cc734-41

10.41 p.m.

Lord Dubs

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November 1997 be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order will introduce provisions comparable with those already in force in Great Britain under the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act of 1995.

The Great Britain Act was introduced following the Lyme Bay tragedy when four young people lost their lives. Although no fatalities have occurred in Northern Ireland, young people are occasionally injured, and, with the growing popularity of outdoor pursuits among young people, it is important to minimise the inherent risk in such activities.

In general, the existing regulatory framework in Northern Ireland offers a great deal of assurance that the public is properly protected. However, young people are particularly vulnerable to any failure of health and safety management, and the Government are satisfied that there is a need to provide them with additional protection along the lines of the scheme already operating in Great Britain. That scheme is already making a worthwhile contribution to safety standards and the Government are therefore committed to the introduction of a comparable licensing scheme in Northern Ireland.

The draft order has been the subject of wide-ranging consultation with local government and educational, youth and sports interests in Northern Ireland. It was sent to over 3,000 bodies and elicited about 40 responses. The comments received were broadly favourable and it has not proved necessary to amend the draft order. Points raised have generally related to details which will be addressed more fully through further consultations during the preparation of the regulations which are needed to implement the order. However, two areas of broad concern have been expressed concerning the financial implications to operators of outdoor activity centres and the fact that the age range does not encompass over-18s.

The initial compliance cost assessment circulated with the draft order estimated that the ongoing cost to individual centres should not be significant—of the order of £420 every three years. However, fears have been expressed that the true costs under the scheme may be greater than the assumptions or that additional charges may be imposed, such as for spot checks, and may therefore cause financial problems to some operators. This has not proved to be the case in Great Britain, and the Government will seek to ensure that the fee structure in Northern Ireland is broadly comparable to that in Great Britain and does not place an unfair burden on smaller centres. Overall, the aim will be to achieve the necessary safety standard with the minimum of regulation, bureaucracy and cost.

With regard to the second general concern, the decision to focus the legislation on young people under 18 years of age was on the basis that 18 is the legal age for adulthood. This is consistent with other legislation, such as the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which also recognises that this age group is in need of specific protection. The Department of Education for Northern Ireland is not aware of any activity centre in the Province that caters only for those over 18 years of age. The provisions of the draft order should therefore effectively enable adults as well as children to benefit from the scheme.

I am aware that some centres in Great Britain have chosen to restrict their operation to adults so that they move outside the scope of the scheme. Given the small size of the Northern Ireland market, it is doubtful whether that is a viable route for local operators. However, if there proves to be a significant number of operators not subject to the licensing scheme, either because they opt out of the scope or are exempted by the terms of the associated regulations, the Government will consider the appropriateness of promoting a complementary voluntary registration scheme with a wider scope, such as that which operates in Wales and is being piloted in Scotland.

I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I now outline briefly the principal provisions of the draft order, which is a broad enabling provision, with the detailed provisions to be determined in subsequent regulations equivalent to the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations 1996 in Great Britain.

The form of the order is similar to the Great Britain Act, but reflects Northern Ireland institutional arrangements. The draft order requires the Department of Education to designate by order a licensing authority (Article 3(1)); and prescribe by regulations the types of providers to be covered by the licensing scheme including the activities to be covered (Article 3(2)); the requirements to be placed on such providers relating to health and safety and the arrangements for payment of fees, a register of licences and the handling of complaints and appeals (Article 3(3)); and the penalties to be imposed for offences (Article 4). The draft order also enables the department to pay grants to the licensing authority (Article 5(7)).

The draft order requires the Department of Education to designate a licensing authority which will exercise functions as prescribed in subsequent regulations. To ensure that the body to be designated is credible, equipped with the relevant expertise, and is able to do the job, the Department of Education is required, under Article 3(1) of the draft order, to consult with the Department of Economic Development before designating the licensing authority.

In Great Britain, nomination of the licensing authority rests with the Health and Safety Commission, which is an independent executive body with the power to make recommendations directly to Ministers. The equivalent Northern Ireland body is the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland, which is an advisory body with the power only to make recommendations to its parent department. Consequently it is that department (the Department of Economic Development) which is identified in the legislation, but it is envisaged that it will take advice from the agency.

While the draft order makes no explicit provision for reviewing the licensing authority, this will be addressed, as in Great Britain, in the terms of the agreement with the designated body.

Article 5(7) allows the department to make grants to the licensing authority to cover its expenses. As in Great Britain, it is the department's intention that the scheme should, as far as possible, be self-financing through the adoption of an appropriate fee structure, but it is accepted that the fees charged must be affordable, particularly for small operators. The Great Britain scheme has required some deficit support in its initial years. This amounted to £350,000 in 1997–98, but the requirement is declining as the arrangements settle down.

In view of the successful operation of the Great Britain scheme, and taking account of the small number of centres in Northern Ireland (around 30), the department will consider the value to be gained from inviting the Great Britain licensing body to extend its remit to Northern Ireland.

Article 5(3) requires the Department of Education to undertake consultations before making regulations. Those consultations are required to include the Health and Safety Agency and any other relevant bodies.

