Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) (Amendment) Order 2011

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for giving us an opportunity to exercise our scrutiny function rather better by putting some very apposite and relevant questions on the table about the statutory instruments. We Liberal Democrats welcome the imposition of a travel ban on Muammur Gaddafi and his family and certain other Libyan government officials, which has allowed the implementation of the UK’s obligations under the UN Security Council resolutions in response to the situation in Libya.

I, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, am concerned about the practical implication of the implementation of these statutory instruments. We undoubtedly agree that we must guarantee that the excluded persons watch-list, which will be used both by staff overseas and at UK ports, identifies accurately people who are not to be admitted to the UK, and I hope that any individual who is subject to the ban and who entered the UK by deception, and so is in breach of the travel ban, will be identified and treated as an illegal entrant and will be subject to appropriate action before the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, if that applies. I say that advisedly because, having looked at the list of people who are covered by the United Nations travel ban, and given that the International Criminal Court’s criminal prosecutor is expected to make an announcement in September, the months leading up to then will be when these people will attempt to flee to safe havens if they choose to do so.

I am concerned to read that the ban could also be lifted in very limited circumstances, and I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister will tell us in what circumstances the ban could be lifted here in the UK and what procedures we would go through for it to be lifted. I also wonder whether there has been any record of an individual who is as yet subject to the travel ban and who has been arrested in the UK or who is known to have connections to the UK and might already be here.

On the asset-freezing regulations, I thank, through the Minister, his noble friend Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint for his extensive response to me, in a letter dated 1 April 2011, on the travel order. It clarified a lot of my questions about how the asset-freezing regulations would be implemented in the UK. I am further pleased to note that the UK asset freezes will not be limited to assets that are held only in the name of Muammur Gaddafi, that there are several other designated individuals and that the list continues to be updated.

The issue for me is the extent to which Libyan state entities, or entities that have links to the Libyan state but that might not be official state entities, should be regarded as directly or indirectly owned or controlled by the Gaddafi family acting on behalf of, or on the direction of, members of the Gaddafi family. I know that the Treasury has issued guidance that the financial sector and other persons should bear in mind that Muammur Gaddafi and his family have considerable control over the Libyan state and its enterprises in deciding how to conduct proper due diligence over any transaction that involves Libyan state assets. Although we welcome the guidance, I have to say to the Treasury—I have raised this previously—that it seems to us that UK financial institutions are not really clear as to how to deal with freezing the assets of individuals rather than of readily identifiable state organisations or commercial enterprises. That issue has gone on over the years and I would like to record some concern that Treasury guidance does not seem to be more specific. You speak to people in the banks who tell you that they have very limited means of identifying individuals because the money is laundered in so many different ways before it arrives here. Perhaps we need to invest, through HMRC or some other body—I cannot identify the body—a little more in clearer intelligence about all those front organisations that use the City of London and other European centres to launder assets.

I conclude by saying that it is important to know that those sanctions and regimes differ from one another and from a US sanctions regime, and that people who are involved in moving their assets around, particularly when there are these sorts of asset freezes, are capable of hiring smart white-collar advisers to tell them how to buck the rules in one regime to another. I hope that here in the UK, not least to safeguard our reputation on money laundering, the Government ensure that companies monitor the position and keep abreast of new legislation, new designations and potentially new licences.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has asked the Committee to consider the travel ban amendment order and the Libya (Asset-Freezing) Regulations that were laid in February. Normally such technical measures attract little comment, but as the noble Lord says, they concern important matters of public policy. It is therefore only right that the Committee has the opportunity to learn more about the scope and purpose of such amendments and instruments and to question the Government about the circumstances that give rise to them.

These instruments are part of the Government’s wider strategy to put pressure on the Gaddafi regime through the full implementation of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and EU instruments. Noble Lords were able to explore something of this wider strategy on 26 April when my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford repeated the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I have no doubt, given the fast moving and appalling events unfolding in north Africa and in the Middle East, that there will be many such further opportunities to question the Government about our country’s response. I am therefore sure that noble Lords will understand if I say that on this occasion I intend to focus on the subject of the noble Lord’s Motion rather than on the wider strategy. I should also point out that yesterday the EU imposed sanctions on 13 Syrian officials, although I am not yet fully briefed on those sanctions. However, the Government will make similar UK orders using the same methodology as the Libyan regulations.

Noble Lords will be aware that UN Security Council Resolution 1970 was issued on 26 February as the international community’s response to the gross and systemic violation of human rights and international humanitarian law in Libya and the crimes that were and still are being perpetrated by Gaddafi and his supporters on his own population. The resolution placed a number of obligations on UN member states. Two of these—on travel bans and asset freezing—resulted in the implementing measures that were laid before the House in February and which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has brought to the attention of the Committee. Before saying something about these measures, noble Lords may be aware that they were the first of several travel ban and asset-freezing instruments that have come into force since the end of February in response to events in Libya. There have been a total of three travel ban amendment orders.

Taking the measures listed in the noble Lord’s Motion in turn, I shall first address the travel ban order. When travel bans are imposed on particular named individuals as part of a UN Security Council resolution or EU Council instrument, the UK is obliged, except in very limited circumstances, to refuse these individuals entry to or transit through the UK. There are a number of ways of achieving this. The most effective way is for the Government to add the resolution to the schedule of the Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) Order 2000. That is done by means of an amendment order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for that and to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for her contribution to the debate. Let me start by making it clear that we support the two instruments before us and the other two that are associated. I was not expecting the noble Earl to give a detailed assessment of the Government’s overall approach to Libya and to the situation, but I take his point and I am sure that it would be welcomed should there be further opportunities in your Lordships’ House for debates on these matters over the next few weeks and months. I have also noted that we might expect orders in relation to 13 individuals in Syria—I think that that was what the noble Earl said—following action—

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I now understand that the instruments will come into force at 6 pm tonight.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I was just going to say that I welcomed that information, and the fact that action has been taken in this area. The noble Earl has also explained the reason for departing from normal practice in laying the travel bans order. I have no problem with that. He made some very interesting comments about the proportionate application of the asset-freezing regulations. I say again that I fully understand the reasons for that proportionate approach. I hope that his department will be able to monitor that effectively, as experience shows that proportionate application sometimes leads to gaps that people can find their way through. Therefore, it would be good if one could be assured that these matters will be kept under review. I was glad that the noble Earl was able to report that no particular practical measures have so far surfaced in relation to the instruments before us. Overall, I am grateful to him for the information that he has given us.

[Earl Attlee]

It might be helpful if I clarify the position slightly. The asset freeze comes into force at 6 pm tonight, not the travel ban—that will come later. However, I do not advise the designated people to try to travel to the UK.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am sure that we are all reassured by that clarification.

Postal Services Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clarke of Hampstead]

I shall speak to Amendment 36 standing in my name, dealing with trade union recognition. Again, I declare my interest: 65 years ago this month, I joined the then UPW and I am still a member in the retired members’ section.

My amendment directs the Secretary of State to ensure that in any relevant disposal there will be a guarantee that existing rights of workforce recognition are maintained. That is very important, and I very much hope that the Government will see the benefit of the amendment.

I shall make two main points. First, the workforce, by its own efforts, has unionised the industry to such an extent that recognition of the union was achieved more than a century ago, when the Fawcett Association became the Union of Post Office Workers, founded in Finsbury Circus. Long before the existence of recognition rights, postal workers came to agreement with the employers and, behind them, the Government, on the existence of workforce trade unions. This has shaped employment relations in the industry. Both workforce and management have seen the benefit of organised bargaining and representation. We are now looking at a Royal Mail and its staff who have a mature attitude to industrial relations. Both parties know of each other's interests and concerns and are usually able to reach accommodation.

Despite the media caricatures, the reality is that organised industrial relations have created ways of working which make the industry productive and safe. Every day, many thousands of hurdles, small and large, are overcome by timely recourse to the recognised framework of industrial relations in the industry. Both management and union representatives know that the job gets done better if the workforce is convinced that it is being done in a right and fair way.

The media are interested only when those relationships break down. They turn an ordinary little conflict in the sorting office or a pillar box into a massive federal case, as the Americans would say. They love that. The media will attack unions just for the sake of it. The reality is that countless efforts by management and union reps ensure that, every day, smooth running of the industry takes place.

