Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2013

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

That the draft order laid before the House on 8 July be approved.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government are determined to do all that we can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. The proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We therefore propose to add both Jama’atu Ahli Sunna Lidda Awati Wal Jihad, more widely known as Boko Haram, and Minbar Ansar Deen, also known as Ansar al-Sharia UK, to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 12th proscription order under that Act.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary believes that both organisations meet the statutory test for proscription and that it is appropriate to exercise her discretion to proscribe them. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism.

The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation; invite support for a proscribed organisation; arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation; and wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available, relevant information on the organisation. This includes open-source material as well as intelligence material, and advice that reflects consultation across government, including the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that both Houses must approve the order before proscribing a new organisation.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that both organisations are concerned in terrorism. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence but I can provide a brief summary.

Boko Haram is a prolific terrorist organisation, based in Nigeria, whose ultimate goal is to establish the Islamic Caliphate, seeking to undermine democratic government through its campaign of violence and attacks. It has targeted all sections of Nigerian society—Muslims, Christians, rich, poor, civilians and members of the security forces alike—as well as members of the international community. For example, an attack near Abuja on Christmas Day 2011 that killed at least 26, and an attack on a bus station in Kano City in March 2013, that killed more than 60, were both attributed to the organisation.

The organisation has also sought to attack western targets in Nigeria. In August 2011, it claimed responsibility for a suicide attack against the UN building in Abuja that killed 26. They have also targeted westerners for kidnapping in the last few years.

I stress that the Government are aware of the concerns over the approach used by the Nigerian Government to defeat Boko Haram. While the UK Government continue to work with Nigeria to fight terrorism, we also make it clear that human rights must be respected at all times in our work to defeat terrorism around the globe.

Minbar Ansar Deen is a Salafist group based in the UK which promotes and encourages terrorism. Minbar Ansar Deen distributes material through its online forum which promotes terrorism by encouraging individuals to travel overseas to engage in extremist activity—specifically fighting. The group is not related to Ansar al-Sharia groups in other countries.

Decisions on when and whether to proscribe an organisation are taken only following extensive consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that decisions are built on a robust evidence base, do not adversely impact on any ongoing investigations and support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. It is not, of course, appropriate for us to discuss specific intelligence that leads to any decision to proscribe.

The proscription of both these organisations will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters, and will signal our condemnation of these organisation and their activities.

I should make it clear to noble Lords that proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping, but is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism.

I have already said that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact, so the legislation provides an appeal mechanism. Anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be deproscribed. If refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal which is able to consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions.

In conclusion, I believe it is right that we add both groups to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation and the information he has given to us today. I understand that he is restricted in what he can say for reasons that are obvious to us all, but I appreciate the information he has been able to give. We also understand that Governments do not act unless they are assured that the information available is accurate and up to date. I feel some sympathy for the noble Earl on these issues as I did in connection with the Misuse of Drugs Act, in that some of the words can be quite difficult to pronounce. I commend him on his efforts.

Obtaining evidence on which to bring forward such orders is obviously time consuming, painstaking and can at times be very dangerous. I am sure that your Lordships’ House wishes to pay tribute to the work of the agencies that undertake such investigations. As the Minister said, a group can be proscribed under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if it,

“commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism”.

On the basis of the information provided by the noble Earl, we are content to support the Government in this proscription.

This is the third time I have spoken for the Opposition on proscription orders; unfortunately, each time a different Minister has spoken for the Government, but I hope that the noble Earl has had the opportunity to look at some of the previous debates we have had on the other two orders. He will have noted that last year I queried why action had not been taken against the Boko Haram sect, given that the organisation that we were then taking action to proscribe, Ansaru, was in fact a breakaway group from Boko Haram and had been in existence for a much shorter time. I asked then that it be kept under review as we were somewhat surprised not to be discussing this group then, given the evidence of their activities that was available.

I understand the need to have accurate, up-to-date information, but there is also the need to act swiftly and decisively. Are the noble Earl and the Government content that they have acted quickly enough? It would be helpful if he could give some explanation about why there has been a time lag between these two orders, given that we previously knew about the activities of Boko Haram when we discussed this issue last year. The evidence appears overwhelming and the Government are quite right to bring it before us; the Minister described some of the large-scale terrorist attacks that have claimed many lives.

That brings me to one aspect that is of concern; I do not know how the Government are seeking to address it. One core or central organisation may have many different parts, and as one group or organisation is proscribed, another ready-made organisation takes its place and carries on with its deadly mission. I appreciate all the issues we have discussed about action having to be evidence-based, but I am pretty sure that the security services must have some kind of organisational chart or map of the relationships between different groups and individuals and how they interact. It would be helpful if the noble Earl was able to say something about how we can address this issue of different organisations being proscribed and then others springing up.

In both the previous debates I raised the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The noble Earl will recall that when the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was the leader of the Opposition, he was in no doubt that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be proscribed. He repeatedly attacked the Labour Government for not doing so. The Minister, rightly, has been very clear today that action to proscribe a group has to be taken on the evidence available. I know how complex and difficult it is to get all that evidence and present it in an appropriate manner. However, unless David Cameron was acting irresponsibly as leader of the Opposition, he must have examined and considered the issue and the information at that time and made the judgment that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be proscribed.

At Gordon Brown’s first Prime Minister’s Questions in 2007, David Cameron made this his first topic. He said:

“Hizb ut-Tahrir … should be banned—why has it not happened?”.

When it was pointed out that evidence was required, Mr Cameron criticised that and said:

“What more evidence do we need before we ban that organisation … when will this be done? People will find it hard to understand why an organisation that urges people to kill Jews has not been banned”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/07; cols. 951-52.]

The party opposite has now been in power for more than three years and still Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been banned but there must have been evidence available for the then leader of the Opposition to make the very bold statement he made on many occasions in the House of Commons.

I am not going to make the same points that were raised against us when we were in government. I thought at the time that it was inappropriate and irresponsible and it would be inappropriate and irresponsible for me to do so as well. However, I ask the Minister to assure your Lordships’ House that this organisation is under observation and review and that there will be no unnecessary delays in bringing forward a further order if the evidence warrants it.

Is the Minister aware of the evidence presented in the 2011 review of the Prevent strategy that Hizb ut-Tahrir is targeting universities and seeking to radicalise students? That was confirmed in a Parliamentary Answer to Diana Johnson MP last week. The Minister, James Brokenshire, said that,

“we believe there is unambiguous evidence to indicate that some extremist organisations, including Hizb-ut-Tahrir, target specific universities and colleges … with the objective of influencing and recruiting students to support their agenda”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/13; col. 786W.]

I know the noble Earl understands the danger of home-grown extremism. Your Lordships’ House was shocked, angered and deeply saddened by the horrific killing of Lee Rigby in London. I do not think that there is anything more that I, or anyone else, can say that makes a more powerful and compelling case for reviewing all measures in place for tackling this kind of recruiting behaviour to ensure they are appropriate and effective. I hope the Minister can give an assurance today that there will be such a review to ensure that all the current measures to tackle recruiting behaviour are effective and if not, that they will be strengthened to ensure that they are. Can I also ask the noble Earl about the funding for the Prevent strategy and similar work and if any changes have been made to that in the past three years?

Towards the end of his speech the Minister referred to organisations that could be deproscribed on application to the Home Secretary and, if the response was unsatisfactory, by judicial review. As I understand it, the independent reviewer, David Anderson, has proposed that there should be a process for organisations to be deproscribed. I am not convinced that the Government have acted on that yet. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could say something about that. On both points I am happy for him to write to me.

We support this measure and I hope the noble Earl can address the points I have raised. We are deeply grateful to those who obtain the evidence required and appreciative of the dangers they face in obtaining such evidence. I also want to impress on the noble Earl how important it is that we act on accurate information as swiftly as possible.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. She referred to the work that various agencies do and the risks that they take and, I share in her thanks. It is also important to understand that we use all available sources of information and not just HUMINT.

The noble Baroness quite rightly asked why we did not take action earlier. She said we should act swiftly and decisively. However, there are tactical considerations as well, regarding the optimum time to intervene. We also need to work in collaboration with our international partners; there may be a reason why they do not want us to take action at a particular point.

She also mentioned the important issue of splinter groups and new names. Derivative organisations which are effectively the same organisation operating under a different name can be dealt with under the negative procedure so it is a bit easier in parliamentary terms. The same tests have to be met for splinter organisations and there are the same considerations regarding international co-operation.

The noble Baroness, unsurprisingly, talked about Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is not proscribed in the UK. Proscription can be considered only when the Home Secretary believes that an organisation is concerned in terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Act. We cannot proscribe for political reasons; if we did, we could be challenged in the court. We have to apply the tests in the legislation, and then the other considerations that I referred to in my opening comments on when it is the right thing to do at the time. However, Hizb ut-Tahrir is an organisation that the Government have significant concerns about, and we will continue to monitor its actions very closely, as suggested by the noble Baroness. Such groups are not free to spread hatred and incite violence as they please; the police have comprehensive powers to take action under criminal law to deal with people who incite hatred, and they will do so. We will seek to ensure that Hizb ut-Tahrir, and groups like it, cannot operate without challenge in public places in this country; we will not tolerate secretive meetings behind closed doors on premises funded by the taxpayer. We will ensure that civic organisations are made well aware of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and groups like it, and any of the names under which they operate and the ways in which they go about their business.

I agree in general with the points that the noble Baroness made about the need to prevent terrorism, but that is also the reason for applying the law, or the tests, properly, and not proscribing an organisation, as I gently suggested, for political reasons.

The noble Baroness also asked about the Anderson report. The Government noted David Anderson’s comments in his report about the deproscription process, and responded to his report in March. Cross-government officials continue to explore options for improving the deproscription process; the Government will, of course, inform Parliament of any resulting changes to the regime. Under the current regime, any person affected by a proscription can submit an application to the Home Secretary with the question of whether she considers that organisation should be deproscribed. She has not received any deproscription applications, and I understand that none has been received by her predecessors since 2019.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that both Boko Haram, and Minbar Ansar Deen should be added to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. The proscription of Boko Haram demonstrates our condemnation of this group’s activities; proscribing it will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action against any of their supporters in the UK and ensure that they cannot operate here. The proscription of Minbar Ansar Deen will be a powerful tool for the police to help to disrupt the organisation successfully and send out a powerful message that the promotion and encouragement of terrorism are not acceptable, and that we will take action against organisations who partake in such activities.

Motion agreed.

