Visas: Artists and Entertainers

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the case of the singer and composer Pamela Z, who came from San Francisco on a PPE visa on the invitation of Sussex University and City University, London? She was held by UKBA at Gatwick for more than three hours and eventually allowed to enter only on the extraordinary condition that she could teach at Sussex but not perform at City University. Can my noble friend clarify whether non-EU performing artists invited on these visas by higher education institutes can both teach and perform? Indeed, perhaps he can tell us how to distinguish between the two on every occasion.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend makes a very good point. In fact, I have had some briefing on this incident and I am grateful that it has been drawn to our attention. We suspect that a deficiency in the guidance of the operation of the rules rather than the rules themselves led to this incident. I do not want to go into a lot of detail about a particular circumstance but my noble friend’s comments have not gone unnoticed.

Global Migration and Mobility (EUC Report)

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a member of the council of University College London and, yes, I will join the queue. My main purpose today is to speak briefly on and commend the recommendations of the committee on international students, in particular the recommendation that international students should be removed from the public policy implications of the Government’s policy, as so widely known, of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015. We now know well that higher education students really are temporary migrants. Home Office evidence shows that of those students who entered in 2006, only 1% had settled permanently by 2011. It would give us all a great deal more confidence if the e-borders system was fully up and running and if the exit checks promised by 2015 were already in place. I hope that the Minister can confirm that we are at least on target for those exit checks to be in place by 2015.

Many noble Lords have, over the past few years, asked a great many Questions relevant to international students with the aim of removing students from the Government’s net migration target. We have had debates in both Houses. In a superb speech, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, mentioned the debate that took place in another place today. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to five Select Committee reports, including a report of the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2011. We have had letters from chancellors of universities to the Prime Minister last May. We had an open letter last July from senior business people as part of a major campaign by London First. However, disappointingly, we have seen little progress or change in the Government’s thinking on the issue.

I sincerely hope, although I am not optimistic in the light of the Government’s response, that the Home Secretary will finally sit up and take notice this time. As the committee states, if the Government genuinely support an increase in bona fide students from outside the EU, they should make that clearer and ensure that all policy instruments support that objective. The committee rightly states that the current policy creates the perception that overseas students are not welcome in the UK. From a recent education agent survey, we appear to be becoming a less attractive destination in which to study. From a briefing which several of us have received from Universities UK, there are worrying signs that some of the numbers from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, particularly for postgraduate courses, seem to show a decline in non-EU students.

As many noble Lords have mentioned, we have already seen a dramatic fall in the number of Indian students coming to study in Britain—24%. That may well spread to China, with which I am extremely familiar. The Government seem to believe that they will provide an inexhaustible supply of higher educational students, but, as my noble friends Lord Sharkey and Lady Brinton said, the recent survey demonstrates that there is a growing lack of confidence there as well.

I hope that the Government are not tempted to put all their eggs in a Chinese basket. At the least, it looks as though we are suffering a fall in market share. The committee rightly believes that such a policy harms both the quality of the UK’s higher education sector and its ability to compete in an increasingly competitive global market for international students.

Noble Lords have mentioned the competitors in this field. Canada and Australia, in particular, are making concerted efforts to increase their share of the international market and, as we know, Australia has lifted certain visa restrictions and introduced a much more generous post-study work option. All in all, the 300,000 overseas students represent more than 11% of our higher education numbers. There have been various estimates of their contribution to the UK economy, but none of them seems to go below £8.5 billion. The inclusion of these students as temporary migrants in the target is not only a risk to much-needed income from tuition fees for our universities but is threatening our eighth largest export market. The Government’s response is that they insist that they welcome international students; nevertheless, they state that they will continue to include them in their figures on the grounds that they “have historically included students”. That seems a somewhat circular argument.

The sub-committee also says, rightly, that current policies risk damaging the UK’s international reputation and influence in the longer term. Educational links are a vital part of so-called soft power, as a number of noble Lords have said. The UK is currently the second most popular destination globally for students. I strongly believe that the sub-committee is entirely right in supporting the exclusion of international students from the public policy implications of the Government’s policy of reducing net migration. They should be removed from the migration reduction target. I believe that the growth in overseas student numbers has already been much less than it would have been, were it not for the withdrawal of post-study work route visas.

The Government could still learn from their European counterparts on their approach to post-study working routes in order to retain the skills and knowledge that international graduates have gained in the UK. Holland, for example, operates two processes specifically designed to retain educated foreign graduates: a residence permit for the purpose of seeking employment after graduation, and a residence permit for recently graduated highly skilled migrants. The Government, and indeed the Minister, may think that we are all a bunch of Cassandras but may I remind my noble friend that her predictions came true?

Moving briefly on to tourism, improving the tourist visa application process is absolutely vital. My noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned our position having moved from seventh to fifth in terms of our overall competitiveness, but set against that we have to look, as she said, at the fact that we have slipped from 22nd to 46th in the competitiveness of our visa requirements. A recent report by the UK Chinese Visa Alliance revealed that the vast majority of Chinese visitors to Europe are discouraged by needing to apply for two visas—one for the UK and one for the 26 Schengen countries—and that only one Chinese visitor in 10 applies for both visas.