The first theme of the amendment is to ensure that the hard-won legal recognition of union organisation is protected in any share disposal. Recognition has been won not just as a legal right; it has been established by the efforts of generations of postal workers and managers. Any new owner must begin by recognising that they are buying into an organised workforce.

As an aside from the comments that I have drafted, I have one recollection. After the Second World War, when the Control Commission of Germany was setting up Germany’s new industry on the basis of industrial democracy, it was the British TUC and the UPW, as it then was, who took part in helping that country rebuild itself. As we know, that led to worker participation on boards, which was the subject of the lead amendment.

Being unionised does not mean being unproductive. On the contrary, many studies demonstrate that unionised workforces are productive. If any new owner may be in doubt, the Secretary of State should be obliged to dispel that doubt, as a new owner must learn to live with a unionised workforce.

My second point is that bargaining is a natural part of recognition and relationships. It may be argued that under TUPE the transfer of the workforce will carry across existing terms and conditions. That is true but it is insufficient. It is an organised workforce that will address any new employer with the expectation of its bargaining rights remaining intact too. This is not just about what is currently earned or currently an entitlement, such as annual leave, allowances and so on; it is also about the right of the workforce to address its future conditions with the confidence that it can resolve its problems through negotiations. The past couple of years have shown that after a long period of unhappiness these changes can be negotiated.

Any new employer that buys into Royal Mail on the assumption that it will simply impose its vision, priorities or methods on the workforce will be in for a rude awakening. I do not say that with any sense of a threat, but people who have given their lives to the industry will not just roll over while their conditions are reduced and made much more difficult. The workforce expects any changes to be negotiated, and that is why the amendment is necessary. It is not a conflict-ridden process; on the contrary, the only cost in the vast majority of agreements has been the time and patience of management and union reps. Such rights are valued greatly by the workforce.

Postal workers know that the industry is constantly changing. As a postal worker, I have had to recognise that. Being in attendance at this funeral of our great Royal Mail over the next few hours does not give me any happiness but I have had to come to terms with it. The vast majority of workers have understood that it is constantly changing and that working arrangements and conditions also change, but that is on the understanding that postal workers will buy into the changes by helping to shape them.

We expect the Secretary of State to be entirely clear with a new owner of Royal Mail that recognition of the workforce and its union involves a negotiated and bargained framework for employment relations in the workplace. This fact of life will have to be addressed. It is best that we make this clear in the legislation to any potential investor or buyer of the industry, and carrying this amendment would do exactly that.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, this group of amendments covers matters relating to the employees of Royal Mail, without whom of course there would not be a Royal Mail. These matters are employee representation on the board, union recognition and employee training.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Clarke and Lord Christopher, for tabling Amendments 4 and 10 relating to employee representation on the board of Royal Mail or any new successor body. I say this because, when we debated similar amendments tabled in Committee, it was clear to me that your Lordships had concerns about my response. These amendments give me the welcome opportunity to provide more clarity about the Government’s position on this issue.

First, I should make it clear that the Government do not have any fundamental or philosophical objections to employee representation on the boards of companies, but we do believe that the make-up of any company’s board should remain the responsibility of the company and its shareholders.

As many of your Lordships said in Committee and again today, employees will have a pivotal role in the future of Royal Mail, and there needs to be continual and meaningful interaction between the workforce and the management. In the CWU and Unite, the employees of Royal Mail have strong, active and effective unions. The business transformation agreement reached in March 2010 laid the groundwork for a new relationship between the management and the CWU. This was a ground-breaking achievement and, as recognised by the noble Baroness, we do not want to see the improvements set back.

I have looked back at whether the Postal Services Bill 2009 contained provisions requiring an employee representative on the board. It did not. In fact, the previous Government rejected such amendments to that Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, said in Committee debates on the Bill that the Government would have to be persuaded that direct worker representation on the board,

“would make a real difference to the transformation and modernisation of the Royal Mail and deliver the change that is necessary for the company”.

She said that the Government,

“do not believe that that case has been made”.—[Official Report, 24/3/09; col. 612.]

While this Government have no objections to an employee representative being on the board of Royal Mail, we do not see that it should be a requirement laid down in statute. I do not believe that there is any precedent for this in any previous privatisation. Under the Bill, the employees will have a shareholding of at least 10 per cent. Whether there should be an employee representative on the board is a matter for the company and its shareholders, not something to be laid down in statute.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to the clear example given in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Myners, of why large shareholders should not have a representative on a company’s board. The noble Lord, Lord Myners, told us that it is quite customary for a body of investors which has a large shareholding, as will the employees under our Bill, to seek board representation. He gave the example of News International and the BSkyB board, but the lesson to draw from this example is that it was a decision taken by the company and was a circumstance of the size of News International’s shareholding. It was not a mandatory requirement. I do not see why Royal Mail should be treated differently from other companies in this regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, spoke also about the experience in Europe. There is a mixed picture there. Some member states have mandatory requirements for employee representation on boards in certain circumstances, but the majority do not. The Government consider that placing such a requirement on Royal Mail, when it is not a requirement on companies generally in the UK, is not appropriate. The wider issue of employee representation on boards is best discussed in the context of company law and not this Bill.

Amendment 11 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report on Royal Mail’s intended policies on training, apprenticeships and skills once a decision has been taken to dispose of shares in Royal Mail. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wall of New Barnet, for raising these vital issues. I know that she brings considerable experience to this debate through her work on the sector skills council and her contribution to the All-Party Group on Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of training and believe that skills are key to economic competitiveness. Apprenticeships are our preferred vocational route for people of all ages to gain the skills they need to succeed and progress in their careers and for employers to build a workforce with the motivation and expertise they need to compete globally. We are committed not only to increasing the number and range of apprenticeships on offer but also to improving their quality. We want apprenticeships to become the gold standard for workplace training. We are determined to take real action to improve and expand the apprenticeships programme and create more apprenticeship opportunities than ever before.

It has been recognised throughout the debates on this Bill that the workforce is vital to the success of Royal Mail. The company is introducing new working practices and new technology as it adapts to developments in the postal market. It is clear that, to make the modernisation of the company a success, it will need to ensure that its workforce is properly trained and has the right skills, as pointed out by the noble Baroness.

Royal Mail recognises the importance of training, which is reflected throughout the business transformation agreement between the Royal Mail and the CWU. I have no reason to believe that the new owners of Royal Mail would take a different approach given the importance of the workforce. Why would it? The noble Baroness suggested that cost pressures might be an issue, but surely a business of this size must look to the long term and not take short-term decisions. If it did, it could adversely affect its own share price, sending entirely the wrong signals to the market.

Postal Services Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. Each week something like 6.5 million visits are made to the Post Office network with a view to withdrawing funds from the Post Office card account. It has been calculated that those aged under 65 who hold such an account are 28 times more likely to be unbanked. These same people, those in receipt of state benefits and tax credits, are the most likely to use high-cost credit. That is evidence of the justification of the point being made by my noble friend Lord Kennedy about the valuable contribution that credit unions can make. The Post Office product range is such that it will not make personal loans of less than £2,000, yet evidence shows that sums of between £300 and £600 are the primary amounts sought by those using high-cost credit.

In short, the Post Office has the facilities and credit unions have the ability. Would it not be good if we could bring these two groups together to serve the public?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, since he arrived in your Lordships’ House the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has spoken passionately about the role of credit unions, and with good reason. We all know about the activities of loan sharks. As my noble friend the Minister said in Committee, the Government place a high importance on access to affordable credit and believe that the use of credit unions should be encouraged as a means of saving and obtaining access to short-term loans.

Co-operation between Post Office Ltd and credit unions is already very strong and we support an even closer link-up between the Post Office and credit unions. We have demonstrated clear progress against this aim. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks details on that progress and I hope that I can give him some reassurance today. The Department for Work and Pensions recently announced a significant package of support for the credit union sector, including funding set aside for a shared credit union banking platform, which will be subject to a feasibility study, in which the Post Office will participate fully.

The Post Office also continues to develop individual services and assistance to facilitate close working with credit unions, including a new pay-out service which allows people to collect their credit union loans at their local post office branch, and guidance to facilitate local arrangements between post offices and credit unions where both parties wish to participate. These developments build upon existing arrangements whereby many credit union current account holders can access their accounts at post offices through arrangements with the Co-operative Bank. Post Office Ltd expects that around 170,000 credit union transactions will be carried out in post office branches in this way in the coming year. Facilities are also available at post offices whereby credit unions issue customers with a payment card, which they can use to pay off the loans they have received via the electronic bill payment facilities that are available at every post office. More than 60 credit unions have established this facility.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to the possibility of a debate. As he will understand, I can give no assurances on that because it is a matter for the usual channels.