Public Bodies (Abolition of BRB (Residuary) Limited) Order 2013

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Public Bodies (Abolition of BRB (Residuary) Limited) Order 2013.

Relevant documents: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, this order transfers the function of BRB (Residuary) Ltd and then abolishes it. A transfer scheme will also be created that will transfer property rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State for Transport, Network Rail, London and Continental Railways and the Rail Safety and Standards Board, and will come into effect at the same time as this order. I commend BRBR on the sterling job that it has done since it was created in 2001 to manage the rump of property and ill health claims left after rail privatisation. It has disposed of 90% of those properties, generating in excess of £400 million.

BRBR was incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Railways Board to hold and manage the residual property rights and liabilities of the board following privatisation. It was always intended that BRBR would be wound up at the appropriate time and its ongoing functions, properties, rights and liabilities transferred to successor bodies. The Public Bodies Act 2011 is the only efficient and cost-effective means of divesting BRBR of its statutory functions, including the statutory liabilities that arose in the original 19th-century Acts authorising the construction of the railways. The draft order proposes to transfer the majority of BRBR’s statutory functions to the Secretary of State for Transport, with a small number to be transferred to Network Rail (Assets) Ltd.

As I said, a transfer scheme will also be made under Section 23 of the Public Bodies Act—the draft is attached to the explanatory document. This will transfer the property, rights and liabilities of BRBR to London and Continental Railways Ltd, Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, the Rail Safety and Standards Board Ltd and the Secretary of State.

The abolition of BRBR is further evidence of this Government’s determination to increase efficiency, reduce unnecessary overheads and remove management layers wherever possible.

The Government carried out a targeted six-week consultation between May and July 2012. This sought the views of interested stakeholders on the abolition and consequential transfer of BRBR’s functions, properties, rights and liabilities to the various successor bodies. The majority of the respondents were supportive of the abolition. Where concerns were raised, they tended to be about specific aspects of the plans, rather than questioning the underlying rationale. In addition, the Department for Transport liaised closely with BRBR and the proposed successor bodies in relation to the consultation.

London and Continental Railways Ltd is a company with specific expertise in managing and developing property assets within a railways context, as can be seen from the HS1-led regeneration at Kings Cross and Stratford. LCR is wholly owned by the Secretary of State for Transport. The properties transferring to LCR include sites with development potential, or where there is a policy of promoting or maintaining rail use.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd is the company that carries on the business of acquiring, owning, managing and developing the rail network in Great Britain. The properties which will transfer are assets which are of significance to the railway industry; for example, the 13.5-mile high-speed test track at Old Dalby in the Midlands, which is used for testing rolling stock. The other assets transferring are those one would expect the rail infrastructure owner to own or manage, such as memorials to railway staff killed in the wars or in railway accidents, as well as properties and structures that correct anomalies that occurred during rail privatisation in the 1990s.

BRBR currently owns and holds the intellectual property rights in 300,000 drawings and 30,000 maintenance documents relating to traction and rolling stock built before 1996. These drawings and documents have no quantifiable value but are of importance to the rail industry. I notice the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, ready to pounce on that issue. The ownership of the intellectual property rights in these drawings and documents will transfer to the Rail Safety and Standards Board Ltd, which is a not-for-profit company owned and funded by major stakeholders in the rail industry.

Any property, rights and liabilities which do not specifically transfer to a successor body will transfer to the Secretary of State. This includes 3,400 structures, such as bridges, abutments, viaducts, tunnels, cuttings and retaining walls associated with disused railway lines. The responsibility to maintain these for ever stems from the original Acts of Parliament which authorised the construction of the railways in the 19th century. This is known as the burdensome estate.

The burdensome estate will be managed by the Highways Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State. It has the engineering expertise, so there will be no diminution in the maintenance of these structures. In addition, most of BRBR’s employees who currently manage the burdensome estate will transfer to the Highways Agency, maintaining continuity.

A senior representative of the Highways Agency will sit on the board of Railway Paths Ltd, which is a charitable company which purchased some 220 miles of disused track and structures in 1999 as part of the national cycle network. The Highways Agency representative on Railway Paths Ltd’s board will help replicate the existing close working relationship between BRBR and Railway Paths Ltd.

Waterloo International terminal, North Pole depot in west London and Temple Mills bus depot near Stratford will transfer to the Secretary of State. These properties are, or may become, of strategic importance to the rail network and have some development potential over the longer term. They will be managed on his behalf by London and Continental Railways.

The Secretary of State will manage the continuing settlement of ill health claims made by former British Rail staff. These primarily stem from medical conditions that do not arise until some time, often many years, after an individual’s employment has ceased, such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. Noble Lords will recall that the board did not just operate rail services, but also hotels and ferries. The claims experts currently handling the workload at BRBR will transfer to the Department for Transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I add my appreciation to that expressed by the Minister and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for the work done by BRBR, and for the staff of that organisation. I thank the Minister for explaining the background to the order and the reasons for abolishing BRB (Residuary) Ltd, and transferring its functions to the Secretary of State for Transport and Network Rail (Assets) Ltd. The property rights and liabilities of BRBR will then be transferred to successor bodies in the transfer scheme, so I understand that it will be laid before Parliament after being made.

BRB (Residuary) Ltd is wholly owned by the British Railways Board. Perhaps the Minister can say what will happen to the BRB following the abolition of BRB (Residuary) Ltd, what functions and responsibilities it will continue to have, and for how long. The Explanatory Memorandum says that liability for handling claims in respect of industrial injuries, employment and environment-related claims, resulting from BRB activities as an operator of trains, ships and hotels, will transfer to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister give an undertaking that this will not result in a harder or a more long-drawn-out approach being adopted to such claims as a result of this transfer? How many claims are still in the pipeline and how many individuals do they cover?

I also support the request of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester that the assurance given in the Explanatory Memorandum that the abolition of BRB (Residuary) Ltd will not result in any change in the current process for releasing land designated for rail use, disposal, or for alternative non-transport use should be repeated by the Minister and thus placed on the record, including in the very specific terms that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was seeking.

The order deals with the abolition of one body. How many other bodies for which the Department for Transport has overall responsibility are still awaiting the outcome of a review of whether they should remain in existence or be abolished? A few weeks after we questioned whether taxpayers were getting value for money with four separate publicly funded motoring bodies, the Government announced that they were reducing the number of agencies from four to three. Is the department now looking at other issues concerning the number of bodies for which it is responsible, including whether we need even three separate government agencies delivering services to motorists, and whether we need a separate company to deliver HS2 when we already have Network Rail, which is responsible for rail infrastructure? In view of the fact that some rights and liabilities of BRB (Residuary) are being transferred to LCR, do the Government see a long-term future for London and Continental Railways Ltd and, if so, is that in its current role or a changed role?

We are certainly not opposed to the order and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to provide the answers and assurances that have been sought by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and me.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Rosser, for their comments. It is right to pay tribute to the work of the BRBR. I did not take the Public Bodies Bill through the House; my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach did. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, I was acting behind the scenes in respect of the RHC and I am proud of what we achieved.

Both noble Lords talked about former employees of the railway industry with long-latency illnesses such as mesothelioma and asbestosis. I assure noble Lords that they will be properly looked after. The staff, including some of the legal staff, will transfer. I do not know the numbers but I suspect that, by and large, they arise when someone is, for example, diagnosed with mesothelioma and the case is handled. Those employees have the advantage that their former employer was BR or a railway company and they are backed up by the Government. Sadly, a lot of other people are not properly covered, and that is why we are taking the Mesothelioma Bill through your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, paid tribute to Peter Trewin, and I join him in that respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the transfer of some structures to the Highways Agency and the burdensome estate. There is no intention to build on those structures. The abolition of BRBR will not result in any change to the current process for releasing land designated for rail use for disposal or for alternative transport use. The current process requires BRBR to seek the approval of the Department for Transport before land retained for transport use can be sold.

To put things into perspective, BRBR has only 33 miles of former track bed, the breakdown of which is as follows: 8.5 miles is retained for access to structures within the burdensome estate; 22.5 miles is retained for possible transport use; and 2 miles is in the course of sale across the number of sites. Of those, 28.5 miles will transfer to the Secretary of State, 1.5 miles will transfer to LCR and 3 miles, mostly relating to Glazebrook to Partington, will transfer to Network Rail.

I was also asked about BRB and what happens to the board when BRBR is abolished, given that the current directors of the board will cease to be directors once BRBR is abolished. It may be helpful if I say a few words about this. The British Railways Board is a statutory corporation set up originally under the Transport Act 1962. It will continue to exist after BRBR is abolished, as it is one of the signatories to the rail usage contract. That contract is expressed to be made under French law and cannot be novated without the agreement of the other signatories to the contract, Eurotunnel and SNCF.

Since 2001, the board has had only two members. Previously, there had to be a chairman and between nine and 15 members. Its chairman, Terence Jenner, and its remaining director, Peter Trewin, are also directors of BRBR and they will both cease to be its chairman and director when BRBR is abolished.

The Secretary of State has the power under Section 241(3) of the Transport Act 2000 to remove a member of the board from office or to vary his terms of appointment. Replacement members of the board, including a replacement chairman, will be appointed by the Secretary of State under Section 1 of the Transport Act 1962.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the future of LCR. The best way of dealing with that would be if I write to him.

Motion agreed.

Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013.

Relevant documents: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, this order will substitute a new Section 22 to, and amend Section 25 of, the Planning Act 2008 to amend the criteria for highway and rail schemes to be considered nationally significant infrastructure projects. In addition, it introduces thresholds for the construction or alteration of highways on the strategic road network and rail schemes in England only.

The new Section 22, which deals with highway schemes, sets out thresholds based on the area taken up by the scheme, which are as follows. For schemes on motorways, the threshold will be 15 hectares. For schemes on highways other than motorways that have a speed limit of 50 miles per hour or above, the threshold will be 12.5 hectares. For schemes on all other highways, the threshold will be 7.5 hectares. These thresholds will include land on which the construction or alteration will take place and any adjoining land to be used in connection with the scheme.

The new Section 22 will also remove any alteration or construction of a highway from the development consent order regime where the Secretary of State for Transport is not the highway authority. In addition, certain highway schemes on the strategic road network that consist of the alteration of a highway are also removed, first, where the alteration is necessary as a result of a scheme that has already received planning permission; and secondly, where an alteration is necessary because of works by the local highway authority and for which an order has already been made. In both cases, the Secretary of State has to be requested to carry out the works. The new section also removes highway schemes where an earlier order has been made and which require a further order within seven years of the first order.

