Immigration: Points-based System

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for raising that question. He is absolutely right that we should be mindful of regional variation, regional demand and regional supply. In fact, the shortage occupation list that was drawn up does not look much different in Scotland than it does in the UK as a whole. But he is right to make the point that, in terms of engagement, we should listen to the devolved Administrations and be mindful of what they say. We would not want them to be unable to have the workforce that they need in their areas.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I do not understand when the Minister says that musicians, for example, will be treated exactly the same. If they are going to be treated as though they are from non-EEA countries, it will be a massive change; it will not be the same at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was absolutely right to mention reciprocity. Of course, what we will do to the EU will be done to us. From the point of view of the creative industries, which are so important culturally and economically, it is hugely disappointing to see in paragraph 25 of the policy statement:

“We will not be creating a dedicated route for self-employed people.”


The effect on our own UK workers will be devastating if there is not a dedicated route, unencumbered by the need for sponsorship and allowing onward movement, among many other things, not only in the arts and the creative industries but in the UK services sector more widely, for which Europe is the major market.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I take the noble Earl’s point on board and I will try to get a fuller answer on the creative industries, because I recognise the point that both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, make. As I was on my feet, I was thinking that maybe it was because of the short time for which performers might want to come to the UK. But I will get a fuller answer for the two noble Lords and put a copy in the Library.

Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, how often are chemical markers such as SmartWater being used on public sculptures and memorials? Are scrap metal dealers being encouraged to check for such markers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Earl how often chemical markers have been used, particularly on heritage assets. However, I can write to him about it.

Brexit: UK-EU Movement of People (EUC Report)

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the Home Affairs Sub-Committee on their informative report.

I want to talk about an area that is touched on in the report but that has not had the discussion in Parliament or in the media that it deserves. I refer to how the loss of free movement in the future would be likely to affect UK citizens based in this country, especially young people, as how we treat EU nationals who are already in this country will mirror how we expect UK nationals going into Europe in the future to be treated.

The report discusses short-term travel to the UK with reference to agriculture, for instance, but what is missing is any picture of how UK citizens move round Europe, particularly for periods of less than a year, and, more generally, attitudes towards free movement as an aspect of EU citizenship—issues which I believe are central to the Brexit debate.

In both those respects it is worth quoting the observation on page 18 of the report made by Jonathan Portes, professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London. He is concerned about the problem of the definition of an immigrant as someone who arrived in the UK intending to stay for more than one year. He said:

“That was probably quite meaningful … in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when people who planned to come and live here came from the Caribbean or India with a work visa … If you are coming from Poland, Latvia or France, there is no legal, moral or practical obligation on you. When you come here and flash your passport with no visa in it, you may very well not know whether you intend to stay for a month, six months, or the rest of your life. Even if you did have some vague intention, it could well change and you are perfectly entitled to do that”.


There are two things here. One is the ad hoc, spontaneous manner in which free movement can now occur—part of it being “free”—and the other is that of entitlement. A problem is the scarcity of data on how British people utilise free movement, apart from the 1.2 million UK nationals who we know are settled in Europe.

One industry that might best reflect how young people in particular utilise free movement is the arts and creative industries. For instance, 48% of those in the creative media industries are under the age of 35, which is 13% more than the average for the national workforce. Results of a study released last week at the launch of the campaign #FreeMoveCreate—a joint venture between the Incorporated Society of Musicians and the Artists Information Company, representing over 30,000 musicians and artists—gives a detailed view of how important free movement is to our creative industries. These are now worth £87 billion to the UK economy, more than either the car manufacturing or aerospace industries.