As my noble friend the Minister said in Committee, we recognise the worthy intention behind the amendment and I hope the noble Lord will be reassured by the good work that is already under way in these areas. We will continue to encourage co-operation between the credit unions and Post Office Ltd and to support the Post Office in its provision of wider financial services. However, placing this reporting requirement—and, indeed, others tabled by noble Lords—in legislation would simply increase bureaucracy, and the greater the reporting requirement imposed on the Post Office the greater the cost and, therefore, the impact on its competitiveness.

With the reassurance that I have given today, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his response; he has provided some reassurance. I shall return to this issue again but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Postal Services Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 6th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilcox]

We have gone on record in the other place and I have repeated it here today. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will read it but I will write to him to clarify further, as best I may. I understand about the business. In fact, the contract was not that big but the Post Office had to bid for it. We are very encouraging of all government departments to bear in mind the work they may be doing themselves but which the Post Office could do better for them. We are encouraging all departments to look again and think carefully about what work they can start to bring forward that could be better done by the Post Office.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I remind the Committee that the amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Laird.

[Lord Laird]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I will consider these matters carefully and may return to them on a different occasion but I propose to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

25: Clause 58, page 36, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) An order under subsection (6) applying an enactment under which a criminal or civil penalty could be imposed may not provide for the penalty to be greater than that which could be imposed under the enactment.”

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 31. Amendment 25 implements a recommendation made by your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill. The Government have also accepted the second and final recommendation by the committee, and we will come to that in a later debate.

Amendment 25 relates to Clause 58. This clause allows the Secretary of State to apply, with or without modifications, certain provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 to appeals made under Clause 57 of this Bill. Amendment 25 ensures that this power is not broad enough to permit increases in civil or criminal penalties beyond the levels specified in the Enterprise Act 2002. I believe that this is a sensible and appropriate change and one that I hope your Lordships will welcome.

Amendment 31 seeks to remove from the Bill a reference to Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Schedule 12 to the Bill included a consequential amendment to remove references to “licensed operators” and “Postcomm” in Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act. However, Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act will cease to have effect from 5 May this year. This is a consequence of the yes vote in the recent referendum on the powers of the Welsh Assembly and the resulting changes to the Assembly’s legislative competence. Schedule 5 will be replaced by Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act, in which the references to postal operators are not so defined and thus do not require amendment.

I hope that your Lordships will feel able to accept these government amendments. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I oppose Amendment 25C moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and Amendment 30 also in her name. I do not think we can say arbitrarily that we are going to draw a line in the sand. Who knows what situations may arise? I did not quite understand that or get a validation of that argument.

As regards Amendment 30, we talked earlier about getting the balance right between trying to ensure the future of the universal service provider and competition. I am not sure why we would want to remove from the universal service provider this important and sensitive material in some cases, with a guaranteed standard of service and delivery of election material. The noble Baroness painted a picture whereby in the future it might be a competitive scenario but for the time being we believe that it should remain with the universal service provider.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, before turning to Amendments 25C and 30 in the name of my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, I would like briefly to outline the important provisions that they seek to amend. The objective of Schedule 9 is to ensure a smooth transition between the current and the new regime, and to provide as much certainty to the market as possible. It enables Ofcom to carry out certain functions, including work on developing the new regulatory regime, during the transitional period between Royal Assent and the date at which Ofcom takes full responsibility for postal regulation on the appointed day. During the transitional period, Ofcom must determine the initial regulatory conditions, which will apply to postal operators until they are modified—if at all—once the Act fully comes into force and we move from a licensing to a general authorisation regime.

Amendment 25C seeks to add a requirement that Ofcom cannot impose any initial,

“conditions that could not have been imposed under Part 2 of the”,

Postal Services Act 2000. I would like to reassure my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft that there is no need for such an amendment. The schedule already provides that initial conditions,

“must be to substantially the same effect as the current licence conditions”.

There is no chance therefore of involving, say, motor cycle couriers.

Given that existing licence conditions stem from the 2000 Act, they will of course need to be compatible with it. It is inconceivable that in practice something could be substantially to the same effect as the current licence conditions without being compatible with the 2000 Act. The schedule also provides that were Ofcom to modify an initial condition, it cannot do so in such a way that was not compliant with the 2000 Act. I hope that this provides my noble friend with reassurance and that she will feel able to withdraw Amendment 25C.

Amendment 30, which concerns the Representation of the People Act 1983, would substitute the words “postal operator” for “universal postal service provider” with the intention of opening up to government the option of utilising any postal operator for the delivery of election material at public expense. My noble friends propose to make this amendment to Schedule 12, “Minor and consequential amendments”. While we see that there could be merit in opening up this area to competition, the proposed amendment cannot, in the Government’s view, be considered a simple minor consequential amendment as it has significant wider policy implications for the management of elections.

We would need to consider carefully all the implications and potential policy consequences before making any such change, and the timing of the Bill does not allow for that. I believe that this is an issue that requires further consideration, including discussion with other political parties, which I am sure will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Young. My officials have been liaising with their counterparts at the Cabinet Office, who have given an assurance that the matter is already on their radar for consideration and will be looked at as part of the wider work on the overall operation of elections following the referendum.

While I have sympathy with the intention of the amendment, I hope that my noble friend will accept this reasoning and not move Amendment 30 at the appropriate time.

[Viscount Eccles]

My noble friend has referred extensively to Schedule 9 covering the transitional arrangements, to which the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft also refers. Those arrangements are very necessary because it has been agreed by Postcomm itself that its present regulatory system is dysfunctional, although to be correct, I think the words used were “not fit for purpose”. We are therefore moving from a regulatory system which is not fit for purpose to another one by another regulator. Of course I agree strongly with my noble friend in what she said about regulatory creep. So we are moving from an unsatisfactory situation into the unknown.

I have a second and rather more important point to make. My noble friend on the Front Bench keeps referring to Ofcom, which is absolutely right, but Schedule 9 gives the Secretary of State three order-making powers. Given that, we must ask the Government just to think through what they might say at the Report stage about this transitional period. It is all very well to say that Ofcom will do this and Ofcom will do that, but it is accountable to the Secretary of State who in turn is accountable to Parliament. If Ofcom makes a recommendation, it may have the power to make an order itself. It does in certain circumstances, although on many occasions it does not have it without the approval of the Secretary of State. What I think Members of the Committee on all sides are interested in is not just Ofcom’s attitude towards regulation, but the Government’s attitude to the system of regulation which is laid out in tremendous detail in the Bill and which, earlier in the day, my noble friend Lord De Mauley said would be given further consideration.

I am not sure that I have put it terribly well, but I think we still need to understand the basic attitude of this Administration towards a regulatory system for which, as it also said in Postcomm’s February paper, the building blocks have yet to be constructed.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it may be helpful to the Committee if I explain the extra flexibility that “substantially the same effect” clearly gives Ofcom compared with the wording of the amendment. Where possible, Ofcom should be trying to make the initial conditions compatible with the new regime. There may be circumstances where an existing licence condition is not technically capable of transferring to the new regime, but it is possible to create a new regime requirement that has substantially the same effect. I think that that would be a desirable outcome.

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am to some extent relieved to know that nothing other than minor changes will be possible under the legislation. However, I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Eccles that regulatory creep is something that we need to be eternally vigilant about, so I trust that this will continue. On Amendment 30, I was delighted to hear my noble friend say that this is already under consideration, and I look forward to seeing how that progresses. I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Christopher]

These amendments certainly deserve support. One of the problems with writing the law is that you do not necessarily relate it to what is going on in the global economy. As I have said before, one should not rule out the prospect that whoever buys Royal Mail may get into difficulties and present you with considerable problems.