This order will also amend Section 25 to introduce a threshold so that any construction or alteration of a railway will come within the ambit of the Planning Act 2008 only where the construction or alteration of the railway track is not on operational land or on land acquired for the purpose of constructing or altering a railway and exceeds a continuous length of two kilometres. The order also includes transitional arrangements for existing development consent orders, and for applications for DCOs that have been submitted for determination prior to the coming into force of the order.

These amendments to the Planning Act 2008 are being proposed to ensure that only genuinely nationally significant infrastructure projects fall within the DCO regime. Currently, the Planning Act does not set any thresholds for nationally significant infrastructure highway or rail schemes, which means that any scheme, regardless of whether it is genuinely nationally significant, must comply with the DCO regime laid out in the 2008 Act.

The DCO regime is designed to speed up and improve the planning process for large or complex schemes that are of national significance. The process has already been used to good effect in delivering schemes that, due to their scale or complexity, may have become bogged down in the alternative planning systems. In these cases, the DCO is the most appropriate regime to use. However, some schemes—for example, a 500-metre sidings extension, the widening of a slip road or a small safety improvement scheme—are of only local importance and could not be considered to be nationally significant, yet are required to use the DCO regime. The necessary level of pre-application work and the requirement for an examination under the DCO regime, which is right for genuinely nationally significant schemes, would be disproportionate, and in some cases unnecessary, for smaller, less complex or more discrete schemes.

We have also identified that small schemes which would not have been nationally significant are being delayed or not taken forward. This is because the cost and time it takes to promote a DCO—in the order of 18 months—acts as a disincentive when looking to deliver schemes as part of an in-year based programme. Consequently, we sometimes have little choice but to adopt solutions which do not yield maximum benefit to road users, but which are far more readily deliverable.

During the recent national and local pinch point fund rounds, several schemes which would have benefited from using this funding to support growth were not considered because they would have been required to follow the DCO regime and the time taken to gain the order would have put them out of time for the fund. The proposed thresholds would allow the most proportionate regime to be used, and this would increase certainty that the most optimal schemes are being delivered, which would have a greater benefit for growth. The Planning Act, as currently worded, has also led to confusion about whether certain local schemes, because they have a purpose connected to the strategic road network, should be within the DCO regime. This has led to serious delays and added costs to developers while the wording in the Act is clarified. In a few cases the planning process had to be restarted leading to abortive work and cost.

By setting out in very clear terms that only those highway schemes for which the Secretary of State for Transport is or will be the highway authority, this confusion and potential avenues for delays to much needed growth are removed. Currently, in schemes that provide a development with access to the strategic road network, to mitigate the impacts of the development they are also required to use the DCO regime, even when those works already benefit from planning permission as part of the overall development consent. Under the DCO regime, promoters must submit full consultation and assessment documentation and undergo an examination even when they are uncontested. This can take up to 18 months for the whole process and can be undertaken only after the full development site application has been granted. Under the Highways Act, uncontested schemes that are part of the planning permission for a site and the required side road orders can be made without a hearing and without a charge, therefore making this regime quicker and less expensive. These mitigation works are needed to deliver new developments and, as such, any delay or cost increase affects delivery of new growth.

Local major schemes and schemes that are developer-funded would usually have already gone through public scrutiny via the examination in public of the local plan or through a full planning application process. Under the DCO regime, they would be required to undertake them again, adding further costs and delays to the scheme delivery. The proposed amendment would remove all local major schemes from the DCO regime and allow developers certainty to proceed through one regime under the Highways Act. There is still the option of using the DCO regime for a scheme that will now fall outside the development consent regime but which is none the less considered to be of national significance by the Secretary of State on application making a direction that the scheme is of national significance. This will then bring the scheme within the development consent regime. The position for railway developments under Section 25 of the 2008 Act has similarly resulted in schemes that would not ordinarily be considered nationally significant being required to obtain a DCO pursuant to the 2008 Act, and with similar consequences. As there is currently no threshold, any scheme for the construction or alteration of a railway that cannot progress using permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime becomes a nationally significant infrastructure project and requires a development consent order, regardless of the size and scale of the scheme involved.

The proposed amendments to Section 25 of the Act will mean that railway construction or alteration schemes will require a DCO only if they include the laying of a stretch of railway track, whether single or multiple track, of more than two continuous kilometres on land that is not existing railway operational land. For these purposes, non-operational land would include any land acquired for the purposes of the scheme itself.

Because railways are by their nature generally long and linear, a distance-based threshold, as already applied to gas pipelines, for example, seems appropriate. Bearing in mind the scale and likely impacts of development, and mindful of the types of schemes that typically come forward, a two-kilometre threshold appears appropriate to ensure that only those schemes that have wider impact require authorisation by DCO. Smaller railway schemes and those on existing railway operational land will be able to proceed using the alternative planning procedures, reducing costs and enabling schemes to be delivered more quickly and with greater certainty.

The proposed amendment to Section 25 of the Act will ensure that only development that is justifiably regarded as nationally significant will be required to proceed under the 2008 Act regime. These amendments have been subject to a public consultation and were strongly supported by the respondents. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this is another of those fairly formidable orders, certainly as far as volume is concerned. It is not always easy to understand fully, not what the point is, because I understand that, but what the argument is in favour of the order. Before I go any further, I will say that we are not opposing it, just in case the Minister gets the impression from some of my comments that we might be.

The purpose of the order, as the noble Earl said, is to make sure that only developments that can be considered to be nationally significant infrastructure projects have to be dealt with under the planning process set out in the Planning Act 2008. It does that by amending the circumstances in which projects are considered to be nationally significant, resulting in more projects proceeding instead under the planning regime set out in other legislation. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the amendments are being made with the intention of restricting the ambit of the Planning Act 2008. It states that the current provisions in respect of highway and railway developments mean,

“that developers have been faced with excessive burdens in order to deliver small, less complex or discrete but still important transport infrastructure improvements”.

I have read the Explanatory Memorandum, perhaps not as thoroughly as I might have done, but it appears rather stronger on statements about problems than on specific cases to help identify the problem that has currently arisen. The noble Earl’s comments about the problems of the present arrangements, which he just made, sounded quite dramatic. It would be helpful if he could provide more specific information about actual problems that have arisen to fill the gap that I believe is there so that that is on the record.

For example, how many schemes that have had to be dealt with under the Planning Act 2008 regime would not have had to be dealt with in that way if the terms of this order had been in force? What percentage of the total number of schemes dealt with under the Planning Act 2008 does that figure represent? I may not have read the Explanatory Memorandum as carefully as I should have done, and maybe the Minister will say to me that the information is in there, but at the moment I am not clear what the answer to that question is.

What additional costs have been incurred as a result of dealing with schemes under the Planning Act 2008 regime that it is now proposed are dealt with in future under the planning regime set out in the Highways Act 1980, the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as appropriate? Once again, I have no feel for what these additional costs are.

The Minister made some reference to this in his speech, but how long does it take to deal with schemes under the Planning Act 2008 regime, which it is now proposed should be dealt with in future under the Acts to which I referred a moment ago, and how long will it take if they are dealt with under those Acts? What kind of saving are we talking about as far as time is concerned?

As I say, I hope that the Minister will be able to provide at least some of the information that I am seeking in order to give a better feel for what is involved regarding costs and delays, and what percentage of cases that currently come under the Planning Act 2008 would no longer do so if we made change in the order so that they were dealt with under the one or more of the three other Acts referred to. We need to have on record the information that has led to these changes being proposed, and to be satisfied that the case really stands up and is rather stronger than simply the desires of a few interested parties for whom the less troublesome the planning process is, the better. However, I reiterate that we are not opposed to the order, despite the impression that I might have given the Minister in my comments.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the argument in favour is to allow projects to go forward in accordance with the appropriate planning process. The noble Lord quite rightly asks me about actual problems. During my discussions with officials, I was clear with them that there are problems, and they privately admitted to me that they have adopted less than ideal solutions in order to avoid the DCO process. This is because when the 2008 Act was going through Parliament, to be honest, it was not fully appreciated what the adverse effects of the legislation would be. If Parliament had realised that it would not have quite the desired effect, we would not have done it but would have done precisely what these amending orders do.

The best that I can do is to write to the noble Lord with some good, specific examples of schemes that have gone ahead, unless inspiration arrives. Part of the problem is that some schemes simply never see the light of day because the DCO regime is just too difficult.

The noble Lord asked about the time length under the Planning Act versus the Highways Act. It is about nine months for the Highways Act process, including consultation, and about 18 months for the DCO process. As the noble Lord will appreciate, that can cause pretty serious problems. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2013

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2013.

Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, on 5 June we announced an increase to the financial levels of fixed-penalty notices for most motoring and road transport offences, including making careless driving a fixed-penalty notice offence, following consultation last year. These changes are being made under the negative resolution procedure, and both the Fixed Penalty (Amendment) Order and the Fixed Penalty Offences Order were laid before Parliament on 28 June. Today is about a parallel scheme—fixed penalty deposits—which are for those alleged offenders without a satisfactory UK address. The draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order before us today will enable the levels of fixed-penalty deposits to be increased by the same amount as fixed penalties for motoring and other road transport offences, and will include careless driving as a fixed-penalty deposit.

Fixed-penalty notices are issued by police and Vehicle and Operator Services Agency—VOSA—officers. Regardless of whether an alleged offender has a valid UK address, they are issued with a fixed-penalty notice. Those alleged offenders without a satisfactory UK address are then required to pay a fixed-penalty deposit. The Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) Order 2009 prescribes the amount of financial penalty deposit that may be requested by an officer. To mirror the increases that are being made to most motoring and road transport fixed penalties, deposit levels will be increased as follows: £30 will rise to £50, £60 will rise to £100, £120 will rise to £200 and £200 will rise to £300.

If the nature of the offences or the manner in which they are committed are considered too severe or too numerous for the offer of a fixed penalty, the offender will be summonsed to appear before a court but will be required to pay a financial penalty deposit against any court-imposed fine. The order before us today increases the minimum court penalty deposit amount from £300 to £500. It also increases the maximum appropriate amount in respect of any single occasion on which more than one financial penalty deposit requirement has been imposed from £900 to £1,500. VOSA statistics show that in 2012-13 more than 10,500 deposit notices were issued, with a payment rate of almost 100%.

The intention of the policy behind the order was that parking offences would not be covered, as these are not road safety-related. The Committee will be aware that legislation is often complex. It has become apparent today that the order before us may capture some parking-related offences for those alleged offenders without a satisfactory UK address only, and therefore increase the deposits payable for parking offences. Departmental lawyers are currently rechecking the draft order to determine whether there is anything else that may be outside the policy’s scope.