The creative industries have a strong service industries aspect to them; it is rarely as simple as just the movement of goods. What emerges is a sophisticated picture of movement, with frequent travel and stays varying from long to short. In the past 12 months, 40% of visual artists travelled regularly to the EU for work or professional development, and 53% who had travelled to the EU had an average stay of between four and seven days. Seventy per cent of musicians travel overseas for work. The average stay is eight days, but can range up to 60, and musicians are 25% more likely to travel to the EU than the rest of the world. Some musicians travel to the EU more than 40 times a year. Deborah Annetts, chief executive of ISM, says that,

“60% of musicians placed maintaining freedom of movement as their number one priority … Our research shows that visas are not the solution and can cause even more problems”.

That conclusion is in line with the concerns expressed to the sub-committee on EU nationals seeking short-term work in the UK.

Work permits and required job offers are entirely unrealistic. The informality and spontaneity of decision-making in the creative industries cannot be overemphasised. Many artists visit other countries in Europe on a look-see basis, with opportunities for work decided at a moment’s notice. A good example of this is the fashion industry, where it might be decided in London in the morning that a fashion shoot will happen in the afternoon in Paris, Rome or wherever, with participants arriving from different countries.

The mantra that we hear from the Government when problems are raised about EU nationals coming to the UK—and of course any final deal would need to be reciprocal—is that “we will attract the brightest and the best”, as was referred to earlier by my noble friend Lady Prashar. This outlook seems to bear no relationship whatever to the nature of the reality of an industry where short-term and long-term opportunities often segue one into the other. This is true for movement in both directions. The individual citizenship right of free movement is pivotal to the operation of the creative industries, let alone their success.

The other concern that Portes’s observation raises is the issue of entitlement. For young people in particular there is the question of the extent to which free movement in this way is understood, not just for the purposes of travel to work and study in another country but as a democratic right in itself, as enshrined in the 2004 citizens directive. There is a strong argument—supported by Floris de Witte, assistant professor at the London School of Economics—that free movement is the core value of EU citizenship. I submit that for most Europeans it is inconceivable that the ability to move at will between countries in Europe and in an expanding EEA, notwithstanding the referendum, could be a right that is lost. It is part of the democratic foundation upon which modern Europe is being built. In the UK, we know from YouGov that 71% of 18 to 24 year-olds voted remain in the referendum. A poll last month for the Observer held that 85% of 18 to 24 year-olds wished to retain EU citizenship. It is free movement that the young in the UK do not want to lose.

The Government need to recognise urgently that a distinction must be made between the individual’s right to free movement, and an overarching immigration policy that might be introduced for example to protect industry in the UK in regions where it is felt necessary to do so, while we retain access to the single market. The right of UK citizens to move freely within Europe should not become collateral damage.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this debate with his usual comprehensive analysis of the problem, which, as we have heard, is significant. I am also grateful for the briefings from the Manifesto Club on public space protection orders. The noble Lord rightly focused his attention on PSPOs. The heart of this issue is bound up with our understanding of what public space is and what we want to get out of it.

Not entirely coincidentally, the debate happening simultaneously in the Chamber—an equally important debate led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—is also about public space, a different kind of space: the public sphere. The reason we are now having these concerns about the future of public space in the broader sense is that both the imaginary space, as it has been described, of the public sphere and the geographical space under discussion here are under considerable threat to both their amount or degree—a concern I will come back to—and their quality or operation.

I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about PSPOs, the examples given and about changes to statutory guidance. PSPOs are horrendous. In the manner in which they are being applied, they seem to vary from the ludicrous to the sinister to the blatantly inhumane. As the noble Lord said, the ludicrous include bans on people lying down in parks or carrying golf clubs. The sinister include bans which limit freedom of expression and the right to protest and bans on the gathering of groups of two or more people, such as in Hillingdon and Guildford, and on live music, the handing out of free literature and blanket bans on amplification.

There is a randomness about these orders that has nothing to do with what I would regard as real or respectable law, but there is also a targeting involved which reveals blatant unfairness in them. In a BBC interview in Hillingdon in March this year with a group of teenagers about the ban on groups of two or more—I am not sure the interview itself was strictly legal—one of them said very reasonably, “You know that if there is a group of elderly people standing there”—meaning within the bounds of a particular shopping centre—“they will not get fined”. This, then, will be law used as it suits the local council.