There are two examples at the moment, one of which is certainly ongoing and the other is, apparently, temporarily resolved. Not many people know that all the fire engines in London are owned by a company called AssetCo, which recently got into significant financial difficulties. I am told that it will be all right on the night but I have never seen anything to give me assurances about that. It certainly begs a question in my mind as to what would have happened if AssetCo had gone into administration or whatever. The other case, which is certainly continuing, concerns Southern Cross, one of the largest care home companies in Britain, with 31,000 residents in 750 homes. As I understand it, it is owned to a substantial degree by a company in the Middle East. I am not sure what would happen if the worst came to the worst in respect of these. It is therefore appropriate for the Government to place within the Bill sufficient provision to ensure not only that the service continues but that the staff are looked after and their future provided for. I can see no reason why these amendments should not be accepted.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, before I address the amendments it may be helpful to the Committee if I say a few words about the policy intention behind Part 4 of the Bill, which introduces a special administration regime. The noble Lord, Lord Christopher, suggested other areas which could, in certain circumstances, cause problems.

These special administration provisions are contingency provisions. We believe that the package of measures set out in the Bill will secure the future of Royal Mail and the universal postal service. The special administration provisions are simply the Government acting prudently and putting in place sufficient contingency plans to ensure that the universal service continues to be provided in the unlikely event that the provider is at risk of entering insolvency proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to the possibility of this arising from an unsympathetic regulatory regime. I remind the noble Lord that the whole object of the Bill and the duty of Ofcom is to secure the universal postal service.

As set out in Clause 67, the overriding objective of a postal administration is to secure the universal postal service that so many of our communities and small businesses rely upon. In order to do this, the administrator and the Secretary of State must have the necessary tools and be able to use them swiftly and decisively to preserve the universal service. It is in this context that we must consider Amendments 25D, 25E and 26A.

Amendments 25D and 25E seek to add additional elements to the objectives of the postal administration. Amendment 26A would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to reduce the regulatory burden on the universal service provider while it was in special administration. Amendment 25D is intended to protect the interests of employees, while Amendment 25E seeks to ensure that the universal service provider is rescued as a going concern. I understand the intention behind the amendments but, as I have said, time will be of the essence in a special administration scenario. To act swiftly and decisively, we must be absolutely clear about the overriding objective, and in this case that must be the continued provision of the universal postal service. To add other objectives would reduce the administrator’s ability to take the action needed to secure the universal postal service—which must be our overriding aim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Eccles]

I intended no criticism of the individuals in Postcomm. We need to remember that regulators have only a limited amount of independence. We are inclined to talk as though they had a rather larger amount of independence than they actually have. When I look at the 2000 Act and think about the policy intentions behind it and the interpretation of them, I am not entirely surprised that Postcomm got itself into what it admits is a very difficult position. In any evaluation of how the present situation comes about, we have to remember—and that is exactly why I intervened on Schedule 9—that the Government of the day are in the final analysis the accountable body and Parliament with it, and the regulator is trying to carry out their wishes as it interprets them, with a certain amount of independence, but only a certain amount.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I must confess to never having read The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, but I do have my own personal copy of the law of unintended consequences, which was passed many aeons go. I am happy to have further discussions with the noble Lord offline and we take on board his comments about Postcomm.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Whitty is unable to be in your Lordships’ House today and I have agreed to move this amendment on his behalf. The provisions in the Bill allow Royal Mail to detain postal packets and to impose a surcharge in respect of non-payment or underpayment. When the correct amount is not paid or no payment is made that is absolutely right—I have no problem with that whatever—but the Bill is too one-sided. This series of amendments seeks to redress the balance so that the consumer who, through no fault of their own, finds themselves in dispute with the Royal Mail about whether the correct price or any price has been paid has the basis of making a case to be considered.

Presently, the burden of proof rests entirely with the consumer. I am sure that all of us in this Committee would accept that mistakes happen. This amendment seeks to take account of that fact and that, on occasions, people have gone into Post Offices and paid the correct fee to send their packet through the system but the appropriate stamps have in error not been affixed. The packet goes on its merry way and the intended recipient at the other end has it delayed and can only get their hands on it on payment of a surcharge, even though the packet’s delivery has been paid for. This is not fair and not right.

Noble Lords may ask, “Where is your evidence?”. Well, I have it and I will happily give it to the Minister later. The evidence is a special delivery, signed-for packet to Consumer Focus from Royal Mail itself. Royal Mail forgot to put a stamp on the packet, then surcharged Consumer Focus for the pleasure of receiving papers from Royal Mail. The Government need to look carefully at this area. Maybe such a detailed provision does not need to be included in the Bill at all. If it is retained, there needs to be some protection for consumers from unjustifiably imposed surcharges. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, as we have discussed, for the universal service to be sustainable the provider must be able to cover its costs. The nature of our postal network means that it is possible for users, inadvertently or otherwise, to put items into the system without the correct postage. In such situations, to prevent the system from unravelling, it is vital that postal operators can recover the postage that should have been paid. Paragraph 35 of Schedule 12 to the Bill gives postal operators the right to detain items with insufficient postage until the correct amount has been paid and allows them to impose a surcharge. Importantly, Ofcom may limit the amount of the surcharge and the length of the detention period. Once the correct postage and any surcharge have been paid, the operator may no longer detain the item.

Amendments 28 and 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and ably—and, I have to say, wickedly—moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, with his knock-out argument, seek to prevent detention or surcharging if the item was priced and posted at a post office or other such designated access point provider. Amendment 27 would require postal operators wishing to detain or apply surcharges to underpaid items to take steps to identify items priced and posted at a post office or other such designated access point provider.

While I fully understand where the noble Lords are coming from, I do not think that legislation is the solution to this problem. I understand from Royal Mail that if a customer complains that they were surcharged for an item that was posted at a post office, the surcharge is automatically refunded.

In addition, I understand that this is a relatively small problem. Between October and December 2010, Post Office Ltd had around 300 complaints about surcharging of underpaid mail posted at a branch. In a typical quarter, however, the Post Office will conduct over 100 million label or stamp transactions. Complaints about surcharging to Royal Mail amount to 1 per cent of the total complaints received.

Given that there are effective systems in place to deal with these matters, I fear that imposing the regulatory burdens proposed by these amendments would be disproportionate to the scale of problem. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect and feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. These issues need looking at. I am happy at this stage to withdraw the amendment but my noble friend Lord Whitty may bring this back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2011

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10 March be approved.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 29 March.

Motion agreed.

Motorways

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government have set out a clear vision for a transport system that is an engine for economic growth and future prosperity. A well functioning strategic road network is therefore vital for achieving this vision. As part of this, we recognise the importance of effectively managing and monitoring traffic on the motorways and wider strategic road network in England to help tackle congestion, unreliable journeys and ensure the safety of the travelling public. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for securing a debate on this important issue and for the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Dear and Lord Davies of Oldham.

In England, the police and Highways Agency have a key role in the effective management, monitoring and patrolling of the motorway network. It is therefore very much a partnership approach, but with each partner having a distinct role. My noble friend has given us a very good explanation of the current situation; he mentioned the Highways Agency Traffic Officer Service, supported by regional and national traffic control centres, which focuses on detecting and managing incidents. This service ensures that traffic is kept moving safely and efficiently in and around incidents and that drivers are informed of what is happening on the network through real-time traffic information. The police role focuses on their core responsibilities of the prevention, detection and investigation of criminality on the network. When serious incidents occur the expert skills of the police and Traffic Officer Service are brought together to ensure that the human, traffic and legal consequences are managed in the most effective, efficient and safe way.

Given the importance that transport has to the wider economy, it is essential that this strong partnership arrangement continues. Indeed, we have long realised that we cannot build our way out of congestion and must maximise the value of the roads we already have. The Traffic Officer Service is integral to this. The cost of delay to the economy as a result of incidents is significant. Just one three-lane closure on a busy motorway, lasting no more than two hours, can cost over £500,000 to the economy. This demonstrates the importance of rapid clear-up of incidents; and demonstrates why the Traffic Officer Service places such an emphasis on responding to incidents within 20 and 40 minutes on heavily trafficked roads. Indeed, the Highways Agency clears over 80 per cent of incidents affecting the live lanes within 30 minutes. The Traffic Officer Service has also had a key role in the introduction and operation of managed motorways, where the hard shoulder is utilised as an additional lane. In order safely to introduce traffic on to the hard shoulder, it is necessary to have traffic officers managing the technology from the regional control centre and patrolling the road itself. Managed motorways are less environmentally damaging than conventional widening projects and cost 40 per cent less, but they could not be introduced without traffic officers in place to operate them.

At the present time, we and the Association of Chief Police Officers believe there is no immediate need to review the division of roles and responsibilities between the Highways Agency and police. The roles are very clear, particularly in respect of enforcement activities and powers, and there is no indication that there is a need to provide traffic officers with additional powers or functions over and above those which they have already.