The Committee will be aware that the graduated deposit scheme is aimed mainly at foreign HGVs, which were more difficult to deal with before the previous Administration introduced a deposit scheme. The vast majority of HGVs are maximum-weight articulated vehicles moving between large depots. Parking offences are not often a problem. In the main, offences relate to road-worthiness, driver hours and overloading. Therefore, it is unlikely that any serious adverse effects will arise from this problem. If necessary, we will lay an amending order to correct the issue.

I would also point out that, for foreign cars that make an alleged parking offence, normal procedure is to attach a fixed-penalty notice to the vehicle, irrespective of where it comes from. I will write to update the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and all noble Lords who speak in this debate before moving any approval Motion in the Chamber.

The changes to fixed penalties follow up key commitments in the Government’s Strategic Framework for Road Safety—referred to hereafter as the framework—which was published in May 2011. The framework sets out a package of measures that would continue to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. It also recognises the importance of targeted enforcement to tackle behaviour that represent a risk to road safety. The measures announced focus on making the enforcement process more efficient, ensuring that penalties are set at the right levels to avoid offences being perceived as trivial and inconsequential, and making educational training more widely available for low-level offending.

Today’s order supports the framework’s objectives by introducing careless or inconsiderate driving as a fixed-penalty deposit and increasing the amount an alleged road traffic offender must pay as a result. We know that careless drivers put lives at risk and are a major source of concern and irritation for law-abiding motorists. The police will now have the power to issue fixed-penalty notices for careless driving. This will allow them greater flexibility when dealing with less serious careless driving offences, such as driving too close or lane discipline—for example, staying in the wrong lane—as well as freeing them from resource-intensive court processes. Drivers will still be able to appeal any decision in court.

Fixed penalty levels have not increased since 2000. Therefore, their real value has fallen substantially, by about 25%. For example, if the £60 fixed-penalty notice level set in 2000 had increased in line with inflation, it would now be £80. Penalty levels are now lower than other penalty notice offences of a similar severity. For example, lower and higher-tier penalty notices for disorder offences, which were recently increased, are now £60 for leaving litter and £90 for being drunk and disorderly. Increasing fixed-penalty deposit levels will not only ensure broader consistency with other, similar penalty notices, it will also reflect the seriousness of these offences. In addition, setting the penalty at these levels will remove the need to review penalties in the longer term. I therefore commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and thinking behind the order we are considering. I understand from what he says that a hiccup may have been found that needs to be addressed, and I thank the Minister for pointing that out. I am not sure that I have entirely understood the order. No doubt my contribution will make it clear whether I have or not, and the Minister will put me right if I have incorrectly understood what it says and what it provides.

We know that the order provides for fixed-penalty deposits to be increased in line with the recent increase in fixed-penalty notices, to which the Minister referred. It also provides for a fixed-penalty deposit to be extended to less serious cases of careless and inconsiderate driving in the light of the decision that fixed-penalty notices can be issued for careless driving offences.

The Explanatory Memorandum states that the fixed-penalty deposit may be imposed by a police officer or a Vehicle and Operator Services Agency officer at the roadside on an alleged road traffic offender who does not have a satisfactory address in the UK. The purpose of this is to provide a guarantee of payment of a fixed-penalty notice or conditional offer in respect of an alleged offence.

The Minister has said that Vehicle and Operator Services Agency statistics show that more than 10,500 deposit notices were issued in 2012-13, with a payment rate of almost 100%. That suggests that if the individual who cannot give an acceptable address says that he or she cannot pay immediately, the vehicle is immediately impounded pending payment. However, perhaps the Minister could confirm that that is the case.

One would have assumed that most of the fixed-penalty deposits are, or will be, imposed by police officers rather than an officer of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. I say that in the context of the statement by the Minister in the Commons when this order was discussed there on 2 July, who said that the more than 10,500 deposit notices issued in 2012-13 were issued by VOSA officers with apparently none by police officers, which suggests that these notices related to commercial vehicles.

If that is the case, what happens in respect of private motorists who cannot pay—perhaps a private motorist stopped in the future in relation to a careless driving offence—when presumably it will be a police officer who will have stopped that motorist? If the motorist is unable to pay in circumstances where he or she cannot give a satisfactory address, does it mean that their vehicle will be impounded and they will be unable to drive it away, thus presumably maximising the prospects of 100% payment of the fixed-penalty deposit?

Who is in receipt of most fixed-penalty deposits? Presumably it is most likely to be foreign drivers or drivers with foreign addresses, but how many are issued to British nationals? In what circumstances, other than having no fixed abode, could a British national be deemed not to have given an acceptable address unless they are no longer resident in this country?

In the debate in the Commons, the Minister said that he would inform the Committee by letter of the absolute number of fines unpaid. I am not sure whether the Minister in the Commons was referring to fixed-penalty deposits, fixed-penalty notices or both but, whatever the case, does the noble Earl have those figures to give today and, if not, may I be advised of the answer in addition to the Commons Committee?

Finally, perhaps I may make a point about the extension of fixed penalties to careless driving cases. The Explanatory Memorandum shows the really quite dramatic fall that there has been in the number of careless driving proceedings in court over the past 10 years or so. I am not sure to what the decline can be attributed, although the Explanatory Memorandum suggests some possible explanations. However, I just hope that, with fixed penalties being introduced in relation to careless driving, a check will be kept to ensure that they are being used in only the least serious of such offences. There must be a temptation to use them in more serious cases in the light of the time savings involved and the paperwork that does not need to be completed and prepared, as it would have to be for a case going to court. I hope—indeed, I am sure—that the Minister will confirm that the necessary effective checks are in place. After all, the difference between careless driving causing a collision and injury and it not doing so can often be a matter of luck rather than the degree of carelessness in the driving. Certainly, from the Opposition, we have no objection to this order.

[Lord Bradshaw]

I have no objections to the order at all.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the positive response from noble Lords. As regards the hiccup, I will write to the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, with full details of the impact and how we will cover it.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about careless driving. Of course, careless driving is not necessarily a less serious offence. Some of the offences that we are already capturing under the graduated fixed penalty are less serious than careless driving. The issue is that we have brought careless driving into the fixed-penalty regime. I understand the noble Lord’s point about dealing with a more serious careless driving offence by means of a fixed penalty when it would be appropriate to take it to court. It is a matter for the police which way they go and I am sure that they will make the judgment correctly. However, I have details here about which would come out as less serious offences, able to be dealt with by means of a fixed penalty. I have no doubt that the more serious offences will continue to be taken to court. For instance, if a driver emerges from a junction incorrectly, he may pick up a fixed penalty but if he causes another motorist to take emergency avoiding action, his chances are that he will find himself in court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I think the Minister said that the figure given for the almost 100% payment rate related to commercial vehicles, because it was VOSA people dealing with it. Presumably, from what he has said, fixed-penalty deposits already apply to private motorists, where they relate to a fixed-penalty offence and where they have not been able to give a satisfactory address. Has there also been nearly 100% payment in relation to private motorists where it is a police officer dealing with the matter, rather than a VOSA officer?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord’s analysis is correct. It is mainly foreign heavy goods vehicles but no doubt private vehicles will be dealt with. When we drive on the continent as private motorists, we try as hard as we can to comply with the rules in, say, Germany and German drivers would try to comply as hard as they can with our rules. I suspect that the police apply the rules pragmatically.

[Lord Rosser]

What I am getting at is that, as I understand it, at the moment, if somebody is stopped for a speeding offence they may be given a fixed-penalty notice. I had asked whether there are any circumstances in which a British national might be deemed to be giving an unsatisfactory address, other than their having no fixed abode. However, let us suppose that it is a foreign driver. In a situation where that foreign driver is unable to give a satisfactory address, presumably at the moment they are given the fixed-penalty deposit because of that. Is there, equally, a successful payment rate of or near to 100%, as there is in relation to commercial vehicles?

[Earl Attlee]

I will check with the Home Office to find out more details for the noble Lord but I suspect that the answer is yes. That is because if the police determine that a motorist does not have a satisfactory UK address—in other words, if they come from overseas or are from the UK but cannot give a decent address, which for various reasons some people cannot—there is a vulnerability that they may not pay. So they would come into scope and that vehicle will be immobilised until the graduated fixed-penalty deposit is paid. I understand why the noble Lord is concerned and if I can give him any details about the success rate of private vehicles, I will provide them.

Motion agreed.

Cyclists: Safety

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Department for Transport’s figures on road casualties in 2012, what steps they are considering to increase the safety of cyclists on the roads.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, as I said on Monday, we take cycle safety very seriously. Earlier this year, we announced £40 million, including local contributions, for 78 junction safety schemes. In addition, the majority of schemes in the £600 million local sustainable transport fund include cycling. We have made it easier for councils to introduce 20 mph speed limits and install Trixi mirrors. We are considering the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group inquiry and will respond shortly.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, over the past two years, the number of cyclists killed on the roads has gone up from 111 to 118 per annum and the number seriously injured, perhaps more worryingly, from 2,660 to 3,222. One of the main problems that cyclists have is their interaction with heavy vehicles. It is welcome that the Minister for Road Safety announced, I think last week, the setting up of the cycle-lorry safety working group, jointly between the Transport Department and Transport for London. Can the Minister say when this working group will start work; who will be involved and particularly whether cycling organisations will be able to give evidence to it; and which specific aspects of cycle lorry safety will it look at?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend has asked me quite a lot of detailed questions and I think it would be better if I wrote to him. I agree that HGVs are a disproportionate problem. HGVs do not have any more accidents with cycles than do cars. However, when they do have an accident, the result is generally much more serious. It is quite right that we pay special attention to HGVs.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, the use of mobile phones by motorists is illegal, because it is unsafe. Surely the use of audio headgear by cyclists is equally unsafe and should be made illegal?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is extremely unwise to cover one’s ears when riding a cycle, because you cannot hear traffic approaching or someone sounding their horn. I am not sure that it is necessary to make it illegal.