As an example, I refer to a particular PSPO that, in the words of Liberty on 31 August,

“has taken full advantage of this vague power by seemingly banning everything”.

This is Teignbridge District Council’s PSPO for Dawlish of 14 June. It is a detailed six-page document making it illegal to,

“act in a manner as to cause annoyance … to any person”.

It also states that,

“the purpose of the PSPO is to deal with a particular nuisance … in a particular area”.

I emphasise “nuisance” and “annoyance”. The Minister may recall that on 8 January 2014 in this House, at the Report stage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, tabled an amendment that, after a two-hour debate, specifically removed “annoyance” and “nuisance” for injunctions. I believe that the amendment did not cover PSPOs but I am raising the matter of whether it should have. Causing harassment, alarm or distress is quite a long way from nuisance and annoyance but it is at this much less significant level of perceived harm that PSPOs are being applied.

It seems that you can be criminalised effectively for anything that the local council decides on. This surely makes a mockery not just of the concept of public space as a space of co-operation—a publicly owned and shared space whose uses should be negotiated and tolerated by all the public who use that space—but a mockery of the law itself.

At the inhumane end of the scale the criminalisation of rough sleepers in Wrexham and beggars in Southampton and other places is particularly scandalous and entirely unacceptable, since this is the targeting of the vulnerable who need to be helped, not criminalised. The idea of slapping a £100 fine on a rough sleeper or beggar is both absurd and inhumane.

For a number of reasons there is a particular desire at the moment in councils to effect a kind of cleaning up of our towns and cities. Teignmouth, for example, cites holidaymakers and Oxford’s implicit concern is for tourists. None of us likes to see rough sleepers on the street because it makes us uncomfortable. But I would prefer that they are there, in recognition perhaps of a problem so far unsolved, rather than being swept under the carpet, pushed off into another borough, or, worse still, criminalised.

In an article in the Guardian in May of last year, Matt Downie of Crisis said:

“Rough sleepers deserve better than to be treated as a nuisance”.

There is that term, “nuisance”, again. He continued:

“They may have suffered a relationship breakdown, a bereavement or domestic abuse. Instead, people need long-term, dedicated support to move away from the streets for good”.

Hackney Council’s announcement last year of its order applying to rough sleepers and street drinkers stated that,

“enforcement is always the last option”.

The “last option”: when should the criminalisation of rough sleepers ever be an option? On this occasion, after a sustained, celebrity-backed campaign, the council saw reason, although unfortunately this has not been the case with all other councils who have introduced PSPOs.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, The Social Value of Public Spaces from 2007, made the valid point that not everybody is equal in public spaces. It cites the example of local parks being used by young people for hanging out or by groups of street drinkers. In the absence of other facilities or spaces, it says that,

“this might be regarded as legitimate, as long as no harm is caused to others”.

The fact is that to a certain extent public space is messy because people are messy.

I want to make a point here, too, about street drinking, which I think shows not just how culturally relative this can be but also what a public space might include. In Berlin, for example, drinking on the streets and on trains, particularly late at night at the weekend— that is, quaffing from beer and wine bottles—is socially absolutely acceptable and wholly unaccompanied by violence. It is something that you see all classes of people doing and it is an accepted aspect of their city space.

Ultimately, my preference for PSPOs—indeed for the Anti-social Behaviour Act itself—is that the legislation should be repealed, though I appreciate that this might be asking too much of the present Government. I say this because prosecutions involving harm of one person against another should be based on the law of the land, whatever the environment it takes place in, not on the use to which public space is put, since such legislation in practice has been geared in favour of particular users over others and drives a wedge between perceived victims and perceived aggressors. Such legislation, as we are seeing, does not in effect respect the potential for public space to develop organically but limits it.