There is an additional difficulty. If we gave Highways Agency traffic officers enforcement powers, it could compromise their ability to act as the friend of the ordinary motorist. That is quite an important function of the traffic officers. Moreover, this Government would not wish to add any further regulatory burdens which additional powers may bring, unless it was imperative to supporting economic growth.

With the Traffic Officer Service firmly established, the time is now right to review how it operates and make efficiencies while still maintaining a first-class service. A future operating model has been devised by the Highways Agency, which will generate savings of at least 20 per cent by 2013. This will include more flexible resourcing of staff, matched to demand for the network, eliminating over-resourcing at lower demand periods; flexible crewing of traffic officer vehicles; and using intelligence to position traffic officer vehicles at key locations on the network to be able to quickly respond to incidents.

I briefly mentioned earlier the role of National Traffic Control Centre. This is a PFI contract and will be replaced by a new National Traffic Information Service contract in autumn 2011. The new service will provide the capability to capture and interpret traffic data more efficiently, thereby delivering an improved information service to road users at a lower cost. In advance of this, the Department for Transport, together with ACPO, the Highways Agency and the Home Office, completed a review of motorway closure incidents at the end of January. The review has focused on identifying what improvements could be made to achieve the shortest timeline possible for managing such incidents; it has not looked in depth at the present monitoring and patrolling arrangements on motorways. However, it will ensure that we are collectively doing all that we can to minimise disruption to the nation’s most important traffic arteries, thereby making the most of the assets on which individual and business rely. We will publish the review shortly and set our plans, which we will take forward in partnership with the police and other parties involved in incident management.

I shall try to answer as many points as possible in the time available. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne suggested extending the role of the British Transport Police. This was a point that I took up with officials before the debate. The DfT considered some very early proposals by the British Transport Police concerning the creation of a national strategic infrastructure agency. This looked at combining the functions of the British Transport Police, traffic officers and VOSA, in relation to the policing and traffic management of the road and rail network. Noble Lords should remember that currently the British Transport Police is financed largely by the rail industry. However, no strong evidence was presented to suggest that creating any kind of national roads or rail policing force would deliver sufficient benefits over and above the cost that would be incurred to introduce such a significant change. The Highways Agency itself has already committed to making major significant efficiencies as part of the spending review. Combining such functions would also mean that we could revert back to the situation that we had pre-2004, before the Traffic Officer Service was established. This may then impact on the ability of the Highways Agency to effectively operate the network and have a number of impacts, including on the reliability of people’s journeys.

My noble friend also asked about extending the powers of traffic officers. A traffic officer’s role and functions relate to the management of traffic not the enforcement of traffic offences. They have no enforcement powers, nor do they undertake enforcement activities. There are no current plans to review the traffic officer’s roles or powers with regard to enforcement. When a traffic officer sees incidents of reckless or dangerous driving, they would do what any other citizen may choose to do and report them to the police. Of course, they have extremely good means of communicating with the police because the police and the traffic officers work very closely together. Of course, it would be for the police to determine what action to take. Traffic officers cannot stop a vehicle for enforcement purposes. That is not their role. They may stop a vehicle when it poses a danger to the network, to notify the driver, for example, when there is a loose tarpaulin or an obvious defect to the vehicle.

I am grateful for the interesting contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Dear. He describes some of the recent history of road traffic policing on a strategic network and his excellent work in the West Midlands. He talked about the paucity of traffic patrols. My experience is that when there is a serious incident the police still turn up very quickly indeed. He would be extremely disappointed with me if I did not make the point about the operational independence of the police. I am sure that the noble Lord is looking forward to the police Bill that we will be scrutinising and that he will take a large role in that Bill. I am sure, too, that he is right in his observations regarding the detections of serious non-traffic criminality by the traffic police. While I accept that I answer for all Her Majesty's Government, my department is concerned with the operation of the strategic network as an engine of economic growth. The Home Office is concerned with crime reduction. Ironically, I am also a Home Office Whip. The noble Lord will be aware that only a small proportion of fatalities occur on the strategic road network.

I am grateful for the cautions response of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. He indicated that he did not see much deterioration in the situation and I am grateful for that observation. Partially, that will be due to better uses of resources by the previous Government. There were two obvious examples in the introduction of the Highways Agency traffic officers and the self-escorting of abnormal loads, which has freed up considerable amounts of police time. I would like to take a little bit of credit for my minor role and give some more credit to Mr John Denham, who finally made the ministerial decision to go that way. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about the maximum speed limit, although that was slightly wide of the debate. I look forward to receiving all views on that subject and engaging in debate at the appropriate time.

The present arrangement for monitoring and patrolling the network worked well. The issue is therefore not about asking whether individuals have the right responsibilities and powers; it is about ensuring that we know what needs to be done, individually and collectively, for continue to deliver important services in the most effective and efficient way. Today I have set out how we are doing that to ensure that we achieve the best outcomes for the travelling public and make an important contribution to supporting economic growth.

Committee adjourned at 7.43 pm.

Petrol: Ethanol Content

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a non-financial interest as president of the Jaguar Drivers’ Club.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, petrol containing 10 per cent ethanol has been permitted from January 2011. Petrol containing up to 5 per cent ethanol is currently available and expected to be marketed until at least 2015. Petrol pumps dispensing petrol containing over 5 per cent ethanol must display a cautionary label. Research commissioned by the Department for Transport into the potential impact of ethanol on vehicle fuel systems showed that there could be compatibility issues for classic and vintage vehicles.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his answer. He has a delicate way of putting it. In fact, ethanol attacks fibreglass fuel tanks, bits of aluminium, fuel filters and so on. Therefore it is important that he gives an undertaking that the 5 per cent limit will be consistently available and not be superseded by the 10 per cent limit.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am well aware of these issues. I declare an interest in that, because of fuel compatibility issues, I have had to fit an electronic fuel-injection system to a 27-litre V12 tank engine.

I am also well aware of the problem with glass-fibre fuel tanks. One of the issues for classic vehicles is the availability of replacement petrol tanks and the difficulty of making an irregular-shaped fuel tank.

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, the noble Earl is probably aware that I am an aviator. Is he also aware that there are new and old small aircraft that rely on car petrol without ethanol in it? What provisions are the Government making to ensure that there is a supply of this in the future?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in the long term, I cannot give reassurances. I will write to my noble friend about the availability of zero ethanol for aviation.

[Lord Berkeley]

Will the noble Earl tell the House how many petrol-driven tank engines there are in the country? I thought they mostly ran on steam like Thomas does.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about the wrong type of tank. I am talking about a tank at the REME museum in Bordon.

[Lord Broers]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that these additives in marine fuels can cause even more problems than those in automobile fuels because their consequences can be far more serious?

[Earl Attlee]

I am sure the noble Lord is right. There is a difficulty with some types of equipment that are not used regularly, such as standby generating sets. There can also be problems with the formation of algae but there are well-understood procedures for avoiding this problem.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2011

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Earl Attlee]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2011.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2011.

As your Lordships will recall, I came to the Committee on 7 February and subsequently obtained approval to charge for visa, immigration and nationality services under the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011. At that time I said that specific fee levels would be set in separate legislation using the affirmative procedure. That is the purpose of today’s debate.

The fees paid by those making visa, nationality and immigration applications are set out in regulations made under Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and in accordance with the powers granted in Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 as amended by Section 20 of the UK Borders Act 2007. Under Section 42, the Secretary of State can set a fee for an application that exceeds the administrative cost of determining the application. The way our legal powers are defined means that we must also specify fees in separate regulations under the powers in Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

These regulations are to set the fee for applications, processes and services that are provided at or below the administrative cost of determining the application. These regulations were laid before Parliament on 16 March 2011, are subject to the negative procedure and are not debated at all in this House. I recognise that having fees in two sets of regulations makes things a little complicated, but I am happy to take points on any of the fees proposals here today.

In general, we are proposing to limit the majority of increases to less than 10 per cent. For example, we propose to increase the sponsorship application fees by 3 per cent and will maintain our concessions for small businesses and charities who want to sponsor migrants. The increases in these fees will be the first since the points-based system was introduced in 2008.