[Baroness Sharples]

Would my noble friend agree that cyclists should wear some form of identification? I was nearly knocked over outside Millbank. I shouted at the cyclist—I did not swipe him—but please could we have some identification on them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we want to do everything we can to increase the level of cycling because of the health benefits. To require someone to carry identification when riding a cycle would be an unnecessary burden. There can be incidents with pedestrians, for instance, when it would be good if they carried identity, but we do not require them to do so, so we do not see why a cyclist should carry identity either.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, what is being done to encourage children to wear helmets? Is the Minister aware of the particular fragility of the skulls of young children?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we are acutely aware of this problem. We strongly encourage children to wear helmets. However, again because of the difficulty of enforcing the wearing of helmets for children, we do not want to make it compulsory—a legal requirement—but we strongly encourage children to wear helmets and we think it is a very good idea for adults to wear helmets as well.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the health benefits of cycling may not be as great as he imagines, given that in London the pollution from slow-moving traffic is about 10 times the legal limit in Europe?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point. The noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, has raised this matter with me and I have had a meeting with her about it. We are doing everything we can to improve the air quality in London, but it is difficult to get to where we want to be.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, the most radical and probably most effective measures proposed by the cycling organisations, such as the Go Dutch campaign, would be quite expensive. However, does the Minister not agree that the benefits would be very substantial? There would be less pollution, less congestion in cities and a better urban environment—and, of course, as the Minister has acknowledged, anyone who gets on a bike instead of sitting in a car will be much healthier, whatever their age.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. I was a little bit worried when he started talking about expensive solutions, but I do agree with him.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I am concerned about the safety of pedestrians, as has already been mentioned. Cyclists ride with mobiles to their ear, with ear things otherwise filled with music, turning right across the traffic when the light is red against them. What are the Government going to do to tell cyclists to obey the red signs?

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think that I agree with the whole House that it is important that cyclists adhere to all the rules in the Highway Code, in particular by not using a mobile phone while riding and not covering up their ears, in order to avoid unnecessary accidents.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, of course cyclists should obey the Highway Code, but the Question with which we started reflected on the fact that deaths and serious injuries for cyclists have increased during the past three years. Several months ago, the Times newspaper launched a campaign on cities fit for cycling and established eight points which have been largely endorsed by the cycling organisations. Are the Government supportive of those points and, if so, what action on them have they taken?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we are generally supportive of the Times campaign; I have the list of all its suggestions here and we are measuring our performance against them. Not every single one can be adopted, but we are trying as hard as we can to reduce the casualties.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, how many cyclists actually pay the fixed-penalty tickets which are issued to them for offences such as riding on the pavement to the danger of pedestrians? My noble friend may know that they habitually give false names and addresses; there is no way for the police officer issuing the penalty notice to know that. What are we going to do? Are we going to compel cyclists to have some form of identification so that, if issued with a penalty ticket, they are required to pay it instead of just scoffing at the law?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is up to the police to decide how they enforce road traffic law, and they have the necessary tools to do so. I gently say to my noble friend that the police look at where they can deploy their resources to reduce casualties. Although it is extremely annoying for noble Lords to see cyclists riding on the pavement, and although it does cause accidents, it does not cause fatal accidents.

Roads: Road Safety

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Colwyn]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve road safety in the United Kingdom.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we are taking forward the measures set out in the Strategic Framework for Road Safety. Parliament has approved a new drug-driving offence and we will consult on the relevant limits shortly. We intend to publish a Green Paper on young drivers later this year. Additionally, subject to parliamentary approval, we will introduce fixed penalties for careless driving such as poor lane discipline and tailgating.

[Lord Colwyn]

I thank my noble friend for that informative Answer to a wide-ranging Question. He talked about a new drug-driving offence. Does he have any information on the approval and availability of the new testing devices? May I tempt my noble friend to comment on safety for cyclists? I declare an interest as a regular cyclist and a member of the All-Party Cycling Group. I have been knocked off my bike by a white van and have had a near-death experience with a falling 12-foot plank when cycling under scaffolding at Millbank House. In view of the fact that cycle journeys are increasing, what more can be done to improve safety and what progress has been made with the introduction of cycle superhighways?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that, at last, the Home Office has approved the drug testing equipment which will enable the police to move on to requiring a blood sample to be given. This is in accordance with recommendations from the North report. The Government are extremely concerned about cycle safety. We are pleased to see the increase in the amount of cycling taking place. However, the difficulty is that we are seeing an increase in the number of casualties and we do not fully understand why that should be. There is an increase because of the rise in the number of cyclists and the amount of cycling, but the increase in casualties is still too much and we are working hard on it.

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, in the announcement that the Government made last week regarding the infrastructure, I could find nothing to help with the safety of cyclists. Did I miss anything or was there something in that announcement?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord misses much at all. We have recently launched a Think Cyclist safety campaign and have made £35 million available to tackle dangerous junctions for cyclists across the country. The £35 million is part of the additional £107 million of investment in cycling that the Government have announced since February last year.

[Lord Bradshaw]

My Lords, in 2004 this House passed the Traffic Management Act, Part 6 of which was designed to enable local authorities to take action against matters such as cycling on the pavement, jumping traffic lights and all manner of moving traffic offences. That part has not been implemented by the Minister’s department. It languished under the party opposite and continues to languish now.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Colwyn said, this is quite a wide-ranging Question. I am afraid that I am not aware of that particular difficulty. However, I shall write to my noble friend about it.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, in the light of the 10% increase in deaths and the 4% increase in serious injuries in the past year in cycle accidents, will the Government consider a 20 miles per hour limit in certain urban areas? What are the Government doing to work with border agencies on the issue of drivers coming from outside the UK whose mirrors are positioned so that they cannot see cyclists on the road? I refer in particular to the drivers of lorries coming from Europe.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the department has made it simpler for councils to put in 20 miles per hour zones and limits and to install so-called Trixi mirrors to improve the visibility of cyclists at junctions. One of the problems is that sometimes a lorry driver cannot see a cyclist. I do not think that the problems with cyclists in London involve foreign trucks. There are issues with left-hand drive trucks causing accidents, particularly on motorways, but I have not been told that they cause problems for cyclists.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, taking into account what has just been said about the increase in casualties, will the noble Earl take a view on the fact that, so far as I know, cyclists are the only road users who do not have to undergo any kind of compulsory test? Would it not be in the interests of all road users, but particularly cyclists, if more effort was put into ensuring that those who go on to the roads on bicycles are properly trained?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, there is the Bikeability programme, the full details of which I do not have before me. The difficulty with a compulsory scheme is that it would probably have a negative effect on cycling. As the benefits of cycling are so great and far exceed the risks, we would not want to go down that route.

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how many cyclists have been prosecuted in the past year for going through red lights, for ignoring pedestrian crossings and for exceeding the speed limit?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the answer, but I know that it is a matter of great interest to your Lordships. It is for local police forces to decide how they police cycling offences.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2013

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

That the order laid before the House on 4 June be approved.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the order was made on 3 June and came into force on 10 June 2013. The order specifies four N-BOMe and six benzofuran substances, including their simple derivatives, as drugs subject to temporary control under Section 2A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On 29 May, the Government received a recommendation from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) under the temporary control provisions of the 1971 Act, advising that the N-BOMe and benzofuran substances are being misused, and that their misuse is having sufficiently harmful effects to warrant legislative action. My honourable friend the Minister for Crime Prevention was satisfied, in consideration of the latest available evidence and the ACMD’s assessment, that the conditions to make a temporary class drug order were met.

N-BOMe substances are highly potent drugs which are regarded as alternatives to the class A drug LSD. Clinically observed health effects include hypertension, agitation and aggression, visual and audio hallucination, and seizures. Two patients were admitted to intensive care after using this drug. Anecdotal evidence from self-reported users also highlight highly negative effects including confusion, shaking, nausea, insomnia, paranoia and unwanted feelings.

We agree with the ACMD that urgent action is required because of the extremely potent nature of these substances in powder and liquid form, and the high risk of overdose. We are also aware that to mitigate the risk of overdose, some suppliers have used perforated pre-loaded paper doses in the form of blotters and tabs, similar to the way LSD is sold.

The benzofuran substances—such as 5- and 6- APB—are related to the class A drug ecstasy (MDMA). They are most commonly sold under the brand name Benzo Fury and marketed as legal alternatives to ecstasy. The effects of these substances include insomnia, increased heart rate and anxiety, with some users reporting ecstasy-like symptoms. Several deaths and hospitalisations in the UK have been associated with the use of these compounds. There are also risks associated with the long-term use of these drugs such as cardiac toxicity.

The order applies UK-wide to protect the public, enabling enforcement action against suppliers and traffickers, while the ACMD prepares full advice on these substances. The order also sends out a clear message to the public, especially young people, that these substances are harmful drugs. Of course, we will continue to monitor data on these drugs to measure the impact of the order through all available channels, and share this information with the ACMD.

This order was made in consideration of evidence that these substances pose a clear threat to public health and safety, not least young people who believe traffickers’ claims that legal highs are safer than controlled drugs. We have a duty to take action to prevent new psychoactive substances—NPSs—which pose equally serious health risks from gaining a foothold in the UK drugs market.

Our action today, through temporary control legislation, is a vehicle which enables us to act swiftly to protect the public and provide time to the advisory council to gather evidence and prepare full advice on these drugs. Legislative action also plays an important part in supporting our wider public protection policies.

This legislative action is supportive of our long-term strategic objectives set out in the Government’s action plan to tackle the new psychoactive substances market from all angles; to reduce demand by raising awareness of the harms of new psychoactive substances; to make it difficult to obtain and supply those that pose risks to health; and to ensure that statutory services are able effectively to provide treatment and support recovery. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the drugs. I am always grateful that these drugs have street names that we can pronounce, because the only light relief there could be on this issue is to hear the Minister reading out the chemical names of all the substances for which he has brought forward the order today.

We on this side of the House put on the record our appreciation of the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, specifically for the work it has done to bring forward this order. Its members give freely of their expertise and advice, and we are hugely grateful that they do so. We are content to accept their advice and support the order before us today. There is evidence that these two drugs, N-BOMe and Benzo Fury, and their derivatives and variations have been responsible for hospitalisations and deaths. They are dangerous and damaging and those who trade in these substances care nothing for their impact and the harm that they cause—merely for their own profits.

In supporting the order I refer to some of the key issues that are relevant to this discussion, and on which I would find it helpful if the Minister could provide some clarity and information. I understand and appreciate the process that has brought this specific order before us, but I am not altogether clear on some issues, such as timescales and action taken by other countries, whether it is on similar timescales and whether greater co-operation is now available. The Minister will be aware of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which has a key role in detection and assessment of new drugs across the entire EU. Can the Minister tell me—I think that we have had similar information from Ministers previously—how many new substances have been identified by the EMCDDA since 2010, and how many of those have now been identified by the Home Office early warning system? The Minister may not have the figures to hand and I am happy for him to write to me. We learnt from the debate on an earlier order that the Home Office had identified only 11 out of 90 substances identified by the EMCDDA in 2010-11. My understanding is that now more than 200 substances have been identified by the EMCDDA. How many of those have been identified by the Home Office? I ask because I am keen to see that we are keeping pace with the rest of Europe in identifying and taking action on new drugs and substances as they enter the UK market.

