We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Protecting Historic Sites
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberale Partij (L)
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2590
Description[?]:
| In line with the Federalist principles of Confederation, we believe the management of cultural and historical sites ought to be a matter for the Provincial governments. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change National, cultural and historic sites and monuments.
Old value:: The state actively protects scenery, localities, cultural, and historical sites; it maintains an agency to preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
Current: The state actively protects scenery, localities, cultural, and historical sites; it maintains an agency to preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
Proposed: This matter is left up to the local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:42:33, June 09, 2008 CET | From | People Party | To | Debating the Protecting Historic Sites |
| Message | My Lords, it is almost exactly a year since my noble friend Baroness Pamela Cook last secured a debate on sport and, once again, she is to be congratulated on organising today's debate and on the speech that she made in introducing it. I particularly endorse what she said about ticket touting, which is an issue that I have taken up in this House on more than one occasion. I remember that in that debate, last year, I spoke at some length about the changes that were under way at the Football Association. These have now substantially been carried through. The FA Council's membership has been expanded to include players, managers, referees, women's football, ethnic minorities, disability football, supporters and the senior levels of non-league football; they have established the semi-autonomous Football Regulatory Authority—that is their description of it—and they have appointed my noble friend Sir. Timothy Cooper as their first independent chairman. I know that he carries the good wishes of us all as he seeks to drive forward the necessary changes in the governance of the game. Looked at purely in financial terms, the state of the game in England has never been healthier. The Premiership continues to attract almost undreamt-of levels of income, and even the Championship—the old Football League second division—is reported to be the sixth wealthiest league in the world. The European champions final was contested by two English teams, and for every Ronaldo who thinks of leaving these shores, there are dozens of other foreign footballers anxious to play here. Yet, all is not quite as rosy as it looks. The greatest disappointment that England fans are having to put up with this month, together with the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish, is to stay at home and watch 16 other countries contest the Euro 2008 championship because none of the home nations qualified. Although none of us expects Ministers to pick the England side, or even the team manager, it is appropriate to ask whether there is a role for the Government in creating a climate in which home-grown talent can thrive and challenge for places in our leading club sides, and thus better develop their skills in preparation for being chosen for the national team. Perhaps when he replies my noble friend would like to comment on Mr Sepp Blatter's proposal, which was overwhelmingly carried at the recent FIFA congress in Sydney, that by 2012 there should be at least six players in every starting line-up of 11 eligible to play for the national team of the country of the club. Our FA representatives in Sydney voted for this on the basis that: "Bringing through more high-quality English players in the future is an absolute priority for the FA". However, if you go on to read the rest of their statement, you get the feeling that they think it will never happen, because they add: "One of our reservations has always been that the 'six-plus-five' rule appears to contravene European law and we welcome further exploration of its legality". Can my noble friend say whether the Government would support moves to establish a "specificity of sport" rule, which would effectively provide a get-out from European employment legislation? Staying in somewhat controversial territory, I referred a moment ago to the FA's decision to establish the Football Regulatory Authority. More than eight years ago, the Government's Football Task Force, on which I was proud to serve as vice-chairman, addressed the issue of independent regulation. The majority of our members signed a report which said that, if the game were not able to provide clear leadership in this area, the Government should consider the establishment of a statutory regulator. It is no secret that the present Secretary of State for Culture friend Lady Agatha, who worked as our administrator on the task force, took that view. However, perhaps not surprisingly, the Government have tried to stay clear of the debate and have sought to rely on the Football Association to provide leadership as the game's governing body. The adoption of much of the report written by the noble Lady Agatha, has moved them in this direction and the FA's Football Regulatory Authority is the outcome. However, if I am allowed one Latin quotation from Juvenal, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?—who will regulate the regulators? Until this year, the answer would have been the Independent Football Commission, the body set up by the game and the Government in 2000 to evaluate the performance of the governing bodies in managing football—a self-regulatory response to the final report of the Football Task Force. In the words of the chair of the IFC, Professor Derek Fraser, in his valedictory annual report: "The football authorities, who created the IFC in the first place, have now decided that the IFC experiment has run its course and something different is required". The "something different" is an independent football ombudsman to be created in time for next season. According to the FA's website: "The IFO will have a clear remit to receive and adjudicate on complaints from football supporters and participants which have not been resolved by the football authorities, and to raise any policy issues which have been highlighted by those complaints, directly with The FA, Premier League and The Football League". However, it does not look to me or to Professor Fraser that the IFO will be encouraged to monitor the implementation of the Burns report in the way that the IFC would have done, so perhaps, either today or later in writing if he prefers, my noble friend could let me know how the Government envisage that this job will be done in future. In the month that the IFC is disappearing, it would be appropriate to pay tribute to the work that Professor Fraser and his colleagues have done over the past eight years. They have produced some reports of outstanding quality, and influenced for the better decisions on financial management, the introduction of a fit and proper persons test, better governance arrangements, equal opportunity, diversity and anti-racist initiatives, child protection, community programmes and customer relations. A lot of this is unfinished business and, in the absence of the IFC, a heavier responsibility is placed on the football authorities