This is estimated to cost the UK £1.2 billion in lost revenue. I think that figure is an underestimate but it is set to rise to £3.1 biIlion by 2020, when China is forecast to be the world’s largest outbound tourism market. While the Government have tentatively begun to look at measures to streamline the UK application process in isolation, the biggest improvement would be felt by working more closely with our European counterparts to encourage more Chinese visitors to include the UK on their European tour. In this context, I very strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Teverson on the absolute imperative to work closely on the administration of the visa process together with the Schengen countries. That would make a huge difference.

The Government must be clear that the UK still wants to attract genuine students, high-spending tourists and skilled workers. A refrain from many wishing to visit the UK is that they no longer feel welcome. The Government must change course if they are to avoid deterring many of those whom we should be welcoming.

Tourism: Visa Restrictions

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have assessed the economic impact on the United Kingdom tourism industry of new visa restrictions for visitors from Brazil.

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

My Lords, Brazil is an important partner for the UK and we are investing greatly in our diplomatic and economic ties. We have no plans to impose a visitor visa regime in Brazil. In the non-visitor categories, visa applications from Brazil in 2012 were up by 8% when compared with 2011, while in the same year almost 90% of those applications were successful and visas were issued.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, that is instant clarification and I thank the Minister for that. However, does not this kind of media misunderstanding and reporting demonstrate the fact that the tourism sector, despite its importance and huge potential for job creation, still believes that it is the Cinderella of British business sectors? Does this not argue for a much more joined-up, strategic approach between the Home Office and other government departments in partnership with the industry to ensure that Britain’s visa policy is not a disincentive to visitors and actually builds on the Olympic legacy?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government do have a joined-up approach to visa policy and, indeed, to the tourism industry. Seeing visitors enjoying aspects of our life here and understanding more about this country is a key part of our strategy, and we want to encourage it. There is no difference of approach between government departments, and the Home Office is working hard to make sure that we have an efficient visa service.

Alcohol Strategy: Role of Drinks Industry

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, both on securing this short debate and on her outstanding work in this area. I believe that this is the first debate that we have had on this subject since the Government published their alcohol strategy in March.

I declare a very historic interest as a former employee of Grand Metropolitan plc, as it then was, in the 1980s, but, as a result, I am a firm believer in government and local government working with the industry—both the on and off-trade and the manufacturers—in implementing an alcohol strategy.

It partly depends on having clear common understanding of the facts, but these are sometimes not straightforward—the noble Baroness set out the facts very clearly. It seems that the prevalence of binge-drinking has fallen over time, but there are many conflicting statistics and it is not always easy to draw conclusions. Nevertheless, the key factor for me is that, as Drinkaware says, binge-drinking remains a social norm. We are fighting a huge cultural battle. Many would say that binge-drinking—the inability to take in alcohol in a civilised way—has sadly been an English cultural characteristic for hundreds of years. Depressingly, it may be spreading more widely abroad.

This is a culture we have to change. Some say that social responsibility initiatives and education are not enough. They are probably right on this, but they often go further and say that it is wrong that industry should be involved in public health initiatives. This is too purist a line. I believe strongly in the value of the Responsibility Deal launched in March 2011, as agreed between the Department of Health and the industry, in a number of areas which, again, the noble Baroness set out. They include: alcohol labelling; awareness of alcohol units in the on and off-trade; tackling underage alcohol sales; support for Drinkaware; advertising and marketing of alcohol; and community action to tackle alcohol harm.

Under this umbrella and otherwise, there are a great many community schemes where the industry is working with local government to minimise alcohol abuse and the problems flowing from it. They include Best Bar None, Purple Flag; community alcohol partnerships, of which there are now some 36; Pubwatch; and Challenge 25, designed to tackle underage drinking —to name but a few.

There is clearly no single magic bullet, as all policy makers recognise, but we need to keep trying different approaches. I broadly support the Government's alcohol strategy, published in March this year. The Minister may be aware that I was sceptical about Government’s so-called rebalancing approach to the licensing regime in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, in particular as regards the evidential test being changed both for the new EMROs and for licence conditions and the removal of the vicinity test, not to mention the blanket nature of the late-night levy. Time will tell, but there are many other areas of government strategy to support.

In particular, there is the question of minimum alcohol pricing. A Home Office paper was published in March 2011 which, albeit tentatively, suggests that there is enough evidence to say that the minimum pricing of units of alcohol would have an impact on behaviour. Of course, that is not popular with the industry, but, along with many who run pubs and clubs, I believe that one of the key components of binge drinking is preloading—drinking cheap alcohol purchased from supermarkets and off-licences before going out. The Government paper says that there is evidence of a link between alcohol pricing and violence and that pricing could have an impact on young people and binge-drinking.

What progress is being made on the consultation? What concrete proposals are being put forward? Are the pricing proposals that the cost price should be no less than the cost price of a unit, or a figure, such as 40p or 50p? Those are important issues and I hope that firm proposals are being prepared.