The Minister mentioned that they are sometimes referred to as legal highs. That lulls some people into a false sense of security that a drug is safe because it is not illegal. Yet the only reason it is legal is that the formal process of making it illegal has not been completed. Yesterday I Attended an IPU briefing on the drugs trade and I was struck by one specific fact: that synthetic drugs now account for 20% to 25% of the drugs market. As their use is growing, the need to be on the ball with identification and action becomes all the more important and crucial.

When debating a previous order I asked the then Minister if he was aware of the reasons for the difference in the number of drugs identified by the EMCDDA and those identified by the Home Office. He was not able to respond to me on that occasion. It would be helpful to know and, again, I shall understand if the Minister prefers to write to me with the accurate statistics and explanation. I suspect that there are probably a number of genuine and understandable reasons. Is there just a short time lag between one body indentifying a substance and the information being fed through to the Home Office? Are the Government waiting for advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs? I will come back to that point, because we do not want any unnecessary delay in identifying and taking action, when the growth of these synthetically manufactured drugs is racing ahead.

I am keen to ensure, as I am sure the Minister is, that we make full use of co-operation with other European countries that are tackling the same issues, which are incredibly difficult. Co-operation across international boundaries is essential as we are all facing similar problems that are having a similar impact on our societies. We all want to be reassured that we are acting on these issues with the sense of urgency that the public deserve and expect. I do not for one second doubt the Minister’s intentions; I would not want that to be misunderstood. However, I am worried that some of the factual information of the timings gives cause for concern. It may be that we need to review the process that we have undertaken to get us to this point to see whether we could act more swiftly.

My understanding is that the information contained in the letter that the Home Secretary received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs indicated that Benzo Fury, the drug that we getting a temporary banning order on today, was first referred to the National Poisons Information Service in 2009, after being identified as a drug that led to hospitalisations. I am not suggesting that that on its own would be enough to bring us to this point, because obviously the drug has to be properly assessed. However, the chair of the ACMD, Professor Les Iversen, recently said that the council had the resources to assess only two or three new substances a year. If between 70 and 200 dangerous and damaging substances are on the market legally and there is an increase in the manufacturing of synthetic drugs—many of which there will be a strong case for making illegal—to be identifying or assessing just two or three a year is completely inadequate. Is there more that we should be doing now to ensure that we are not constantly lagging behind what is happening in Europe? Such a lagging behind is likely to lead to increased dangers and increased hospitalisations, and possibly worse.

Does the Minister know how long it took for the drug Benzo Fury, for example, to appear on the Government’s forensic early-warning system since it was first identified in 2009? It seems to me that there should be some co-operation and cross-referencing—I have given him notice that I would be asking this question today—between the National Poisons Information Service, the TICTAC database on chemical compounds, the EMCDDA’s register of new substances and the Home Office’s forensic early-warning system. Can he provide some information on how such co-operation and liaison works? Again, I am happy to receive a letter.

Can the Minister also tell us what processes are in place to investigate the effects of a substance once it is recorded? We need a proper pharmacological investigation into these substances, but I understand that this is very expensive. My understanding is that it costs approximately £100,000 per substance. The Home Office has provided just £200,000 from the health budget for this purpose, although I am not sure whether that amount remains following the CSR. European co-operation would be invaluable. I would be interested to know what discussions are taking place with other European Ministers and agencies.

One of the flies in the ointment of increased European co-operation is the Government’s plan to opt out of the police and criminal justice measures of the EU. I know that the Government want to opt back in to some measures. It would be inconceivable if this kind of measure was not included as it is clear that the EMCDDA is very much ahead of the game as to what is happening across Europe as a whole. Are there any contingency plans on the drugs issue, particularly if a Danish type of situation arose where we could not opt back in, as we wanted?

I apologise for taking slightly longer to speak, but I am very concerned about the number of drugs coming on to the market at the moment. Can the Minister say anything about internet sales? A number of internet sites offer what they call “legal highs” as alternatives to already banned or illegal drugs. It is hard, I know, to monitor the actions of all of them, but what monitoring is taking place? Often it can be a way of identifying when a legal drug is getting hold of the market.

It is clear from the drugs listed today that one has to be very precise about the substances involved. I understand that there is a risk that a minor chemical change can create a new drug and then a new order is needed. The Government are trying to address that issue and that is why the order before us today is welcome. Do we need to have a new order each time there is a chemical change? I support the order. I welcome the Minister’s explanation and thank him for bringing the order forward. However, we need a broader strategy to ensure that we are not running behind to catch up on such a serious issue.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Medical Research Council’s ethics and regulation committee. Can the Minister say whether consideration has been given to altering the defaults on this policy? When it comes to prescription drugs, we require proof of safety before a drug proceeds to clinical trials and attempts to establish efficacy. Why should proof of safety not be a prerequisite for the marketing of any substance that is used as a drug?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I will answer the noble Baroness’s question before I forget it. I suspect the reason is that the legislation creates serious criminal offences and we have to be sure that the creation of such an offence is necessary. If I have anything more to add—if any inspiration comes from the Box—then I shall do so, but I suspect that that is the answer.

I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I thank the House for the helpful discussion. I trust that when I have finished I will have fully made the case for the temporary class drug order to be approved in the House on the basis of the latest available evidence and the ACMD’s advice.

I understand the noble Baroness’s concern about resources. The Home Secretary commissions the ACMD to undertake specific pieces of work each year, and it has the flexibility to prioritise its resources accordingly. However, the use of generic definitions means that the advisory council is able to consider and provide advice on families and groups rather than on individual substances. This enables the Government to tackle multiple substances in a single legislative action.

Before I go into further detail on the points raised by noble Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in commending the ACMD for its continuous work and support of our work priorities, including on “legal highs”. More than ever, the fast pace of this market requires careful prioritisation of our resources and underscores the need for closer working within a broader network of partners, in the UK and abroad, to inform and preserve the integrity of our drug laws.

The noble Baroness quite rightly asked about a sense of urgency. In the case of this particular order we received advice from the ACMD on 29 May; we made the order on 3 June; and it came into effect on 10 July. The noble Baroness also asked when benzofuran compounds were first identified in the UK. Our forensic early warning system, which I will say more about in a moment, first identified the benzofuran substances 5- and 6-APB in early 2011. Together with the advisory council we kept under review the health harms associated with these compounds. The latest evidence suggests that legislative action needs to be taken.

I remind the House that we take action when we see a health harm becoming apparent, not when we become aware that the drug exists. The drug can exist—theoretically it might be on the market in other parts of the world—but we will not legislate until it starts to cause a problem in the UK. We do not need to legislate for everything. I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that we do not want to legislate for every drug that could be abused.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I appreciate the point that the noble Earl is making and I am grateful for it. I was making a point about the different organisations which all have a responsibility to share information in this area. The poisons body to which I referred first identified this as a problem in 2009. It took until 2011, according to the noble Earl’s information, for the Home Office to become aware of that.

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Baroness may or may not be right. However, I will have more to say on co-operation.

We are making progress in reducing the availability of these drugs through UK law enforcement agencies prioritising work on new psychoactive substances. We are also working with trading standards to tackle their emergence using consumer protection legislation and providing guidance to complement drug control. We have a world-leading forensic early warning system that we are exporting, through leading two resolutions at the UN, enabling the monitoring of new psychoactive substances at a global level for the first time.

Perhaps I may first draw your Lordships’ attention to the forensic early warning system. This is a Home Office programme set up since January 2011 in response to legal highs. It detects new drugs in the UK through test purchasing and forensic work. It informs the advisory council’s consideration and our wider response. It works by test purchasing samples for analysis from the internet and “head shops”—whatever they are—collecting music festival and non-casework police samples, and other sensible courses of action. This has made a vital contribution to health and safety at summer festivals. Data from FEWS has been shared with ACMD to inform its advice on a drug called 2-DPMP, synthetic cannabinoids, methoxetamine—which I tried to practice pronouncing—including the latest substances, NBOMe and benzofurans which we are talking about.

I also draw the House’s attention to the drugs early warning system. This works by linking health and law enforcement agencies to provide access to evidence and timely information on NPS—new psychoactive substances. UK Focal Point acts as an information hub, collecting and sharing data from UK and EU drugs early warning systems with ACMD and the Home Office. So we are not on our own. UK Focal Point can also liaise directly with the National Poisons Information Service when required. When, for example, a threat from a new psychoactive substance becomes apparent, the Home Office will ask UK Focal Point—and has done so in the case of these substances and others that I cannot pronounce—to distribute a request for information from national and international partners.

The noble Baroness asked me about the number of new substances coming on to the market. Counting the number of substances identified elsewhere in Europe cannot be used as a barometer to measure the extent of the problem in the UK. Many of these substances have never been seen before in the UK, a point that I have already made, and the majority of those that have are controlled thanks to the generic definitions which capture families of drugs used under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Government are acting fast to tackle these new substances.

I have talked about the forensic early warning system. In addition, the temporary control power affords a flexibility to control these drugs quickly while the advisory council assesses their full harm and when the evidence base on their prevalence, use or likely use and harm supports legislative action. As I have already said, the use of generic definitions enables us to future-proof our legislation by catching families and groups at a time, and therefore drugs that are yet to appear on the UK market. These systems, including our drugs early warning system, continue to contribute to the considerations of the ACMD, as it has done with NBOMe and benzofuran substances and our previous temporary class drug methoxetamine, which is now a class B drug. In addition, health and law enforcement partners continue to have access to information and the latest evidence from the UK and EU.

The most helpful course of action that I can take is to write to the noble Baroness on some of the further details, which I think she will find interesting. I hope that noble Lords will find that this legislative measure will ensure that the public are protected from the harm of these new psychoactive substances. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Health: Public Health Responsibility Deal

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, I would like to make one general point about the role of the private sector, and then some specific points about the alcohol element of the responsibility deal. First, I declare various interests. I am an independent adviser on corporate responsibility for two drinks producers, Heineken and Brown-Forman, and one food company, Mars. Details are in the register of interests. I emphasise that my advice to them is strictly non-parliamentary, and that I had no discussions with any of those companies about what I am going to say this afternoon.