The Great Britain regulations will offer a useful starting point for the drafting of the Northern Ireland provisions, but they will not be adopted without first checking out the experience of their operation and confirming their appropriateness to Northern Ireland. The operation of the Great Britain scheme is shortly to be reviewed, so that it will be possible to take account of the points which emerge from that process before finalising the regulations for Northern Ireland. It is envisaged that the regulations should be completed by Christmas, so that the scheme can be introduced as early as possible in 1999.

Outdoor activity centres which cater for young persons under 18 years of age and provide instruction or leadership will be required to register under the licensing scheme. I have already explained the rationale for the age cut-off. The focus on instruction and leadership recognises the additional responsibility which an organisation must bear when it takes charge of the outdoor experience on offer.

In Great Britain the regulations are directed at commercial centres which charge for their services, and local authorities providing a service for schools. Operators with more than one centre must register each separately, to ensure that the required safety standard is achieved in every location providing adventure activities. Certain exemptions are specified—for example, where facilities are provided by an educational establishment to pupils of that establishment and where a voluntary association provides a service to its members. The activities embraced in Great Britain are caving, climbing, trekking and watersports, as defined in the regulations. The emphasis is placed on those activities most likely to be undertaken by groups, and therefore requiring particular attention to leadership and instruction.

The forthcoming consultation on the Northern Ireland regulations will enable further consideration to be given, in the light of the Great Britain experience, to whether the Great Britain scope and exemptions are appropriate.

The regulations will lay down appropriate safety standards. As in Great Britain, these standards will focus on ensuring good safety practice, including risk assessment, staff training and safe equipment. A register of licensed centres will be maintained and complaints against centres will be investigated. Appeals procedures will also be established.

It will be an offence to operate without a licence, when one is required, or to operate other than in accordance with the terms of a licence. A person convicted of an offence under the regulations will be liable on summary conviction to a fine or, on conviction on indictment, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both. So far there have been no prosecutions under the Great Britain scheme.

In conclusion, the enabling provisions of this draft order will permit young people to benefit from participation in exciting and stimulating outdoor activities without exposure to undue risks, and will give parents and the general public greater confidence in the use of centres offering adventure activities. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November 1997 be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I welcome the order, as I did the Bill which created the Venture Activities Licensing Authority on the British mainland. At this moment I speak from the perspective of a canoeing instructor and hillwalking leader.

The order clearly extends to Northern Ireland an administrative approach to ensuring the safety of young people who are being introduced to, or being trained for, higher attainment in outdoor adventure activities. I have two points to make in connection with the introduction to outdoor activities. Firstly, I remain unconvinced that it is possible to draw a distinction between novices of any age. The new activity is just as unfamiliar to a 15 year-old as to a 25 year-old. The safety issues are just the same. The canoe is just as unstable and the rockface just as daunting irrespective of one's age. Secondly, there is a particular issue in respect of those who are undertaking outdoor adventure activities without their direct consent. The circumstances would be that the individual had been placed in a scheme, often by a court or a school, or even by an employer, programmed for some outdoor activities. Having worked on an intensive probation project I can say that we took all those committed to the project out on outdoor activities without their own individual consent. Inspecting the activity centre for its ability to deal with these potentially reluctant novices would be a useful extension of the inspection process.

I am pleased at the mention of an optional registration scheme for activity centres dealing with people over 18 if, indeed, any emerge in Northern Ireland. As the Minister said, this is in place in Scotland and has proved popular as a form of accreditation. It is seen by several centres in Scotland as being a useful business asset. Those points aside, I welcome the order.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I am sure that all right-thinking people will welcome the order, designed as it is to safeguard young people engaged in adventure activities. I trust that the experience gained by under 18 year-olds will implant in their minds the need for a degree of caution in later life so that adults will be less likely to challenge the elements either in the form of a rock face or of the cruel sea. Irresponsibility on the part of such adults not only endangers their own lives but puts seriously at risk those who have to come to their rescue.

I am afraid that the nanny state has a rather odd sense of proportion and priorities. We are told repeatedly that smoking is bad for our health. Eating is under a degree of scrutiny. I might say that if I had my way I would add mobile telephones to the list. Why is it laudable to court danger oneself and perhaps risk death to searchers and rescuers? I trust that the safeguards contained in the order will change the climate of opinion and persuade not just young people but all age groups to exercise a greater degree of responsibility.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, the Minister made clear that this is enabling legislation only. It is exceptionally vague about what the controls will be. We do not know when the licensing system will start or to whom it will apply exactly. There are many other points which we do not know about at the moment. I do not consider it a satisfactory way of passing legislation through Parliament. But there it is; that is what is before us.

To whom will the legislation and the new licensing system apply? Article 3(2)(b) suggests to me that if no instruction or leadership is involved in the adventurous activity, it cannot be the subject of licensing. The one thing that will not be covered by the licensing system as a result of the order is unsupervised activity of that character. It seems rather odd, unless I have misread the order.