to keep driving those initiatives forward. One initiative in which I have a particular interest is the provision of facilities for disabled people at sports grounds. My noble friend will recall that I asked an Oral Question about this in the Chamber on 29 April. In reply, he referred to the letter sent earlier this year by Gerry Sutcliffe, the sports Minister, to the football authorities reminding them of their responsibility to follow the guidance contained in the Accessible Stadia document produced by the Football Licensing Authority, which also builds on one of the major reports of the Football Task Force. Mr Sutcliffe encouraged all Premier League and Football League clubs, "to work with local disabled supporters' groups to ensure that the experience of visiting their ground is equal for both disabled and able-bodied fans". That is strongly supported by an Early Day Motion on the Order Paper in the other place, which has attracted more than 100 signatures. It, "calls on all football clubs to measure their disabled supporter facilities against the Accessible Stadia Guide and Football Task Force recommendations and make a commitment to reach an equality of supporter experience for all football fans as set out in the National Association of Disabled Supporters Blueprint". There is one aspect of this issue on which I would appreciate the help of my noble friend; it relates to assessing how much work needs to be done. Between 2000 and 2002, the National Association of Disabled Supporters carried out access assessments at each professional club, and it is my understanding that most clubs conducted access audits in 2004-05. There is now a fear that we have taken our eye off the ball and that little monitoring has been conducted in the past three years. Indeed, the Minister for Sport answered a Question from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in the other place on 2 June; the exchange went like this: To ask the Minister for Education and Culture how many Premiership football clubs' stadia meet the needs of disabled spectators and other users in accordance with the accessible stadia guide ... To which my only response is: why not? Surely, if we are serious about ensuring that our football grounds become accessible to disabled people, the Government must monitor, report on and if necessary, cajole the authorities. I should explain that I have an interest in this area as a vice-president of the National Association of Disabled Supporters. I have a similar unpaid position with the Football Conference. Most noble Lords will know that it involves the level of football immediately below the Football League. The conference league is a unique competition; it has a rich mix of long-term member clubs, some former members of the Football League and clubs that have risen through non-league football, known as the national league system, to experience national competition for the first time. These clubs are as vital to their local communities as those in the Premier League and Football League. The conference league recently conducted a survey of all of its member clubs so that we could assess what they did in the areas of community involvement and football development. Of the 68 clubs in the competition, 67 responded. This exceptional response demonstrated that football clubs, at every level of the game, have a part to play in their local community. Thirty-five—more than half—organise some form of community activity. Mostly, these projects are funded by the clubs themselves or an associated charity: they raise their own funds, grant aid or sponsorship. Community activities include coaching, work with schools, special projects with disability groups, pre-school breakfast clubs, street football, a special needs theatre group, a reading project, several healthy living initiatives, kick out racism projects and a club for retired people. There are six study support centres—a further two are in the pipeline—which run in conjunction with the Department for Health Playing for Success initiative, and nine girls-only programmes. It is hard to overestimate the value of this work or its impact on the lives of those taking part in the activities. Many clubs are working in deprived areas where there is no other football-based community work. In addition, more than 70 per cent of conference clubs offer youth development programmes, covering all age groups from eight to 18 for boys and girls. At least 6,000 young people are being involved in sport at these clubs. Their community programmes run regular coaching courses at schools outside school time. Most clubs offer the highest standard of football in their local areas—they do not always have Football League clubs in their immediate vicinity. Their work should be doubly applauded because, unlike the Premier League and Football League clubs, their central income from sponsorship and television is much smaller. They are under no compulsion to undertake youth football development or community initiatives. That happens because the clubs choose to do so. I bring these issues to the Government's attention because, in the words of my noble friend's Motion, any, "new sport and physical education strategy", needs to take account of the contribution that clubs in the Football Conference in particular, and in the national league system generally, can make towards it. I have described briefly what is already being achieved with the most limited financial resources. Think, my Lords, how much more could be done with realistic levels of funding. I conclude by encouraging the Government to use their considerable influence with the Football Foundation to ensure that this is delivered in future. |
| Date | 18:10:53, June 09, 2008 CET | From | Liberale Partij (L) | To | Debating the Protecting Historic Sites |
| Message | OOC errr what does this have to do with the topic at hand? |
| Date | 18:36:00, June 09, 2008 CET | From | People Party | To | Debating the Protecting Historic Sites |
| Message | My apologies this was for another debate |
| Date | 20:12:17, June 09, 2008 CET | From | Christian Communist Front | To | Debating the Protecting Historic Sites |
| Message | OOC Lolwtfseriously. |
| Date | 20:12:51, June 09, 2008 CET | From | Liberale Partij (L) | To | Debating the Protecting Historic Sites |
| Message | OOC CCP is stunned by the brilliance of this legislative proposal? :> |
| Date | 20:43:37, June 09, 2008 CET | From | Christian Communist Front | To | Debating the Protecting Historic Sites |
| Message | OOC We were stunned by the brilliance of the People Party's analysis of football leagues. My boys in England didn't even qualify for Euro 2008 =( |
| Date | 20:45:05, June 09, 2008 CET | From | Liberale Partij (L) | To | Debating the Protecting Historic Sites |
| Message | OOC support Holland! |
| Date | 18:22:27, June 10, 2008 CET | From | Groene ArbeidersPartij | To | Debating the Protecting Historic Sites |
| Message | No. We think the nation is better at guiding this. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 98 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 58 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: For more information on Particracy's former colonial nations, check out http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6640 |
| Random quote: "I took the initiative in creating the internet." - Al Gore |