On the general point, food and drink companies often get it in the neck for engaging in the public health arena. They are criticised by cynics who simply cannot believe that companies can possibly be sincere, and think they are really doing no more than watching out for their own commercial interests. The Government are also criticised for letting the industry off the hook with voluntary action.

However, I argue that this kind of partnership is no soft option for the industry. As long as outcomes are rigorously monitored and achieve the desired results, it can be extremely effective. The first reason for this is the very high level of public scrutiny. The companies openly sign up to detailed, challenging pledges, and they will look insincere and incompetent if they do not fulfil them. Secondly, the pledges are crafted in an inclusive way involving Government, health professionals and the industry, so the outcomes are much more sustainable because they are supported by industry from the beginning. Thirdly, of course the responsibility deal is in the commercial interests of the industry. There is a strong business case for companies to help minimise the harms associated with their products. The consequences of overconsumption damage brand image as well as body image. They give the company a bad reputation and undermine shareholder value. It is a good thing that the industry has recognised this. Its businesses would not be sustainable otherwise.

This deal puts the UK streets ahead of our EU partners by showing not just what can be achieved on a voluntary basis rather than through red tape but also how quickly. The pledge on alcohol labelling, for example, will see 80% of drinks labelled with a variety of health-related information and is well on target to be achieved by the end of this year. Mandatory labelling would almost certainly require EU legislation and take years. Another pledge, as we heard, is to take 1 billion units of alcohol out of the market by 2015 by reformulating existing brands to contain less alcohol and by innovating to bring new, lower-strength brands on to the market, helping more people to drink within the guidelines by providing a wider choice of lower-alcohol products. This has become a real growth area, with dozens of new products coming on to the market. Sales of lower-strength beer have grown by 59%, according to HMRC data.

A third pledge is to provide more support for local community schemes such as Best Bar None and community alcohol partnerships. That is vital because alcohol harms in the UK vary hugely across different regions. For example, we know that nationally the vast majority of adults drink within the government guidelines and that per capita consumption and binge drinking have fallen. But we also know that alcohol-specific mortality and liver disease in Blackpool is nearly three times the national average, hospital admissions in Liverpool nearly 2.5 times the national average and binge drinking in north Tyneside 1.5 times the national average. One reason these community schemes work is because they offer a win-win outcome. In Durham there has been a 75% increase in trade in pubs that support the Best Bar None scheme because it obviously makes the pubs safer and more attractive places to go. At the same time, figures suggest an 87% decrease in violent crime. There are now more than 50 community alcohol partnerships up and running and some have seen significant reductions in antisocial behaviour.

Producers have also committed continued support to Drinkaware by not only paying their dues but also using their brand marketing to promote the charity’s campaigns. During the 2012 FA Cup, for example, more than 50 million football fans saw Drinkaware branding through a beer sponsorship that featured Drinkaware on the stadium perimeter. During the semi-final matches, there was a 30% increase in direct traffic driven to the Drinkaware home page. In fact, the number of individuals who go to the Drinkaware website has grown massively, from 2.8 million in 2011 to more than 6 million in the past 12 months. Thanks to the funding it receives from the industry, Drinkaware has proved a tremendous asset to the public health effort to promote sensible drinking. Its progress was confirmed earlier this year, along with some welcome pointers for future improvement, by an independent review panel chaired by Sir Hugh Taylor, chairman of the Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. The industry has pledged to review the codes on advertising and marketing and a revised Portman code came into effect at the end of May this year with several even stricter rules. A new, improved code on sponsorship is due to be launched in the next few weeks.

I end on a specific question or two for the Minister. A deal, by definition, involves more than one party. We know what the industry is doing. Have the Government or the health service committed to specific pledges? For example, will the Government take on one specific suggestion from me and do more to support the industry in its efforts to change EU legislation that currently prohibits winemakers from reducing the ABV of wine by more than 2%? Think how much more quickly we could achieve the pledge to take 1 billion alcohol units out of the market if wine companies could legally do what many beer brands already are doing and reduce the strength of their brands. I know that Defra has done a great deal to assist but this issue was put on the EU table by the industry at least three or four years ago and progress has been painfully slow—mainly, I understand, because there is very little support from other member states. Will the Minister agree to speak to his Defra counterparts and fire them up again to do more to encourage other member states to help change this legislation in the interests of public health?

In my opinion, the beauty of the responsibility deal is that it is a partnership. There is a place for legislation, but if it can be balanced with voluntary action, self-regulation and personal responsibility, behaviour change and benefits to society will follow more quickly and more sustainably.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sure that the Committee would like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, but if he speaks past 2.41 pm, he will be doing so at the expense of the Front Bench.

Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2013

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

That the order laid before the House on 3 June be approved.

Relevant documents: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the order, which amends the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000, creates a consistent legal framework for the effective service of immigration decisions.

Immigration decisions which attract a right of appeal are currently subject to the Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003. The regulations, which have been in force since 2003, require the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to notify the individual of the decision. If that is not possible or if service fails, the regulations enable decisions to take effect when they are served to the individual’s file. However, no such framework exists for immigration decisions which do not attract a right of appeal. This primarily affects decisions to curtail leave to 60 days.

The House will be aware that academic institutions and businesses which bring migrants into the UK to study or work under the points-based system are required to notify the Home Office about changes in the migrants’ circumstances. In many cases, the notification relates to compliant behaviour, such as permissible changes in the migrants’ circumstances or early completion of their work placement or course of study. However, if a sponsor notifies the Home Office that they have withdrawn sponsorship from a migrant, the case is referred for curtailment.

If there is clear non-compliance on the part of the migrant, for example they fail to enrol with their college and make no attempt to switch to another sponsor, their leave is curtailed with immediate effect and a removal decision is made. Where non-compliance is less clear—for example because the migrant started to study but subsequently left, potentially to study with another sponsor—leave is curtailed to 60 days to allow a short period for the migrant to find another sponsor or depart the UK in good order.

Leave is also curtailed to 60 days where their PBS sponsor loses their sponsor licence, unless the migrant was complicit in the reasons for the revocation of the licence, for example if there is proof that the migrant was knowingly using the sponsor to enter the UK purely to work and not study. Where the migrant has entered the country having been issued a visa overseas, the Home Office may not have a UK postal address for them. In these cases the notice is served via the migrant’s sponsor, but if it is returned as undeliverable, the decision is placed on the migrant’s file. In a recent tribunal determination it was held that unless these notices are communicated to the person in writing they have no effect. In the absence of an order covering service of non-appealable decisions, the Secretary of State must be able to prove that a notice of such a decision was communicated to the person in order for it to be effective.

The Home Office has taken a number of steps to counter the problems with serving these decisions, for example requiring sponsors to provide contact details with notifications and writing to the sponsor to request postal details if none has been provided. We must now act to ensure that our ability to curtail leave in these circumstances is not reliant on migrants keeping their sponsor, or the Home Office, informed of their contact details.

The message to migrants must be clear: we expect them to pursue the purpose of their leave. If they fail to do that, we will curtail their leave. Our ability to control immigration in this way will not be frustrated by any potential attempts to avoid service or deny receipt of a notice. The order will redress that imbalance and place the service of these decisions on a consistent legal footing with the process for serving appealable decisions, which has been in place for 10 years and supports the operation of effective immigration controls. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I have a couple of questions for clarification on the order. At the top of page 2, Article 4 inserts two new articles, 8 and 8ZA. Article 8 has a new process of an oral grant or refusal of leave, whereby an individual who has been granted leave to remain or refusal to remain can be told that by telephone. I am slightly puzzled about the mechanics of how that would work. I indicated to the noble Earl that I intended to raise this matter.

Some people who apply will, of course, not have English as their first language and may have difficulty in understanding. What process is undertaken to ensure that the person receiving the notice to leave the country or to remain fully understands what they are being told, so that there is no misunderstanding? If someone receives something in writing saying that they do not have leave to remain in the country, they can take it to a solicitor and get advice, but if they receive that information over the telephone they will have to digest it at a later date. I am slightly concerned that someone may get information but not fully understand the nature of that information and not be able to act on it because they are puzzled or do not have any proof of that information. How is it possible to be assured of the identity of someone being notified that they may be granted leave to remain or refused leave to remain in the country if you only talk to them on the telephone? I have questions about how that will work. I am not clear about the security issues involved.

Article 8ZA paragraph (4) says:

“Where attempts to give notice”—

for a grant, refusal or variation of leave in writing—

“are not possible or have failed”.

That is the point that the noble Earl was making. That could be put on file and deemed to have been served. In paragraph (4) it refers to “attempts” in the plural, so obviously two attempts have to be made, but is there any guidance on how those attempts should be made? When it talks about attempts to give notice not being possible, why would it not be possible to make an attempt to contact someone? I am slightly puzzled by the wording.

Paragraph (6) says:

“A notice given under this article may, in the case of a person who is under 18 years of age and does not have a representative, be given to the parent, guardian or another adult who for the time being takes responsibility for the child”.

Does that mean a legal responsibility, or could it be a casual and informal responsibility? I recently raised a case with the Home Office where an individual was seeking to have a passport returned on behalf of another person and I was told that it could not act or intercede with that person because there was no legal authority to do so. I am slightly puzzled how the situation of someone who, for the time being, takes responsibility for a child being able to receive information regarding the granting, refusal or variation of a right to remain in the country would work in practice.

My final point is on the presumption of receipt of notice. The article refers to the notice being sent by the postal service and on the second day after it is sent,

“it shall be deemed to have been given to the person”.

What happens in the event of a mail or postal strike, as we have seen in some parts of the country? I would be grateful if the noble Earl could clarify those points and give me some answers.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the supportive and thoughtful contributions made by both noble Lords.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, on reporting suspected immigration irregularities, there is a generic hotline for members of the public and stakeholders to report suspected immigration offenders. Information is available on the Home Office website, and I can write to the noble Lord with further information. However, it is a good point that we should understand about the abuse of our NHS facilities.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The problem may be that because of medical confidentiality there is some hesitation to use a regular hotline. There needs to be a mechanism available specifically to and within the medical profession. That may be necessary if the Government really want the full co-operation of the medical profession in this matter.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I will write in detail to the noble Lord on the issue of confidentiality and on whether anything else needs to be done. Everyone is aware of the abuse of our NHS treatment, to which a lot of immigrants are not entitled.

The Government have made this order to protect our ability to control immigration and ensure that migrants are treated fairly. This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK attracts the brightest and best migrants but is closed to those who seek to abuse the system. We must be clear to the public, our corporate partners and those who wish to come here that we will take action against migrants who fail to pursue the purpose of their leave. In the most non-compliant cases we will require the individual to leave the UK immediately or be subject to enforced removal.