Increases to fees that do not follow this approach are fees for dependants applying to extend their leave in the UK at the same time as the main applicant. Currently these fees are set between one-quarter and one-third of the corresponding main applicant’s fees. We propose increasing this ratio to half of the main applicant fee. This continues our agreed policy to better align our fees in and out of the UK, where all dependants already pay the full fee. This will better reflect the processing cost to us for each individual within any given application, as well as sometimes an independent set of entitlements.

Also, the fees paid overseas for those seeking entry through tier one post-study work will increase by more than 30 per cent. This will bring the fee paid by migrants overseas closer to that paid by those who applied for this route in the UK. The vast majority of applications made under the post-study work route are made in the UK.

Also, there will be further increases to fees for visa applications under tiers four and five of the points-based system; these routes continue to be charged below the administrative costs of processing the applications.

New fees being introduced include fees for amending a previously issued nationality certificate, other than when this amendment is being made to correct an error made by the UKBA, for providing certain stateless persons with the ability to acquire the status of a British protected person, and for the registration as a British citizen for the children of foreign national soldiers serving in the UK armed forces. This would align our fees legislation to reflect the rule changes that have simplified such registrations.

New fees are also being introduced for tier two intra-company transfers coming to the UK for less than 12 months, where the applicants pay a lower fee than those coming for more than 12 months.

We welcome the economic, cultural and social contribution made by legal migrants to the UK. We continue to ensure that the fees for immigration and nationality demonstrate that the UK is open for business and retains its position as an attractive destination. We also continue to monitor the economic, equality and diversity impacts of our changes and to ensure that our fees continue to be priced at levels which make them competitive when compared with those in other key countries.

I believe these regulations provide a basis for a sustainable immigration system, which all noble Lords will want. I commend them to the House.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his careful explanation of the order that is in front of us.

This order is drawn to the special attention of the House by the Merits Committee, but it does not say what is unusual about the order or what distinguishes it from other orders covered by the same report; particularly the three orders dealing with amendments of fees for other services. According to its terms of reference, there are four grounds on which the Merits Committee may draw the attention of the House to an instrument, draft or proposal, and in this case your Lordships may think that the only ones that might apply—or should apply—are,

“that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.

Assuming that is the case, the only matters of substance raised in the delegated legislation Committee of another place were the effect of the order on Bangladeshi and Chinese restaurants, and the question of whether UKBA would be able to cope with the workload of dealing with applications.

Since the Government have taken steps to reduce the number of immigrants the burden will be eased, but the 5,200 cut in UKBA staff is more than proportional to the reduction in the number of cases that they are expected to process.

The predicted effect of the fee increases on applications varies between zero and 2.5 per cent in the case of an application by a tier four student to change his course, which has been free in the past but is now to cost £386. On top of that, the requirements for tier four applicants have been tightened up further. Applicants from outside a university, for example, will have to present a test certificate from an independent test provider of their competence in English to level B2. It would be surprising if these new requirements did not have a larger deterrent effect, and I would be grateful if my noble friend could give us his estimate of the drop in the number of tier four applicants expected from the Home Secretary’s announcement last month. We need this to be able to assess the expected increase in the average productivity of immigration officers dealing with tier 4 cases, and hence to get a feeling of whether the reduction in UKBA staff numbers can be managed without damaging the quality of their decisions.

The rationale of the order is that fees should be set at the correct level to ensure that the income generated contributes adequately towards the costs of running the immigration system. The impact assessment estimates that UKBA income will rise by £65 million as a result of the fee changes proposed, but what will the total income be, and how close will the UKBA be to balancing income with expenditure after the cuts have taken place? I apologise to my noble friend for not having given notice of the questions that I am asking as I would normally do; I just did not have the time.

I understand that the Government have decided to defer implementing the proposed cuts in the UKBA until they have disposed of the remaining legacy cases. Will my noble friend confirm that? How many of those cases were still on the books at the latest convenient date, and what has been the average rate of completion of those cases since the start of 2011? They have always been pretty vague about when the legacy cases are going to be completed. I should have thought, as we were approaching the end of the process, that it ought to be possible to be a bit more precise now.

Under what conditions may the fees themselves be waived? For example, the fees for the registration of a minor as a British citizen are rising significantly. This is money that is intended not just to cover the administrative cost of the application but to make a profit for the UK Border Agency. If a child is prevented from registering as a British citizen for no other reason than a fee, designed to make profits for the UKBA, how does that meet the “child’s best interests” principle under the convention on the rights of the child, to which the Government are a signatory?

I have had a letter just now from Cambridge Assessment, which I think is a firm that is well known to the UKBA for supplying services in English-language skills. It expresses concern that those who cannot pay fees may not be able to learn crucial skills that they need to find work and play a positive role in their communities, as we would all wish. I have not had a chance to discuss this in detail with Cambridge Assessment, but the firm has asked me for a discussion and I am intending to meet it and go into these points in more detail. Has the Minister considered the effects on people who do not contribute to society because they are unable to find the fee for the English-language test?

Another important question relates to the ministerial authorisation on race discrimination, which was covered by a letter on 21 March from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association to the Minister, Damian Green, of which I have seen a copy. This permits the refusal of applications on grounds of specified nationality and the making of additional requirements or examinations that would not be required of another nationality and that may lead to refusal. The applicant will not know, because the specified nationalities will not be made public. He or she will have paid the fee —which is much higher than in previous years and is increasing again—but may be refused by reason of his or her nationality and not on the strength of his or her application. Perhaps the noble Earl would comment on that.

The ILPA letter also makes the general point that if the UKBA is to make a profit from charging fees, it should deliver a commensurate service. For instance, its service standards include timeframes within which applications should be dealt with, but it constantly fails to meet them. There is also the grossly unfair practice of refusing an application that would have been approved under the rules in operation at the time it was made because the rules changed some time later. The least that should happen in those circumstances is that the fee should be refunded.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I refer the noble Earl to paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum and the proposal to monitor the impact of fees. I welcomed the comments in his opening speech when he emphasised that his department would be monitoring the fees. Yesterday he said that everything is kept under review by the Government, as indeed it is—many a time have I told the House that a matter is under review—but I got the impression that this was a rather more active review. Can the noble Earl give a little more information about that, and say whether it would be possible to make some reports to Parliament on the progress of that review from time to time? I think Noble Lords would find that helpful: in terms of the impact and whether the assessment has been right regarding the reduction in the number of people coming here as a result of the fees increase; with some wider issues such as some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; and with the issue of whether the calculations relating to resources to UKBA have proved to be reasonably accurate.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the considered debate given to these regulations. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his comments about the Merits Committee reports. I am sure he is right. I will write on any vital points I do not cover in my response.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked a number of very good questions. He asked about students switching courses. Tier four migrants who applied for leave from 5 October 2009 have to apply and pay a fee to the UK Border Agency to change sponsor as part of a new leave application. Students who applied for leave under tier four of the points-based system between 31 March 2009 and 4 October 2009 would now have to pay the UK Border Agency when they want to change their educational establishment. Currently the UK Border Agency considers the requests from these students when they wish to change their educational establishment and approves or refuses them accordingly. There is a cost to the UK Border Agency for undertaking this work but no fee is charged. In the current economic climate we think it is right that these costs are met by the applicant. It is right that applicants pay this fee as there is a cost to the UK Border Agency of assuring that this switch of establishment does not infringe on the students’ immigration status. Last year we received about 18,000 such applications, although we anticipate a much lower level this year. The proposed fee of £160 will be lower than the £386 that those who were granted leave based on applications dated from 5 October 2009 are required to pay. Changes to the immigration rules will be announced before this fee is introduced. This is part of our process of making sure that those who come here to study are not coming here to work.