I am not yet convinced—I think that the Government have the same approach—that a more draconian approach to advertising is in order. We have the guidelines laid down by the ASA and the marketing code of practice of the Portman Group, designed principally to prevent alcohol advertising being directed at children. As a result of the latter, more than 80 irresponsible products have been banned in co-operation with retailers. We should have clear evidence of abuse before plunging into further regulation.

All of us would acknowledge that this is an important industry. Let us not demonise it but work with it.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am tempted today to talk about a wide range of policy areas arising: particularly, given my interest in autism, the forthcoming special educational needs, children and family Bill, which is so welcome and was heralded in the Queen’s Speech and in the update given today; or indeed the media and Lord Leveson’s inquiry; or the question of tax relief for charitable donations, on which I agree so strongly with my noble friend Lord Grade and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.

However, we are in an exceptional year for heritage with the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, for sport with the London Olympics and for culture with the London 2012 festival. Last week, I visited the Olympic park. All around it there are signs of new investment such as Westfield Stratford City shopping centre and Inter IKEA’s investment at Sugar House Lane. After the Olympics, we can expect Lend Lease and London & Continental’s international quarter, Qatari Diar’s East Village and many other exciting projects stimulated by the superb new transport links and the initial Olympic park investment benefiting a huge number of residents of east London. This will have been a huge achievement for all those involved.

That area of London of course forms part of the wider “Tech City” and focuses on the creative industries, digital technology and the cultural industries. It has attracted both large and small business and may well be living up to its description as Europe’s Silicon Valley. I particularly welcome the announcement of a new tax credit for animation, video games and TV drama in the recent Budget.

There are, however, certain misconceptions in considering the future of our creative industries that need to be addressed. First, there is the belief that copyright in this country is inhibiting innovation and that reform will somehow deliver a massive increase in our creative industries’ output, a view held by Professor Hargreaves and, it seems, the IPO. By contrast, the approach of Richard Hooper in laying the ground for the new proposed digital copyright exchange, by engaging with creators and the creative industries, seems to have been wholly constructive. In particular, his early thoughts about improving the licensing of copyright in establishing the ownership of rights and in some cases improving the availability of repertoire have been welcomed by all concerned. However, the Government should think very carefully before attempting to implement the bulk of the other Hargreaves recommendations, such as those on orphan works and extended collective licensing, without addressing issues surrounding moral rights of attribution and the embedding of metadata.

Beyond that, consumers need to have good access to digital creative content, but the Government seem to have changed their mind about a fair share-out of the under-1 gigahertz spectrum under the long delayed 4G auction. They also seem to be ignoring issues relating to interference with digital TV signals. With regard to fibre, we in the Communications Select Committee are discovering that serious thought needs to be given to how to ensure access to trunk networks and dark fibre for small local operators.

We have a massively delayed Green Paper that is due to set out the framework for a new communications Bill. With the advent of internet-enabled television and YouView, policy decisions need to be made as a matter of urgency. The key question is what regulation of internet video material streamed through television is appropriate to protect young people from harmful content as we watch a mixture of linear and on-demand viewing from many sources.

It is clear that, as a co-regulator, ATVOD has learnt from its first years of operation and is anticipating the future regulation of broadcast internet material that may be necessary. Ed Richards, the CEO of Ofcom, flagged this up as a major issue in his speech at the Oxford Media Conference earlier this year. Even though we may have different regulators for different media, we still need a new set of common principles that will apply to the regulation of internet, broadcast and theatrically exhibited material. This is exactly the kind of framework that a new communications Bill needs to address.

Then there is the implementation of the Digital Economy Act. Of course I welcomed the outcomes of the Newzbin2 and Pirate Bay cases but, now that the Act has been judged to be valid under European law, why can we expect implementation of the initial obligations code under the Act in only 2014? In addition, as PhonepayPlus, the regulator, says, there will be a growing convergence in payment mechanisms over the next decade for digital content, and we need to make sure that the regulatory framework is right and the consumer is protected.

A major concern of many in the creative industries and cultural area has been the lack of assertion of our phenomenal talent and skills in that sector abroad. I welcome the activities carried out by UKTI and in particular the appointment of the new intellectual property attachés in China, India and Brazil. Like the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I welcome the great campaign promoting the UK abroad in the creative area, but normally the British Council exists on a shoestring.

The House was very supportive of my Live Music Bill earlier this year and it passed into law in the previous Session. It is not often that, as happened on 20 January, a Bill emerges unscathed from the Commons when 63 other Private Members’ Bills failed. It will make a significant difference to our young musicians, in particular, and I look forward to the revised guidance that is due and to the Act coming into effect in October.

Migration: University-sponsored Students

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to excluding university-sponsored students from the United Kingdom’s net migration statistics.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, the UK uses the internationally agreed definition of a migrant, which is someone coming to or leaving the United Kingdom for a period exceeding 12 months. It is right that students intending to stay for that period should be counted because during their stay they are part of the resident population and contribute to pressure on public services infrastructure. It is not appropriate to discount them from net migration statistics.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, the department makes no distinction between temporary and permanent migration. Many other countries do, and still fall within the UN definitions. That means that the Home Office is targeting net migration figures that include overseas students, which is directly contrary to the policy of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Surely now that the e-Borders system will be able to track very closely non-EEA students and other citizens coming into this country, it is time to exclude those students from the net migration figures and have a unified government policy.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am afraid that in terms of migration my noble friend has got it right. I do not think he would want me to adjust the figures purely to achieve the ends that he suggests, as there might be complaints from the House that we were fiddling the figures, and I do not want to be accused of that. We stick by the long-standing international United Nations measure that students who come to the UK for more than a year are counted as migrants.