Finally, there is real concern that PSPOs are being used to clean up an area prior to its being sold off. That privatisation of our public space, particularly in city centres, has already been a significant long-term trend is undeniable, as Anna Minton forcefully describes in her book Ground Control: Fear and Happiness in the Twenty-First-Century City. This issue has not yet properly surfaced as a major public concern, in part because many spaces which are privately owned have the surface appearance of being public—for example, the frankly sterile, privately owned public spaces, or POPs, where PSPOs do not apply, such as the More London estate which surrounds City Hall, where neither protesting nor filming is allowed, full stop. With continuing austerity and the starving of funds for councils this process may well be accelerating. This is the worst-case scenario: that the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act becomes irrelevant, for all the wrong reasons.

We badly need an audit of public spaces in this country. True public space in its different forms is an important if underestimated democratic right, and this is now such a critical concern that there is a case to be made for a Minister of public space, although that is a debate for another day.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all three distinguished noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am very glad to be back with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because on a number of occasions we have discussed busking and how much we enjoy hearing buskers, particularly the ones in and around Westminster and further around London. Busking is very positive for community life and that is why this is an important debate. Anti-social behaviour as we know it can blight the lives of communities, but there is widespread interest, not least from this House, in the powers available to the police and local councils to respond to such things being used properly. This debate is timely.

The Government’s starting point is that there is a clear recognition of the serious impact that anti-social behaviour can have on ordinary people’s lives. That is why the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gave the police, local councils and other agencies the powers that they need to take swift and effective action to protect the communities they serve.

The Government are also clear that anti-social behaviour powers are there to protect the activities of the law-abiding majority, to enable people to enjoy their public spaces and feel safe in their homes. They are not there to be used to restrict reasonable behaviour and activities not causing anti-social behaviour, as all noble Lords pointed out. That is why the Act contains legal safeguards before the powers can be used. However, we have said that we will look again at the statutory guidance on the use of the powers that the Home Office published to help emphasise these points.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that despite ministerial assurances, PSPOs are being used in an inappropriate and disproportionate way. As I said, there are clear legal tests for the use of the power. The statutory guidance references the need for councils to consult whenever community representatives and regular users of the public space think it appropriate and specifically references buskers and street entertainers. Following the noble Lord’s Oral Question this February, the former Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime gave a commitment to revisit the statutory guidance. We are reviewing it to see how we can strengthen it to ensure proportionality in the use of the powers and accountability, which is very important. The work is under way, so the pens are on the paper, and officials are consulting front-line practitioners.

We will write to the noble Lord and other interested noble Lords on the proposed revisions once the work has progressed further. We will complete the work as soon as we can. We are also working with front-line practitioners to develop a case-study document to highlight effective practice and appropriate use of the powers. I say again that it is a useful power but should be used proportionately to deal with a particular anti-social behaviour problem in a particular area by imposing reasonable restrictions. That is critical here.

The noble Lord also talked about the wider problem—not just buskers and street entertainers are affected. He referenced the Manifesto Club’s report on PSPOs, as I think did the noble Earl. Officials have met the Manifesto Club to discuss its findings and see what its primary concerns are about PSPOs. It is important that PSPOs and the other anti-social behaviour powers are used to deal with anti-social behaviour problems, rather than introduce blanket bans, to which the noble Lord referred.

Noble Lords also referred to the democratic aspect of this, with examples of single officials making decisions. We are examining that in the review of the statutory guidance. We have also discussed such concerns with the Local Government Association. The noble Lord talked about PSPOs targeting activities that are not actually harmful in themselves. The Government’s position is absolutely clear: anti-social behaviour powers are there to protect law-abiding people and enable people to enjoy public spaces and feel safe in their homes. They are not there to restrict reasonable behaviour, as I said, or activities that are not actually causing anti-social behaviour. There are legal safeguards in place and we will look again at the statutory guidance. PSPOs are useful powers for councils but need to be used proportionately. It is critical that councils are able to respond to problems such as street drinking and aggressive begging, because these kinds of behaviours have detrimental effects on a community’s way of life.