Where the cessation of sponsorship is a result of the sponsor losing their licence or migrant non-compliance is not clear, we must operate a system that is fair and enables bona fide migrants who want to study to switch to another sponsor—and the system does that. However, our ability to take appropriate action must not be hampered by gaps in legislation or result in delays and the need for time-consuming and bureaucratic processes. We do not want to create a duty on sponsors to have to report every change in their migrants’ address, phone number or e-mail address. That would be far too onerous a task. However, it is reasonable to ask the sponsor to provide the latest contact details with their notifications. That will give us the best opportunity of communicating the decision to the individual concerned in the first instance. If we cannot serve the notice on the individual, whether by post or some other means, we will seek to serve the notice on the migrant’s representative. Only where that is not possible, or the service fails, will we serve the decision on file.

The order amends Article 8 of the 2000 order. These changes are technical and retain the current position in Article 8, which provides that a notice giving or refusing leave to enter may be given by fax, e-mail or, in the case of a visitor, orally, including by means of a telecommunication system. The amending order retains the provision in Article 8 regarding oral notice to visitors but transfers the provisions regarding fax and e-mail to the new Article 8ZA, where other means of giving the notice are dealt with—post, courier and so on—and I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to confirm the procedure for giving oral notice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked what the purpose was of such a broad definition of adults who are responsible for children. Perhaps it would be helpful if I read out the answer.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I think that the noble Earl misunderstood my question. If he checks Hansard, I should be happy to receive a letter with the answer.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, that would probably be helpful. Perhaps I will just move on.

I trust that the House will agree that this order will ensure that we have a consistent statutory framework that protects the Secretary of State’s ability to control migration and is fair on genuine migrants. As I have already said, this Government are committed to ensuring that the UK attracts the brightest and best migrants. Where it is appropriate, we should give individuals an opportunity to continue working and studying here. It is not just a matter of fairness, ensuring that we do not act disproportionately. It is also about recognising the important role that genuine migrants play in enriching our communities and supporting economic recovery. I hope that the House will look favourably on the order and agree the Motion.

Motion agreed.

Drones: Code of Conduct

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for securing this evening’s debate and other noble Lords for their contribution. Your Lordships will note that the question is about civilian as well as military use of these aircraft and the House will be aware that I answer for all of Her Majesty’s Government. I share the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the number of speakers and am grateful for his very measured contribution to our debate.

First, we should understand that we are talking about remotely piloted aircraft systems, or RPAS. We are most certainly not talking about “drones” as exemplified by the “doodle bugs” of the World War II era. The location of the cockpit does not change the essential function of a professional, qualified pilot in terms of his or her direct responsibility for the safety and overall management of a flight. I do not foresee a situation where a human’s ultimate responsibility for the safe flight of a remotely piloted aircraft will be replaced by fully autonomous technologies.

I will follow the split of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and cover civilian RPAS operations first. These are closely regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority and are treated in the same manner as that of an equivalent manned aircraft. This applies to all aspects of unmanned aviation, from the initial design and construction, or airworthiness, through to the safety requirements of how it is flown and operated. This viewpoint is shared internationally. We certainly have no intention of denying access to UK airspace—we just want to keep it safe.

Small unmanned aircraft are those under 20 kilograms weight, flown at short range and always within the sight of the person flying them. These are overseen to a lesser, but proportionate, extent by the CAA but, in certain circumstances, such as for commercial use, a permission is needed. They are also subject to the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, talked about intrusion. He will be aware that the activities of Google also cause similar concerns and that this concern is not unique to RPAS.

The House should not overlook the technological importance of the growth of the remotely piloted aircraft sector. For example, systems which can be used to detect other aircraft could, in time, greatly assist all pilots, in the same way that aircraft transponders have contributed to safety across the sector. I would point out that the UK’s ASTRAEA consortium is at the forefront of international efforts in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, told the House about a wide range of uses including anti-poaching operations. Noble Lords will have read the article in this week’s Sunday Times about the use of RPAS to assess the health of a vineyard in France—a very commendable use, I would suggest. Surely, this is the start of yet another technical revolution facilitated by the ubiquitous modern electronics. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right of course when he says that the potential for their development is considerable.

The overall objective of the Government and the European Commission is to enable the full and safe integration of remotely piloted aircraft into the total aviation system so that they share the same airspace as their manned counterparts. With UK and EU input, the International Civil Aviation Organization is currently developing RPA guidance material, due for publication in autumn 2014, with standards expected about two years later. Within Europe, the Commission’s RPAS roadmap, published on Thursday 20 June 2013, is aimed at an incremental integration of RPAS into European airspace from 2016. To achieve this, there are a number of significant technical challenges to be overcome, primarily concerned with ensuring the RPAS is airworthy and has the capability to avoid collisions. However, until the technological and regulatory hurdles can be safely overcome, operations of larger remotely piloted aircraft will continue to be restricted to segregated airspace. For these reasons, therefore, my view is that there is already a suitable framework in place to regulate the operation of civilian remotely piloted aircraft and that no additional codes of conduct are required.

I now turn to the military element, which I suspect is of more concern to the House. Although the MoD operates a number of unmanned aircraft systems, Reaper is the UK’s only armed remotely piloted aircraft system and its only operational use is in support of UK and coalition ground forces in Afghanistan. Although predominantly used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tasks, the aircraft is also armed with precision-guided weapons, which offer an attack capability if needed by ground commanders. The system is operated by highly trained, skilled and qualified RAF pilots in accordance with the principles of international humanitarian law and the UK’s rules of engagement, which are identical to those used by crews of manned combat aircraft. That applies even for joint operations with US forces.

The UK’s selection and prosecution of all targets is based on rigorous scrutiny. Targets are always positively identified as legitimate military objectives and every effort is made to ensure that harm to civilians or damage to civilian property is minimised. The Government have a longstanding policy of not divulging the detail of our rules of engagement; that would give our adversaries useful information about how and when we might choose to use lethal force. I also gently remind the House that the pilots operate under military discipline. Similarly, the RAF has well established command, control and supervisory frameworks that I have seen on exercise. I do not believe that anything extra needs to be provided for.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested that the UK military has 500 RPAS. However, there are currently only five armed RPAS. Of course, rather smaller RPAS are used for tactical surveillance. The use of remotely piloted aircraft systems is no different from other airborne or indeed ground-based attack systems. The only difference from a traditional aircraft is that their cockpits are on the ground. The systems can only launch their weapons when specifically commanded to do so by the pilot. They do not have the capability to launch any weapons autonomously. In addition, there are no future plans to replace military pilots with fully autonomous systems. I know that that is a matter of great concern to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the whole House. The MoD has no intention of developing any weapons systems to be used without human involvement. Although the Royal Navy has defensive systems such as Phalanx that can be used in an automatic mode, to protect personnel and ships from enemy threats like missiles, a human operator oversees the entire engagement. Furthermore, all our remotely piloted aircraft systems used in Afghanistan to protect troops on the ground are controlled by highly trained military pilots. There are no plans to replace skilled military personnel with fully autonomous systems.

[Lord Judd]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for this reply. Could he clarify what is meant by “no intention” to deploy these vehicles other than with human involvement? What does human involvement amount to? How much automatic action in terms of analysis, identifying a target and deciding to hit it will be left to the device in future vehicles once they are launched?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the answer is currently none. It requires human involvement to launch the missile at the target. RPAS cannot currently engage a target without being commanded to do so by the pilot on the ground.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, implied that communication with and control of an RPAS could be lost in the event of an electromagnetic pulse. If that was the case, the RPAS would probably lose all its capability, just like any other aircraft.

The noble Lord touched on the perceived disadvantages of the military use of RPAS. As of 20 June, the UK Reaper RPAS has employed 394 precision-guided weapons. There has been only one known incident that resulted in the deaths of civilians. On 25 March 2011, an attack on two pick-up trucks resulted in the destruction of a significant quantity of explosives and the deaths of two insurgents but, sadly, four Afghanistan civilians were also killed. In line with current ISAF procedures, an ISAF investigation was conducted to establish if any lessons could be learned or if any errors in operational procedures could be identified. In that case, the report concluded that the actions of the Reaper crew had been in accordance with extant procedures and rules of engagement.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked if the UK had conducted any targeted killings and whether the UK uses the ICRC definitions of combatants and civilians. Her Majesty’s Armed Forces will engage the enemy in accordance with international humanitarian law and the UK rules of engagement. The necessity and legality of engaging the target does not depend on the means of doing so. The noble Lord stated that we either uphold the rule of law or we do not. He is right. I can confirm that Her Majesty’s Government uphold the rule of law. How the US Government conduct themselves is not a matter for me to comment on and I have already touched on joint US/UK operations.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, talked about the remote warrior. Our experience of operating the Reaper remotely piloted aircraft system in Afghanistan suggests that Reaper aircrew are just as if not more connected to the situation on the ground when compared to operators of other aircraft types. That is because they fly missions over Afghanistan for years at a time and not in short-duration rotations. Remotely piloted aircraft can loiter over areas of interest for a considerable time, providing that much-valued intelligence picture. I remind the House that surveillance is their primary role. Should an attack be requested, their persistence enables them to assess a target in detail and select an optimum time for attack that minimises the risk of civilian casualties. Indeed, because of this increased awareness of the ground situation, enabled by the connectivity that a ground-based cockpit offers, there have been many occasions when crews have elected not to fire a weapon.

I will say a few words about the ASTRAEA project. ASTRAEA—Autonomous Systems Technology Related Airborne Evaluation and Assessment—is a UK industry-led consortium focusing on the development of technologies, systems and procedures with a specific emphasis on unmanned aircraft systems. The consortium is led by seven UK companies—AOS, BAE Systems, Cassidian, Cobham, Qinetiq, Rolls-Royce and Thales—plus a further 70 SMEs and universities. The aim of the programme is to enable the routine use of UAS in all classes of airspace without the need for restrictive or specialised conditions of operation. The £62 million programme was split into two phases, each lasting three years. Phase 2 ended on 31 March 2013. Some 50% of the funding came from industry partners, with the remainder from government—the TSB and the regions. Future activity under the ASTRAEA brand is the subject of ongoing discussion within the consortium.

I welcome this debate, which has explored the application and use of remotely piloted aircraft. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right to question the implications of any new and growing technology such as this. To reiterate: RPAS are aircraft under human control. The very clear regulations and guidance that apply to aircraft also apply to RPAS. I am confident that no further code of conduct is required.

House adjourned at 7.57 pm.