Public Disorder: Uninsured Claimants

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that police authorities speedily and fairly settle claims outstanding under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, particularly for uninsured claimants.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to dealing with all claims where property was damaged in the August disturbances. We are working closely with the affected police authorities and the insurance industry to ensure that the processes that they have in place allow claims to be made as quickly as possible.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, thousands of households and businesses are still waiting for compensation from police authorities after all this time. Some £3,500 has been paid out, of the £200 million or so worth of claims, and many valid business interruption claims are being contested. Does the Minister agree, especially in the light of the Prime Minister’s assurances on 11 August, that this is quite unacceptable? Will the Home Office issue firm guidance to police authorities to speed up the processing of claims and stop them hiding behind technicalities—for instance, that in some areas the disturbances did not constitute a riot for the purposes of the Act?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says, that things have not been as speedy as they should have been. We estimate that some 5,000 claims have been received, totalling in excess of £250 million, but we must remember that a lot of those claims will include claims for loss that are not covered by the Act. We have to ensure that we do not pay out for things that the Government are not responsible for. We will try to deal with—as the noble Lord implied in his original Question—the uninsured claimants first of all, but obviously we want to deal with the insured claimants as well. That is why I stress that we are working with both the police authorities and the insurance companies to ensure that that is the case.

Immigration: Students

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what evaluation they have made of the impact of the new student visa rules on the intake of overseas students in United Kingdom universities for the academic year 2011–12.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, the Government’s impact assessment concludes that the student visa reforms will have no impact on the number of visas issued to international students to attend UK universities either in the academic year 2011-12 or in subsequent years.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, that shows that the impact assessment must be flawed. The early indications are that they are being heavily impacted, particularly from India, where the number of students is 20 per cent to 50 per cent down, as a result probably of the withdrawal of the post-study work route visa. Will the Government reconsider their policy before treating students as economic migrants and irreparable damage is done both to the finances and the reputation of UK universities?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do not accept what my noble friend had to say, and I would refer him to the comments made by Universities UK about the reforms, saying that they will allow British universities to remain at the forefront of international student recruitment. I also refer my noble friend to the latest figures for non-EU university student applications for the 2012 academic year which are mostly for medical, dentistry, veterinary and Oxbridge courses, and those show an 8.8 per cent rise.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

304A: Clause 111, leave out Clause 111

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, what a marathon. I wish to move Amendment 304A and speak to Amendments 304B and 304C. I return without apology to the subject of “appropriate” versus “necessary”. The Bill reduces the evidence test for the attachment of licence conditions so that these are “appropriate” rather than “necessary”. These amendments would delete these provisions from the Bill and retain the “necessary” test. In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, set out extremely well the need for these amendments and the significance of the change from “necessary” to “appropriate”. I am sorry that he is unable to be with us today.

Review proceedings are quasi-judicial and designed to deal with infringements of the licensing regime, and have a wide range of penalties that are available to be deployed against the premises in question, from the imposition of new conditions restricting the operation of the premises to the suspension or even withdrawal of a licence. Licensing authorities are already able to impose conditions that they and other responsible bodies need in order to promote the licensing objectives without difficulty. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister claimed that “necessary” places a significant evidential burden on licensing authorities.

There is no evidence to suggest that local authorities find the evidential burden too restrictive and plenty of evidence from across the country to suggest that it is not a barrier to imposing tough trading conditions. For those that have experienced difficulties with a lack of representations being made by responsible authorities about problem premises, the Bill makes local authorities responsible authorities. This means that they will be able to tackle problem premises in their own right, not just rely on evidence supplied by other responsible authorities. The licensed trade asserts that the current “necessary” test has worked well and has ensured that conditions attached to licences are fair and address specific concerns, as opposed to being unfair and disproportionate. Where is the evidence to the contrary?

I understand from the Home Office that the plain English meaning of “appropriate” is “suitable”. That seems far too subjective. How about “convenient” on that basis? In these circumstances, the substitution of “necessary” for “appropriate” would allow decisions to be taken on the grounds of, for example, political expediency or subjective judgment. My noble friend the Minister may say I am wrong and that this will not be the case, but how equipped will licensing authorities be to adopt the correct interpretation of “appropriate”? It has been confirmed that the Local Government Association has concerns in this respect. The fact that “appropriate” is not clearly defined in law, unlike “necessary”, on which there is considerable case law, increases the likelihood of legal challenge and appeal.

“Necessary” is also a key component of the test of proportionality under the European Convention on Human Rights. I have given the Minister and her colleagues a copy of the analysis done by the licensed trade into the impact of the convention, and your Lordships will be glad to hear that I will not go into enormous detail at this stage. Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR provides for the “peaceful enjoyment” of possessions and states clearly that:

“No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law”.