The noble Lord also talked about the consultation process. It is clear that a council may make a PSPO only after it has consulted the police, but it must also consult any other interested community representatives it considers appropriate. It is for councils to determine how best to consult, but there will be learning from across various councils; that will come out in the review process. We want to capture that learning as we undertake the review. The noble Lord asked specifically what has been proposed to change the guidance. We are developing a case-study document, as I said. We will write to the noble Lord on the proposed changes when we review the statutory guidance.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about homelessness. He brought up a very good point. The Government are committed to tackling and reducing homelessness. We do not want homeless people to be used as a target. Anti-social behaviour orders are not to be used to tackle the most vulnerable people in our society. They are there purely to deal with anti-social behaviour.

There have been some specific—and, I might say, slightly comical, although I do not mean that flippantly—examples of how councils have used their anti-social behaviour powers to deal with certain things. Some are almost unbelievable, but I do not disbelieve the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I quickly checked on Lewisham and it is not on the red alert list. However, I do not want to draw on the specific examples. How the orders are framed is one issue. Their purpose must not be to restrict reasonable behaviour. The PSPO is there to tackle behaviour that is having a detrimental effect on people’s lives and is persistent and unreasonable. That is quite clear. Those are the tests set out in legislation and they must be met before an order can be made. There are also issues about how they are enforced—again, it must be in a proportionate and reasonable way. I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out some potential solutions, and we will look very carefully at the points that he made.

It is important that we do not go too far in restricting the freedom of local partners to take effective enforcement action, but I do not think that that is what he is suggesting. We know that there are examples of good practice in councils and I want to place on record my praise for them. In refreshing the guidance, I hope that if we have another debate on this this time next year, we will see that it has been greatly strengthened and probably helped by the questions put by noble Lords, in particular those of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

Does the noble Baroness have anything to say about the terms “nuisance” and “annoyance”? As I said in my speech, the way that PSPOs are being applied shows that they are being used very much as a lever.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Earl made a good point; I hope that I covered it when addressing the speeches of other noble Lords. There has to be proportionality in this. “Nuisance and annoyance” could be someone walking their dog, but clearly that would not be proportionate. I think that that is what the refreshed guidance will cover, and I will be pleased to hear from the noble Earl if he thinks that we have not struck the balance right. Indeed, one person’s nuisance is something that another person does not even notice. I thank him for his comments.

Immigration Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment to remove Clause 15 from the Bill. A system of internal review is not a substitute for the right of appeal. The right to appeal confers a right to a decision by an independent adjudicator, but it is more than that. There is a public hearing with witnesses and with submissions on both sides. There is a public reasoned decision as a result of the process. I fear that, without independent appeals, the already poor standards of administration in relation to immigration decisions—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has referred to the lamentable figures—will get even worse.

I do not think that another layer of internal decision-making through an administrative review can possibly be as effective a mechanism for improving standards and ensuring correct decisions as an independent and public appeal process. I welcome, of course, the Government’s decision to invite the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to review the new administrative review process. This will introduce some independent scrutiny of the process, but the chief inspector is not going to assess the substantive merits of individual cases in the way that the tribunal does.