The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, talked about some of the reductions in the UK Border Agency. We are aiming to maintain service standards in terms of time and quality as we reduce costs but improve productivity. We are achieving this through investment in technology, moving to electronic rather than paper applications and case files, improved workflow management, and more efficient security-checking arrangements. These fee proposals will ensure that, while we are reducing costs, we are increasing income levels as we shift the contribution for the migration system from the UK taxpayer to the migrants who benefit.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also made the point about balancing income and expenditure. In 2011-12 the UK immigration system is expected to cost over £2 billion. Our proposals will ensure that we recover approximately 36 per cent through fees from applicants and the services. These additional fee increases are expected to raise approximately an extra £90 million. Of this figure we expect to generate around £65 million from income fees set at levels where they exceed the administrative cost of processing an application. The rest of this figure will come from fees set at or below costs. The remaining costs are met by the UK taxpayer. The Committee should not forget that.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, talked about children born to foreign members of the UK Armed Forces. We believe that all those individuals who are required to register for British nationality should pay a fee to reflect the value of the entitlement that citizenship bestows. We only need to think of current events where Her Majesty’s Armed Forces are repatriating people stuck in difficult situations all around the globe. We already offer significant concessions to those family members by enabling their children to bypass the requirements placed on children of other migrants to obtain settlement in the UK before an application for citizenship can be made. This offers a more accelerated and hence cheaper route to citizenship than that available to family members of other migrants. An application to register for British citizenship is the free choice of the individual, or their parent in the case of children, and is not a requirement placed by the UK Government on a migrant asking to stay. It is charged at £540. By contrast, the fees required to reach a point where a child born overseas to a migrant worker could claim citizenship would be at least £2,322.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about legacy cases. We estimate that we will have completed these by July 2011. He also asked about refunds for refused applications. The fees are set for the work involved in considering the application, not according to its outcome. He also asked about refusal of nationality. He will understand that this is a debate about fees, so I will write to him on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made an extremely important point about international comparisons. He suggested that perhaps the Chinese would start charging us higher fees. We regularly review the fees charged by the UK against those charged by comparator economies across the globe, and I imagine that the Chinese do the same. However, migration systems and fees are complex. Direct comparisons of price can be difficult because we cannot always compare like with like. Visa fees vary considerably between comparable economies and depend usually on the particular circumstances of the applicant, such as their current location, their category of stay and their relationship to the settled person. Visas can be issued for different lengths of time, can allow more than one visit and can confer particular entitlements to work or bring in dependants. Some countries charge an additional fee for dependant applications.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that point was very helpful. Does the noble Earl accept that if costs go up—and the general trend is that UK fees are going up—although it is difficult to equate like for like exactly, there might be a knock-on impact on British businesses trading abroad because if fees go up here, they will go up there?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, there might be a small effect, but when one considers how much people will pay—thousands—to gain illegal entry to this country, the cost of a legal visa is relatively small.

We believe that our fees compare favourably with those of key competitor countries and offer good value, particularly when one considers the benefits and entitlements of a successful application. Where visa fees charged by the UK are more expensive than those of other countries—for example, fees for visit visas—we tend to offer better entitlements to applicants. For example, the Schengen visa is a three-month, single-visit visa, whereas the UK short-term visit visa is multiple-entry and valid for six months.

I will make some international price comparisons. For a short-term visit visa for up to six months, the UK charges £76, Australia £65, Canada £66, New Zealand £67 and the USA £96. The Schengen visa is cheaper, but it is single-entry and valid only for three months. For tier 1 exceptional talent, the UK charges £800, Australia £1,080 and Canada £662. For a tier 1 investor, the UK charges £800 and Australia £2,132. I could go on, but I would weary the Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the robust methodology of the impact assessment. The methodology that we applied for estimating the impact of elasticity of demand was agreed by cross-government economists and by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. We do not believe that fee increases at the level we propose will have a significant impact on the volume of demand.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the fee for the English language test, which is not included in the powers being debated here. He asked for an explanation of the income figures in the impact assessment. The additional fees increases are expected to raise approximately £90 million. Of this, we expect to generate around £65 million in income from setting fees at a level that exceeds the administrative cost of processing applications. I apologise for repeating the figures.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I apologise for asking the noble Lord, but my confusion is that in the table at the bottom of page 13 under the cost benefit analysis it says that:

“Benefits … Revenue raised from fee changes for those who continue to apply (PV)”

is £24.1 million. However, over the page on page 14 it says:

“UKBA’s annual income is estimated to rise by £65.4 million as a result of fee changes”.

Are those two different definitions?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am confident that the analysis is robust. I think it best that I write to the noble Lord with the exact situation, but it is quite a complicated analysis. The Committee should be assured that the brightest and the best will continue to be welcomed to the UK as will those who seek to come here to visit or to invest. We will also continue to monitor the impacts of our proposed changes. I believe that these regulations provide a basis for the sustainable immigration system that noble Lords want and I commend them to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Railways: Cardiff Valley Lines

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will include the Ebbw Valley line in the development of the business case for the electrification of the Cardiff valley lines.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Department for Transport has committed to work with the Welsh Assembly Government to develop a business case for the electrification of the key valley commuter lines north of Cardiff via Pontypridd, Caerphilly, Treherbert, Aberdare, Merthyr Tydfil, Coryton and Rhymney, as well as the lines to Penarth and Barry Island to the west. There is no current proposal for electrification of the line from Newport to Ebbw Vale.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer but I am disappointed by it. By the way, the line at present does not go to Newport—it is Cardiff to Ebbw Vale. It opened on 8 February 2008 and in the first year carried 573,000 passengers, breaking all expectations. At weekends it has to double its capacity to carry passengers. It is the only one of the valley lines not to be included in this proposed business plan. Would he be prepared to facilitate a meeting with myself, himself, his Secretary of State and perhaps a couple of Members of the other place so we can put our case directly to Ministers?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am aware of the success of the lines. The noble Lord asked about a meeting. Yes, I will facilitate that. I think noble Lords need to understand that electrification can have a good business case when the existing rolling stock needs replacing and the frequency of vehicle movements is relatively high. That does not yet exist on the Ebbw Vale line.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, the announcement of the proposed electrification of the valley lines was strongly welcomed in Wales but there was some disappointment that the electrification of the First Great Western line did not go beyond Cardiff. I was very pleased to hear that the Government are keeping that under review. Can the Minister give us some detail of how that review will take place?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, Governments keep everything under review. It is important to understand that the rolling stock that will be used on the Great Western line is the bi-mode IEP train. The savings in time from Cardiff to Swansea will be minimal because the maximum speed on that line is severely restricted. Therefore, there would be no benefit from electrification in the short term.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, given the success of the service on the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line, why are there no passenger trains from Ebbw Vale to Newport, for which there must be a big demand? I believe that freight has been running on the line for many years. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. As I understand it, although there is a freight line to Newport, the signalling is not up to the required standards for passenger trains. Under the new signalling project, modern signalling has been provided for but not fitted. Specifying train services is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government, so if they want to specify that there will be passenger train services from Ebbw Vale to Newport, they can do so.

[Lord Brookman]

I declare an interest as someone who was born in Ebbw Vale, an event that was followed by the Second World War. I recall the final march about the closure at Ebbw Vale—the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock of Holyhead, and her dear husband were there and her remarks stay with me. Does the Minister agree that commuting from Ebbw Vale to Cardiff and subsequently, I hope, to Newport is of paramount importance for the people who live in that area, especially the young people, to get jobs?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Most of the valley lines are going to be electrified for precisely the reason that he describes.

[Lord Roberts of Conwy]

Will my noble friend bear in mind the increased attractiveness of the valleys in terms of enterprise zones and the promotion of work opportunities if the valley lines are electrified?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, yes.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, will the Minister explain this business about being “under review”, what the timetable of the review of the electrification of the line from Cardiff to Swansea would be and why he has not done a complete business case on electrifying that line?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, there are numerous possible electrification schemes and we have to go for those that offer the best business case. At the moment, there is not a good business case for electrifying the line all the way to Swansea; there are much more attractive schemes elsewhere. We cannot do everything all at once.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, no one is asking the Minister to do everything all at once. He will recognise that it will be a considerable time before any of this electrification programme takes place, so will he take seriously the possibility that the Ebbw Vale line may well develop in such a way as to merit inclusion in the projected electrification of the valley lines? There is no doubt about the economic necessity of improved transport links between the valley towns and Cardiff.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord says, but it is important to understand that when there are relatively few diesel trains running, the savings that you can obtain by electrification are relatively small. At some point, the demand on the Ebbw Vale line may be sufficient to justify electrification.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on the fortitude and tenacity he has shown on the Bill. I shall make only one or two points. As the noble Lord said, the Bill had its far-from-lengthy Second Reading—I think that it amounted to five lines in Hansard—more than three years ago, following which it was committed to a Select Committee. The committee reported in April 2009 and approved the Bill with a small number of amendments. It now stands as it was following the committee’s consideration. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester said, there were no petitions against the clauses that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, now seeks to remove. There was opposition to those clauses from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The question is: what has been going on behind the scenes over the past 23 months?