The state can enforce such law,

“as it deems necessary to control the use of property”,

for the public interest.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill makes clear the importance of the “necessary” test to ECHR compliance in respect of licensing. It acknowledges that an alcohol licence is a possession and is protected under the convention. The imposition of a restriction on a pre-existing permission or the removal of it without clear evidence of harm or irresponsible practice will in some cases amount to interference in the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. There is no analysis in the Explanatory Notes of what the reduction in this evidence burden would mean for compliance. The existing “necessary” test clearly helps to ensure a fair balance between public and rights-holder interests. How will the “appropriate” test do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I am not in a position to try to second-guess how a court would determine that, because we are talking hypothetically and not about a specific example. I will come on to an example which might be helpful to the House. The lower evidence threshold would apply to most conditions, but to show that the imposition of conditions such as the use of plastic glassware or closure of windows after a late hour or the use of CCTV in or outside bars is “necessary” for the promotion of licensing objectives, including the prevention of nuisance or crime and disorder, is an onerous test. It would be less onerous for local authorities to show that such conditions were “appropriate” for the promotion of the licensing objectives. I hope that that is helpful to the House, because when we debated the equivalent amendment in Committee, I was unable to give an example such as that. I hope that that gives the House a feel for the thinking behind the Government’s change to the wording.

I can assure my noble friend that these decisions will still need to be evidence-based. We will include statutory guidance on the new tests, as I have suggested. I am not in a position to say that the guidance will be available at this stage of the Bill, but it will be made available. It will be consulted to ensure correct interpretation once the legislation is applied. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. I thank also my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their support. The Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, illustrated only too well how cunning government departments are in answering questions about the ECHR. The response was fascinating, being essentially that there is “necessary” and “necessary”, and that, for the purposes of the ECHR, “appropriate” equals “necessary”. That seemed to be what the Minister was saying. It is clearly highly dangerous to quote the ECHR in these circumstances, because you get an Alice in Wonderland type of response.

However, I was very grateful for the remainder of the Minister’s response. Her undertaking to consult on the statutory guidance will, I think, be welcomed by all concerned. Some of the examples that she gave might not be considered “necessary”, although, as I said in my opening contribution, if licensing authorities are able to impose 64 conditions on a takeaway, they do not lack powers. I am not going to push this. We have had a good debate over two stages of the Bill. I have tried to express the concerns of the trade on this matter. I hope that that dialogue will continue in the statutory consultation so that “appropriate” is confined —so that it is not equivalent to “suitable”, and certainly not equivalent to “convenient”. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 304A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

305ZA: Clause 121, page 82, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “shall”

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, the amendment is designed to probe whether the Government have firm plans to introduce exemptions for the EMRO regime. I have a later, similar amendment, on which I shall not speak at great length, designed to probe whether there are plans to introduce exemptions from the late night levy and, if so, what those might be. As such, it represents at least a first attempt at defining some of those exemptions.

The Minister promised in Committee that there would be wide consultation on the exemptions to be introduced. It is important for the House to know what the Government are minded to introduce. For instance, will they introduce exemptions for private members' clubs which do not sell to members of the public but are membership-based? They are not, as I explained in Committee, generally positioned on the high street or close to centres of the night-time economy. Rather than basing the regime solely on premises type, can individual well run premises be exempted? Will exemptions recognise best practice and social responsibility initiatives such as those that we debated in Committee—for example Best Bar None, business improvement districts, Purple Flag, Pubwatch and so on?

I hope that the Minister can give us more detail and say that these exemptions will also be consulted on. I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendment 305ZA would make it a requirement that regulations containing the cases or circumstances which may be exempt from an early morning alcohol restriction order include exempt cases that are defined by reference to particular kinds of premises or particular days. He was good enough to say that it was a probing amendment. I hope that I can give him the reassurance that he seeks when I say that the Government will ensure that exceptions to early morning restriction orders will define cases by reference to particular kinds of premises or particular days. Officials have already had useful discussions, including with representatives of the drinks industry and licensing authorities. As my noble friend acknowledged, we will carry out a full public consultation on the secondary legislation on EMROs later this summer. He asked specifically about private clubs. We will consider whether to include not-for-profit clubs and sports clubs as a separate class, and include that in consultation, before bringing forward the regulations. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I thank my noble friend the Minister. What he has said will be very useful standing on the record for those who want certain exemptions. He has given a useful taste of the kind of exemptions that will be consulted on and indication that the whole EMRO regime will be consulted on later this summer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 305ZA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

305B: Clause 127, page 88, line 13, after “in” insert “the whole or part of”

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I will speak also to Amendments 305C, 306ZA and 306ZB. Amendments 305B and 305C are designed to extend the ability of licensing authorities to determine the extent of the geographical spread of the late-night levy area so that it need not apply to the whole local authority area. As we discussed in Committee when, I believe, the Minister expressed some sympathy, this is one of the weaknesses of the provision for a late-night levy. It is a very blunt instrument to deal with the whole of a local authority area.