The next question concerns the fees to be charged. The Minister said a little about it in the course of introducing the order and described what had happened in Great Britain. Having perhaps a suspicious mind, I notice that Article 3(3)(g) provides for payments to be made by the licensing authority into the Consolidated Fund. That implies to me that it will make a profit out of all this and have a surplus which it can pay into the Consolidated Fund. That is not quite the understanding we gained from what the Minister said.

A more substantial point is that hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in referring to the nanny state. We need to consider carefully whenever we pass new regulations and put new restrictions on activities whether those restrictions are worth it. We all know about the Lyme Bay disaster. It was a great tragedy. But, as I recall it, the law took its course after the tragedy and people were punished following the incident by the existing law, long before all that is now before us was invented.

I also believe that the deregulation task force asked for a cost benefit analysis of the licensing activity in Great Britain. It suggested that if the conclusions of the cost benefit analysis were similar to the initial conclusions that the task force reached, Parliament should he invited to repeal the Great Britain legislation. If that is so, I will be interested to know if the cost benefit analysis has been done with regard to Great Britain legislation. If so, with what result and what are the implications for extending the provisions—worthy as they are in their aim—to Northern Ireland?

11 p.m.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their support for this measure, albeit with some reservations.

First, I deal with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I acknowledge his experience. He gives instruction and therefore has perhaps more direct experience than anyone else who has spoken. The point related to the age of 18. In fact, in Northern Ireland we have not identified any centre which is liable to be covered by the legislation which does not involve people under the age of 18. All the centres we identified will be covered by the legislation and therefore perhaps I can treat the noble Earl's question as theoretical rather than actual in relation to Northern Ireland.

The general answer is that we are dealing with people who are not adults and therefore people who cannot exercise more responsibility for themselves. The noble Earl went on to acknowledge that there was a voluntary scheme which might be brought into place on the lines of the one in Wales and the one being considered in Scotland. We have therefore gone some way to covering his point, should there be centres that emerge in Northern Ireland that cater only for persons over the age of 18.

The noble Earl also talked about novice centres. I believe he meant individuals who might be there as part of a probation scheme or something similar. Those particular circumstances will be considered during the drafting of the regulations and I thank him for having drawn attention to the point.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made the comment that there was an element of the "nanny state" in the order, but went on to acknowledge that this particular measure would help with the safety of young persons and therefore gave it his approval. The point about the nanny state was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I say simply this. We are talking about giving parents, schools and others who send young people to activity centres the assurance that the standard of tuition and supervision in those centres is adequate; that the quality of the equipment and the instruction is adequate to assure the safety of the young persons taking part. That cannot really be called "nannying" people; it is simply giving them certain safeguards which might, until the tragedy in Lyme Bay, have been taken for granted.

I want to deal with some specific questions which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised. He referred to unsupervised activities not being covered. I believe I said in my opening that the greatest responsibility lies where there is instruction and leadership for activities. It is that aspect that we have sought to address in the legislation.

The noble Lord also said that the legislation was vague. He wondered when it would start and to whom it would apply. I believe I indicated that there is an expected timetable and we hope that the regulations will be completed by Christmas of this year. Article 3(2) sets out the broad scope, but further detail will be covered in subsequent regulations.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but can I take it that I am correct in assuming that if there is no element of instruction or leadership and young persons are to be allowed to climb a rock face or whatever on their own, then no licence will be required? Indeed, the legislation cannot be extended to those activities.

Lords Dubs

My Lords, that is my understanding. Indeed, if it were to be made as wide in its scope as the noble Lord suggests, we would be going rather further than is appropriate for government to do. After all, the mountains of Scotland, of the Lake District and of Wales are all there and one can hardly apply legislation simply to mountainsides. One has to assume that where there is no supervision the normal standards of common sense and the responsibility of parents will apply. Organisations which operate in our mountain areas spend a lot of time, as it were, urging people who climb mountains to adopt safety codes and to behave sensibly. However, beyond that the legislation would hardly be able to go.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. When I read the order I was very happy that it referred to organisations, such as the Youth Hostels Association, which encourage young people to go to mountainous areas but do not intend to instruct them or to take them on mountain walks and so on. They merely provide an accommodation service.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I concede that the noble Earl is getting into a grey area which I thought, from his experience, he would probably be able to identify. The answer is that regulations will have to cover such points to see on which side of the borderline such organisations would fall. In one sense I concede the point that the Youth Hostels Association would be seen by parents to be in a position of exercising some responsibility for the young persons. So I think we have to leave it to the regulations to see how that works out. But I thank the noble Earl for drawing that point to the attention of the House.

I return again to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. He referred to the provision for payments to the Consolidated Fund. That is to cover the possibility of there being a surplus. However, we do not expect that there would be one. Indeed, in Great Britain there has been a deficit, although a reducing deficit, since the scheme was introduced. We simply have that provision in case the income should exceed expectations in relation to expenditure. But that is not very likely.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked whether there had been a cost-benefit analysis of the scheme in Great Britain. My answer is that the Great Britain scheme will be reviewed this year and therefore we will see what the outcome of that is. I again thank noble Lords for their helpful contributions to the debate.

On Question, Motion agreed to.