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, threw a little light on the issue, but we should be told more. Apparently, representations were made against these clauses by organisations and businesses in the sport and entertainment industries—organisations and businesses that did not petition the Select Committee which would then almost certainly have called them to give evidence in public so that everyone could have heard their arguments. These organisations and businesses have instead been lobbying in private. We have not been told that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has single-handedly got the Bill changed in the face of the wishes of the promoters and the report of the Select Committee.

The Select Committee heard evidence from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham which said that the additional cost of clearing up outside the ground after a Chelsea football match was an average of £1,000 a game. It gave evidence of the amount that Chelsea paid in business rates and contrasted it with organisations that paid much more but which did not generate the same traffic management and waste clearance costs. Chelsea is a club with a certain amount of money. At the end of January it spent more than £70 million on two new players. At a cost of £1,000 on average a game for the additional cost of clearing up outside the ground, £70 million would pay for that to be done for around the next 2,000 years.

At a time when local government is having to tighten its belt, services are being cut and closed down and staff are receiving redundancy notices, why is it still felt appropriate, as the deletion of these clauses suggests, for local government and the council tax payer—of which I am one—to have to continue to pay the additional clearing up costs in the streets around a sporting and entertainment event that is put on for commercial gain? Surely organisations and businesses pay business rates just as individual householders pay council tax for the removal of waste from their own premises, not for the removal of waste that they have caused to be generated in the public streets outside as a result of the promotion of an event for that organisation’s commercial gain. Clearly that was the view of the promoters of the Bill and of the Select Committee. So what has happened to cause the promoters to change their mind under pressure over these clauses being in the Bill, as revealed by the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, at this late stage? Who has been making representations in private that they were not prepared to make publicly in front of the Select Committee? I hope that either the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will enlighten your Lordships’ House on that point.

We have no intention of seeking to stop the Bill. There is much that is non-controversial within it, which clearly the local authorities concerned wish to see implemented. However, a little more information about the lobbying that has—or has not—been going on in private over the past two years to achieve a change in a Bill with which the promoters and the Select Committee were happy, and against which there had been no petitions is surely not too much to ask from either the Minister when he responds, or perhaps more appropriately, from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, when he replies.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to understandings or to a memorandum of understanding. I hope he will say just how strong and meaningful are the understandings that have apparently been reached and in what circumstances local authorities’ costs will be reimbursed, at what level and by whom. Are they written understandings? Are they legally binding? I hope the noble Lord will provide the answers because there must be some concern, subject to the noble Lord’s response, that they will prove worthless and meaningless in the light of the removal of these clauses from the Bill.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is more than two years since Parliament last considered this private Bill, so it is the first time that it has been considered by the coalition Government. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for his explanation of the Bill. I should point out to the House that my noble friend is leading on the Bill—not me. The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, have made some points about procedure. I want to make it clear that it is not a matter for me but a matter for the Procedure Committee of your Lordships’ House, as I am sure all noble Lords would agree. However, this is not the first time that the London local authorities and Transport for London have promoted a private Bill together. The Bill would confer a variety of powers on its promoters to improve streetscape and the local public realm. My noble friend has explained how that will work with the Bill so well that it is unnecessary for me to repeat his work there.

The Bill's provisions would also enable the promoters to enforce sanctions against anybody giving traffic unauthorised access to gated roads and enforce moving traffic and parking contraventions against pedicab owners and operators where the owner or operator has entered into a voluntary registration scheme. Again, my noble friend has given a comprehensive explanation. The Bill would also put in place a comprehensive system to allow the installation and use of charging points for electric vehicles on the highway in locations across the capital.

I acknowledge the amendments that my noble friend Lord Jenkin has proposed and explained so well. Although I very much doubt that we will be voting on the Bill this evening, I should like on behalf of the Government to comment on a few points of note for the record. The Bill creates various new civil and criminal offences in relation to improper conduct when depositing a builder's skip on the highway; the unlawful opening of a gated road to unauthorised traffic; the improper use of a charging point for electric vehicles; and moving traffic and parking contraventions by pedicabs.

The Government are committed not to create new offences unless it is truly necessary to do so. My noble friend Lady Kramer made some pertinent points about that. As such, I should state now that before the Bill reaches its Committee stage in the other place, the promoters will need to have submitted to the Ministry of Justice their assessment of the impact of creating these offences. This will allow the Government to come to an informed view on whether their creation is appropriate. Other clauses have the potential to impose burdens on business, particularly the construction industry. I am referring to the clauses relating to the placement of skips on the highway and to recovering the cost of remedial work on the highway from a developer after a development has taken place.

The Government's position on increasing the burden on business is very clear and we will be considering whether, in our view, the Bill would create an unacceptable burden on business in order to make our views known before the Bill reaches Committee stage in the other place. The Government have already notified the promoters of some clauses which we feel could be improved or altered by some minor amendments, particularly with regard to the affixing of street furniture to buildings, where we would like the owner of the building which is to have street furniture affixed served a notice stating the exact date on which the work will begin and the terms of usage of electric vehicle charging points installed and operated using the powers conferred by the Bill.

We will be seeking to reach agreement on amendments with the promoters before Committee stage in the other place as it is then that the Bill can next be substantially amended. Aside from the specific points I have raised this evening, the Government are content that the Bill passes to the other place, where it can be further scrutinised to ensure that the points I have raised—most notably in relation to the creation of new offences and the imposition of new burdens on business—can be addressed to the Government’s full satisfaction. I conclude by thanking my noble friend for putting forward the Bill.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and for the important comments that have been made. I was amused by my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley, who congratulated me on my persistence. I have to say that that is wholly undeserved. I did not move Second Reading. The people who can be congratulated are the promoters, the London boroughs and Transport for London. I shall take his kind words about that and simply comment that at a very early stage in my career, someone said to me, exactly as my noble friend has said, “Patrick, if you want to achieve anything, keep pegging away”. In my life I have tried to follow that nostrum. However, I am grateful to my noble friend.

I turn to my noble friend Lady Kramer. I have a lot of sympathy with her on her suggestion that much of this ought not to come to the Floor of the House in a Private Bill in this form. All I can say to her, in some comfort, is that before 1992 a great many more Private Bills came on to the Floor of the House. However, in that year the Transport and Works Act was passed and all the railway Bills, all the major road Bills and all the rest of it have now disappeared, and what is left are the occasional local authority measures, such as we have here and we had earlier in the previous Parliament from Manchester and others; and, of course, occasionally the universities need to have legislation to amend their statutes. However, I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will have heard her plea for something on more general powers.

I have to say in relation to London—and I have lived in London almost the whole of my working life—that it has conditions and circumstances that are very different from any other city in the country, and I am not surprised that both the City of London and the London local authorities have felt the need from time to time to introduce legislation to deal with the problems which they face. My noble friend also welcomed the negotiated agreement—I will come to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Rosser, in a moment. All I can say at this stage is that I was grateful for my noble friend Lady Kramer’s support on that.

As for the deal done with the Football League and the Premier League, I understand the indignation that noble Lords may have felt that this was done outwith the consideration of the Select Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, the Select Committee examined the authorities from Hammersmith and Fulham. It heard the evidence and felt that the promoters had made a good case for their clauses, and here we are with an agreement having been reached outside the committee. Whether or not it was a smoke-filled room, I do not know; but, nevertheless, it was reached without the full scrutiny that it would have had if it had gone before the Select Committee. I have some sympathy with that point. I asked a number of questions myself about whether there was any reason why the sporting authorities were not aware of what was in the Bill. It is their job to make sure that they do. They are very wealthy organisations; they spend billions of pounds, as one noble Lord said, on buying footballers and so on. I do not see why they could not have done this before, but the fact remains that they did not. They did not put up a petition. The committee therefore could not hear the petition and reach a conclusion on it.

So what have we got? As I explained in my opening speech, after very prolonged discussions a memorandum of understanding has been reached. In each case the club that falls within the definition, which has a reasonably substantial attendance at its events, has to enter into agreement with the local authority to cover the costs that would have been covered by these two clauses. If someone says to me, “An agreement to agree is not worth the paper that it is written on”, I would have to say that I was brought up in my legal studies entirely to accept that. However, there rests behind this the fact—and the sporting authorities are in no doubt about this at all—that if they do not reach agreements of the sort envisaged in this memorandum of understanding within a clear time limit which is spelt out here, then future legislation will be brought forward to reinstate these clauses.