Clause 127(4) currently prohibits the licensing authority from applying the levy as it is currently stated in only parts of its area. Removing that provision and inserting the words of the amendment into subsection (2) would allow licensing authorities to designate a particular town or city centre within its control as being liable for the late-night levy rather than being totally broad brush in its approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there continues to be concern about the levy’s geographic coverage emanating from a belief that the levy should be a targeted tool. We are confident that we have provided tools such as early morning alcohol restriction orders to allow licensing authorities to target specific areas with alcohol problems. Businesses profit from supplying alcohol in a safe, late-night environment, so they should contribute to the very substantial police costs incurred. If we gave a licensing authority the power to target the levy, fewer businesses would contribute.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s Amendment 305B and my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s Amendment 305C risk the levy failing in its objective of raising a meaningful contribution towards policing. To retain the focus on policing, I must also resist my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s Amendment 306ZZA, which would reduce the proportion of the levy money after administrative expenses are deducted that goes to the police.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will also agree not to press his Amendment 306ZA, with my firm reassurance that we will make regulations on exemptions and reductions. He asked specifically about rural pubs and also jazz clubs. We are currently considering the categories ahead of the consultation. Let me also reassure my noble friend that we wish to use the levy to promote participation in best practice schemes, and we will explore that further in consultation.

As regards Amendment 306ZB, we still wish to retain elements of local discretion, so we cannot accept an amendment that constrains this element of localism. Authorities should be trusted to select the right categories for their area. Many schemes are actively encouraged by licensing authorities. They are best placed to grant exemptions or reductions to those schemes that they feel are effective. On that basis, I ask that the amendment is not pressed.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, for his support. It is interesting that even in a borough such as Westminster there are cold and hot spots. By analogy, therefore, that is true of most boroughs in the country. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support on this matter.

I understand the rationale behind the measure—that it is essentially fundraising designed to defray the costs to the police—but the exemptions will be extremely important in these circumstances. If there is no geographical exemption, there must be a category exemption in many cases so that country pubs can be exempted and not have to pay. If this measure is going to get acceptance, it manifestly must be fairly applied. This is essentially a local tax designed to pay for policing in relation to those establishments that are open late at night. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the consultation, but I hope that he and his colleagues will be in no doubt about the central importance of the consultation, even more so in the case of the late-night levy than in the case of early morning alcohol restriction orders.

Finally, the question that the Minister did not quite address was: why is the regime different for early morning alcohol restriction orders? It seems that while local authorities will not have so much discretion over them, they will have discretion about the late-night levy. I assume the answer to be that each is designed to achieve a particular balance in the circumstances. I take from the Minister’s nods that that is indeed the essence of the matter. I also take it that as the restriction orders are more discretionary, you need less discretion about the imposition of exemptions, and that as the late-night levy is for the local authority, those exemptions will not necessarily be applied so rigorously in those circumstances. However, there is considerable concern about the imposition of the late-night levy and I very much hope that there will be strong guidance to local authorities to exempt in appropriate circumstances—we shall return to the word “appropriate” at the end of Part 2—where the merits of the case demand it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 305B withdrawn.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Lords Chamber

I hope that the Minister will in reply indicate the Government’s willingness to look at the possibility of a lower limit for young drivers or new drivers. It would be a sensible step that could save lives.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I can be brief in speaking to Amendment 241C. I very much commend Clause 125, which sets in place a review of the effect of the amendments to the licensing scheme. It is common ground between us, whatever side we may be on, that the proposed amendments are highly significant. The Bill provides for a review to take place after five years. In view of the significance of these amendments, Amendment 241C is designed to make that review occur every two, not five, years. That would be much more appropriate, given the significance of the changes that will have been made by the Bill.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. There is a range of issues here that cannot wait five years to be reviewed. The amendment proposing a review after two years would be far more acceptable. I also want to draw the attention of Ministers to reports produced by this House way back in 2002, when the European Union Select Committee reviewed drinking and driving legislation and compared it with that of other European countries. The report pressed the case for the limit to be reduced to 50 milligrammes. The puritan Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe chaired that committee, so I recall it very well indeed. We must keep raising these issues, although time may pass by without speedy implementation.

It was interesting that when I was pulling out my papers on this issue, I came across a press cutting with the headline:

“MPs and peers cast eye on Lords reform”.

The article continued:

“A committee on Lords reform is today expected to seek to allay fears that the issue has been kicked into the long grass by agreeing a timetable to put forward proposals by October”.

That article was dated 9 July, 2002.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

241CA: Clause 126, page 88, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) Nothing in this Chapter applies to holders of club premises certificates.”

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, we now move to the very important part of the Bill relating to the late-night levy. The House may be relieved to hear that I shall speak extremely briefly to Amendment 241CA and to Amendments 241EA, 241GA, 241GB, 241KA, 241MZA and 241SA. The arguments about private members’ clubs have been made already under the EMRO discussion.

The Minister said there are clubs and clubs, but the arguments are very powerful for private members’ clubs to be dealt with differently under the EMRO and the late-night levy provisions. I hope that the Minister will give that further thought since private members’ clubs have a self-regulatory process, and if that process is not properly operative then they should not receive private members’ club premises certificates. It is as simple as that. They are subject to greater regulation than ordinary licensed premises and for that very reason should be excluded from the operation of the late-night levy.