The Government have emphasised that an individual dissatisfied with the internal review process—and there will be many of them—will have legal redress by way of judicial review. But of course a judicial review, unlike an appeal, is not an assessment of the merits of the case; it is a limited assessment of fair process and of legal errors. In any event, I simply cannot understand any more than the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, why the Government are seeking to push these cases—and there will be many of them—into judicial review when, at the same time, the Lord Chancellor is bringing forward legislative proposals to reduce the number of judicial reviews. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, explained in speaking to the previous amendment, the whole thrust of reform in recent years has, rightly, been to remove immigration cases from judicial review and to have them decided before tribunals.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—like other noble Lords, I am very grateful to him for having meetings and correspondence on these issues—has previously emphasised that administrative review is cheap and quick. He is right, but there is nothing to stop the Home Office introducing a quick, cheap and effective process of administrative review. If it were to do so, no doubt it would find that a very large proportion of appeals would become unnecessary. My objection to the clause is the removal of the right to an independent appeal in cases which are not adequately addressed by a process of administrative review. That is why I oppose Clause 15.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having spoken before on this Bill. I will be brief. I have put my name to this amendment and want to talk about fairness.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned, we had an excellent debate on immigration last week in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel. Much of that debate was full of individual cases. Someone afterwards said that it was a sad debate because of the frustration felt on all sides of the House for those they knew or knew of who suffered difficulties or injustices as a result of the immigration system or regulations as they currently stand, or as likely from mistakes being made. The large proportion of appeals that succeed is testament to that.

Those who work in the area of our domestic legal process, which has developed over centuries, understand well that the system is not perfect, that it can be improved, that mistakes are made and, more than that, that significant safeguards need to be built in that are, crucially, an open aspect of the system. As a society, we are by and large grown-up and realistic enough to accept that. Surely those principles that currently exist in relation to immigration appeals and have now stood for more than four decades should in the same way be, at the very least, preserved and protected. The Government may baulk at the openness of the tribunal system when so many mistakes are clearly revealed to the public, but if the process is taken back in-house—as it were—as an administrative review, we will lose that openness, independence and accountability that we currently have, as my noble friend Lord Pannick said.

The Government wish to replace the current system with one that will be more complicated and inefficient. In addition to limiting the process, it will fragment it and be desperately unfair for the person concerned because that person would quite rightly—this should be a democratic right—want to hear the entirety of their case presented at a tribunal. I can understand the desire of the Government here. They are under considerable pressure to get immigration right, get a grip on it and put an authoritative stamp on it. However, if that is a spurious authority, which, through lack of independence, institutionalises mistakes—that is what will happen—it will be worthless. Whatever good intentions the Government may have, Clause 15 remains on Report a threat to our fundamental notions of fairness in this country. There is a world of difference between aiming for a perfect system, which is laudable, and attempting to construct in the here and now a system that assumes perfection. If we so significantly limit the right of appeal to tribunals, we will surely set off down the latter, dangerous and misguided, road.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I was not sure whether to speak yet; I was looking for a Bishop. Amendment 14 in this group is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Avebury. I have been torn over this issue. Of course, the lawyer in me wants to see access to the courts or tribunals but the pragmatist in me says, “Get it right first time”, especially when it is something where arguably the person involved does not start with having rights. I distinguish between human rights interests, family interests and, at the other end of the spectrum, perhaps permission to come and work in a different country. At issue here is a very wide range of types of decision. Also, of course, the pragmatist says, “Find ways to improve the process to get it right”.

I have to assume that the Secretary of State is satisfied on the basis of the current out-of-country process that what is proposed will be “efficient”, “effective” and “fair”—in the words of one of the amendments. I hope that effectiveness always means fairness. I do not know that one can become satisfied that the process is efficient, effective and fair on the issue raised by the possibility of shadow working and the two systems working in parallel. I know that there are different views about that. Frankly, I doubt that it is practicable. At the previous stage, I raised the issue of reviews of procedures and—particularly important to me —independent oversight and reports to Parliament. I welcome government Amendment 12. Could my noble friend confirm, because it does not quite say this, that what is intended is a report on the first year? It says that, “Before the end of” a year the Secretary of State will commission a review.

My Amendment 14 would introduce a two-stage process, the second of which would be the chief inspector reviewing the first year of operation, and the first of which would be an opportunity for Parliament to consider the procedures after the Government have consulted on them. I am grateful to my noble friend for a letter that I received following Committee and which was copied to other noble Lords. I hope that this will be a useful opportunity for him to explain from the Dispatch Box the Government’s proposals for consultation on the proposed rules—a targeted consultation, as I understand it. There might be, if you like, a pre-consultation of noble Lords as to who might be involved in that process. I am sure we would all have ideas as to who could usefully contribute.