Moving on to the next group of amendments, Amendments 241D, 241E, 241F, 241G, 241L and 241M, I am afraid that I will be slightly longer. Amendment 241D extends the ability of licensing authorities to determine the extent of the geographical spread of the levy area so that it need not apply to the whole local authority area. This is one of the great weaknesses of this provision for the late-night levy. It is a very blunt instrument, dealing with the whole of a local authority area.

Amendment 241E deals with Clause 126(4), which prohibits the licensing authority from applying the levy as it is currently stated in only part of its area. Removing this provision would allow licensing authorities to designate a particular town or city centre within its control as being liable for the late-night levy rather than being totally broad-brush in its approach. A large number of trade organisations are particularly concerned about the untargeted nature of the proposed late-night levy. A licensing authority may not decide that the late-night levy requirement is to apply only in part of its area, which means that community pubs in particular will be affected by a requirement which is presumably really aimed at addressing the challenges in town and city centres. The power can only be applied across a licensing authority district as a whole rather than a specific area, and its untargeted nature means that many responsible businesses will be caught.

A late-night levy can be imposed irrespective of whether a bar is a source of disturbance. Ultimately it is unfair that any licensed premises operating in a responsible manner should have to pay such a charge when the best course of action would be specifically to tackle the irresponsible operator or indeed individual members of the public who cause problems.

The Government justify this measure on the basis that the easiest, most effective way of dealing with the issue is to go for the whole council route because it is viewed as less bureaucratic, and that the levy must be attractive to licensing authorities by being simple to introduce. However, we must not put the levy on to properly run businesses. If they are forced by a combination of the levy and EMROs to close at midnight, as I said to an earlier amendment, this will simply mean that young people will spill out on the streets at 11 pm, as they always used to do, which is clearly not going to be conducive to public order. It is patently unfair, as was pointed out in Committee in the other place, to impose a charge on a business which may be 20 miles away from the source of the problem, and it cannot be justified.

It is understood that premises could apply to the licensing authority to reduce their hours without being charged a fee but it should be recognised that this option still places a cost on businesses, not just in their management time or legal fees in making such an application but also in potential lost revenue from reducing the trading time of their business.

Moving on to Amendment 241F, the levy will be applicable to any premises holding a licence to sell alcohol under the Licensing Act 2003 if it is open for just one day after the time stipulated in the late-night levy, which will most likely be midnight. This means that any pub, hotel, restaurant and so on which has permission to sell alcohol, even on just one night in the year, will become liable for the levy, and this will catch many venues with restricted late-night opening to cover such events as New Year’s Eve and bank holidays. That is the reason for inserting “15” instead of “one” in this amendment.

Amendment 241G is very similar to a previous amendment on EMROs. It ensures that premises that open late only once a year on New Year’s Eve are not required to pay the levy. This would alleviate an unnecessary cost burden on thousands of small pub businesses which would otherwise have to pay the levy. The Bill makes provision to impose a late-night levy on all premises licensed to sell alcohol between midnight and 6 am. The levy would be imposed at the licensing authority’s discretion across the entire local authority area. The funds raised would cover the costs of policing and other arrangements for the reduction or prevention of crime and disorder in connection with the supply of alcohol between midnight and 6 am. As it stands, the late-night levy unfairly penalises responsible retailers by applying to all licence holders and not just those who trade irresponsibly by contributing to alcohol-related disorder. This new measure will indeed introduce further costs for responsible businesses when powers to deal with irresponsible traders already exist.

I move on to Amendment 241L. As the Bill stands, licensing authorities could introduce an early-morning restriction order beginning at 12.30 am and running through to 6 am, and impose a levy on all premises that remained open until 12.30 am. Surely it is not intended that this combination of EMRO and levy should punish those caught out in this way. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning]

I hope I can reassure my noble friend that this levy has been designed to raise money for the police, who bear the brunt of late-night enforcement costs. As such, we believe they should receive the majority of the levy revenue after administrative expenses have been deducted. The local authority now works with the police and in future will work with the police and crime commissioner, so there will be a very close working relationship between the two to identify whether a licensing authority wishes to apply the levy.

My noble friend mentioned disproportionality in the levy charges. They have yet to be set. We have published only indicative figures. We currently plan to structure the levy charges on the existing licence fee bands, which, as my noble friend will know, are predicated upon the rateable value, so although this will be nationally set, it will be indicative of regional differences in bandings. In that way, we hope to have fairness and proportionality in the way in which the charges are structured.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, which I found to be rather a curate’s egg. Of course, I accept that the levy proposal was in essence contained in the coalition agreement. She will notice that no clause stand part debate is proposed from this or any side of the House. I do not think there is a great quarrel around the House with the principle of the levy. Certainly, I did not pick that up during the debate. It is all about the way in which the levy will operate and the interrelationship with EMROs. In particular, it is about the nature of the exemptions and the blanket nature of the levy.

I am pleased to hear that the Minister in the consultation will reflect the different types of clubs and will specifically look for different types of exemption, which is welcome. I would never apply the word “dusty” to this Minister’s replies, but I did think that the Home Office is erecting quite a brick wall to the idea that one can be rather more flexible about the way in which the levy operates. I know that the Minister said that it was not a crime and disorder provision but was all about policing. However, it seems grossly unfair that in a local authority with a mixture of rural and urban, the rural pubs, many of which are struggling, have to pay a levy when they will not see a policeman in a million years. Why on earth should they pay for this?