Since Committee, I have seen the information given to those who seek an administrative review out of country under the current procedure. I had been concerned about how representations could be made to the reviewer and what representations could be made. I can infer that from the current information but I am sure that there is scope for spelling it out more clearly. That is a matter for the practitioners, really. I was also relieved to see information on something that had popped into my head and bothered me a lot: whether there would be a charge for an administrative review. I see that that is not the case. That reminded me that this is another reason for the Home Office getting it right first time, as it will not be able to get any income from that administrative review. As it were, it funds it—rightly—from its internal resources.

Public Order: Busking and Live Music

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can certainly give my noble friend the assurance that the guidance will achieve what he and the Government wish to see from it. I do not think that there is a difference across government on this issue. We believe that the tests and safeguards set out in the new anti-social behaviour powers will ensure that they will be used only where reasonable. Where behaviour is having a positive effect on a community, and I see busking as having that effect, it would not meet the tests for the new powers. Instead, the powers are directed against the anti-social minority who give street performers a bad name; I might illustrate them as being aggressive beggars and drunken louts.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, does not the Minister think that Part V of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, which specifically targets busking as being effectively a potential criminal activity and which has allowed Camden Council to impose its draconian policy, should be repealed?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not intend to comment on the Camden case because it is subject to judicial review, as the noble Earl will understand. However, perhaps I can convey to the House the sentiments of the Mayor of London, who clearly believes that busking is an important part of street life in London. He is keen to encourage street entertainment and live music, not least because of the positive aspect it brings to the life of the city. As I have made clear, the Government believe that live music and street entertainment can play an important part in community life. The Government support the mayor’s position.

Visas: Artists and Entertainers

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to improve the official information available, including on the United Kingdom Border Agency website, for long- and short-term visitors to the United Kingdom, and in particular artists and entertainers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, on 21 November Visa4UK, the UK’s online visa application system for overseas customers, was upgraded to make applications easier to complete. The content of the former UKBA’s website will be transferred to gov.uk by the end of March 2014. Those measures will make immediate improvements to the online customer experience for all users, including the artists and entertainers mentioned by the noble Earl in his Question.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply but does he realise that the official artists and entertainers information is out of date and does not include the permitted paid engagements scheme the Government introduced to improve the system? Can something be done more quickly to ensure that those planning to visit this country have access to the most up-to-date information at all times? They cannot wait on UKBA reorganisation.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this is well recognised by us and we regret that the publication of the revised leaflet, of which the noble Earl will be well aware, has been delayed. We plan to publish the revised leaflet in the next few weeks on the existing website. It will move in due course to gov.uk as part of the wider web content migration. We are grateful for the contribution made by the noble Earl and representatives of the arts sector in developing the leaflet and for their helpful feedback on immigration systems for artists and entertainers.

Queen’s Speech

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, I want to talk about the arts and the cultural sector, but to get to that point I feel that I have to talk about something else first, something that is in the way and which I have to get past: the economic policy of this Government, which in the last two years has cast a shadow over almost every topic that gets debated in Parliament.

Like a growing number of people, I do not believe in the austerity measures. Why do I say this? I am not an economist. I studied economics for one year at undergraduate level and I probably learnt three things: first, that there are many different economic policies; secondly, that there is much argument about which policies actually succeed—if any; and, thirdly and most importantly, that no economic policy can be separated from political intent. Austerity is no exception. It is not a politically neutral measure, although this Government have done a pretty good job so far of convincing the public that austerity is the only way and has nothing to do with ideology.

I do not agree with the political intent behind austerity measures. Many economists also do not believe that austerity works, and indeed see this measure as perverse, eccentric and historically discredited. The views of these economists, including Nobel prize winners such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, have not until now been championed enough—although I think that the tide is turning—because the parties in power in Europe have not been sympathetic; nor have they yet been championed enough by the Opposition in our Parliament, who have yet to state that they would reverse the cuts.

The arts, the cultural sector and the creative industries are precisely the areas in which this country should be investing for growth, and we should be reversing the cuts to do so—cuts, I should say, to an investment that has always been small by Treasury standards. To their credit, the previous Administration appreciated that such investment effects cultural growth, social regeneration, improvement of the environment and economic growth, and gave the arts a prominent place in their 2010 manifesto.

The Arts Council has this month released a guidance document for arts organisations to carry out their own economic impact assessments, which, through the case studies featured, prove the point of such organisations’ worth—yet again. I do not believe that organisations should be doing this, as too many are struggling enough with their finances anyway. But the two-year-old case studies of Anvil Arts in Basingstoke and of the AV Festival in the north-east gave results that stunned even local people. For example, in 2010 it was assessed that Anvil Arts contributed £6.2 million per year to Basingstoke’s economy, more than a fivefold return on the borough council’s investment.

The arts community has always known of the strong multiplier effect of the cultural sector, which politicians with any nous would pick up on. Yet, strangely for a Government who profess a desire for economic recovery, the arts have suffered an enormous demotion politically in the past two years. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, pointed out, there is no mention of the arts or the creative industries—or innovation for that matter—in the Queen’s Speech. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, that there is no sense of strategy for the arts and culture. It is almost as though, in the past two years, the arts have become invisible as far as the Government are concerned. The cultural sector almost failed to appear in the national planning policy framework. Only a strong campaign prevented that. It was for the sector a big fall from grace from being, under the previous Administration, one of the four pillars of sustainable development.

Worst of all, one only needs to go on to the Lost Arts website to see the roll call of those arts organisations that have been drastically cut, are on the brink of folding or have now gone under, all as a result of cuts to state funding. Those organisations include Durham City Arts, now closed; the Theatre Writing Partnership, based in Nottingham and formed more than 10 years ago, which will close next month; Croydon’s Warehouse Theatre, which may well close; and Museums Sheffield, which has had to make a scandalously large number of redundancies—45 altogether. The list goes on and on.

This is a Government who neither properly appreciate the significance of long-term support for the arts nor understand the state’s crucial role at the grass-roots level or the preservation of our cultural history. If this Government were taking a long-term view, they would not have introduced the levy of VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings, nor would they have effectively capped charitable giving, which will have a hugely detrimental effect on the larger, more established organisations. I hope that both these measures will be reversed and that the Minister will respond on them.

The Government have, quite correctly, launched a very smart advertising campaign abroad leading up to the Olympics and Paralympics—the GREAT campaign —but it is an irony that, at the same time, they have so drastically reduced funding to the culture that the campaign is promoting.

This is a Government who react most when the short-term commercial possibilities of the creative industries are right in front of their nose. Tax breaks to investors in the form of the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme are clearly welcome, although Steve Karmeinsky of City Meets Tech points out that there need to be tax breaks also for the start-up companies in which investors have an interest.

Robert Redford was quite right to slap David Cameron down for calling for the funding only of “commercial” cinema. Sundance, which, as we know, has been launched as a festival in the UK, was set up on the opposite premise: from the point of view of the film-makers. To make a general point, artists do the work that they do and then an attempt should be made to find audiences. This is a necessary risk at the level of the individual artist and the individual company. Yet paradoxically perhaps, at the larger scale—to take the sector as a whole—it is, as I have described, no risk at all to invest; it is absolutely the opposite. If we continue to cut the grass roots, to threaten arts education and to continue with local authority cuts to the arts, music and libraries, the mainstream also will be become fundamentally damaged—the commercial cinema and the commercial theatre, which are fed by the grass roots. This Government should give long-term support to the arts and cultural sector to promote cultural growth and help to kick-start this country’s economy. That is a plan for growth.