A huge issue is involved, which seems contradictory. This Government are, I think, the first Government to appoint a Minister with responsibility for community pubs, which was a great thing. He is doing a great job but in a rather different department from the Home Office. However, the policy does not seem to be joined up. Here we have a great deal of work going on in DCLG about planning and the various aspects of the survival of the community pub. We have the Government in a very welcome fashion supporting a Private Member’s Bill that I have put forward about live music, which is designed to preserve the community pub, and certainly the smaller community pub, in many ways. However, here we are with a provision that will directly impact on them if their local authority is a large one that includes a lively, to say the least, city centre. That is a major problem.

[Baroness Browning]

I have heard what my noble friend says, and I of course understand the situation for rural pubs, having represented 650 square miles of rural Devon for nearly 20 years. I will take away what he has said. I cannot make any promises today, but I hope he will remember that I said that there would be a consultation on exemptions. The point that he has made today will be noted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I knew that if I carried on talking for long enough she might respond. I will have to use that technique on more occasions. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for her response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 241CA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

241P: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Accountability of police
(1) The local police force must provide a written report to the local authority at the end of each levy year where a levy is applied to the local authority area.
(2) The report is to be submitted to the local authority within 12 weeks of the end of the levy period.
(3) The report must contain—
(a) details of the amount received through the levy and the amount spent by the police in policing the areas covered by the late night levy during the hours that it applies; and(b) details of the impact of the levy on crime and disorder in the area covered by the levy.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I can be brief on this amendment and Amendment 241Q, which is grouped with it. These new clauses would ensure that there is accountability for the funds raised and distributed to the police and the licensing authority, which are not obliged under the Bill as it stands to apply the moneys to the late night levy area. They are able to use the funds within their general expenses as they see fit. These proposed new clauses will ensure that those who are subject to the levy are informed about the application of the funds, which are to deliver improvements in the area to which they are applied. I beg to move.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, while other amendments have tried to reduce administrative processes, these two amendments attempt to add a publishing requirement on the police and the licensing authorities. I hope that noble Lords will agree that transparency already exists in the late night levy design. I believe that the levy will achieve an appropriate level of transparency and no further reports are required. We will require licensing authorities to consult on proposals and publish the expenses they incur in administering the levy. The police are being reformed to make them more accountable.

Let me deal first with the police. The money given to the police from the late night levy will go into the police fund for the force area and be subject to the relevant scrutiny processes. We believe that it will be a waste of police resources and unnecessary bureaucracy to require the police to provide a report for the levy spend in particular. Further checks and balances will exist under police and crime commissioners. The PCC will be publicly scrutinised by the police and crime panel. Any data used in that scrutiny will be made public unless they are operationally sensitive, and PCCs will also be subject to freedom of information provisions.

With regard to the licensing authority, transparency is provided in the pre-levy consultation process. This consultation will consider, among other things, the services which the licensing authority intends to provide from its levy revenue. The authority will then write to all affected premises to inform them of its final decision. The public will not need yet another publication setting out how the licensing authority spends the levy funds. Further, the Bill will require licensing authorities to publish a statement of the administration expenses which they have deducted from the levy revenue. The licensing authority, as an integral part of the council, is of course accountable to the public.

The late night levy is light on administration and process. It has been designed as a contribution towards policing costs from those who profit from the sale of alcohol in the late night. To require an assessment of the impact of the levy on crime and disorder, as these amendments seek, would confuse the objective of the late night levy with tools such as early morning restriction orders which, as I have already mentioned in response to previous amendments, are specifically designed to tackle particular pockets of alcohol-related crime and disorder. I believe that necessary transparency is adequately provided for to ensure that levy receipts are spent in an appropriate way.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that quite complex and useful response. Her argument is that there are many ways, other than those provided by the amendment, in which transparency is achieved. The amendment also seeks accountability, which is also an important principle that is involved. I shall read what the Minister said extremely carefully and consider whether the existing framework is adequate to explain what the levy is devoted to, and how useful it is in the context. I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 241P withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

241T: Clause 136, page 94, line 24, at beginning insert “other”

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House too long. It would be easy to spend time talking about some of the schemes that would justify an appropriate discount. However, I shall first move Amendment 241T. By a strange quirk of grouping, the Minister has already partly responded on the concept of a discount for these community-type schemes. The effect of these amendments would be to require the levy to be reduced by 50 per cent per premises participating in well established, recognised corporate responsibility initiatives—specifically, Best Bar None, business improvement districts, Purple Flag, Pubwatch, community alcohol partnerships and other similar watch initiatives, all of which demonstrably reduce the incidence of crime and disorder in town centres. These could be undermined if participating businesses were required to fund all these bespoke schemes and a more general levy. To acknowledge the contribution and investment that industry has made to improving standards and addressing challenges in the night-time economy, particularly in town and city centres, it is therefore appropriate that these high-profile initiatives are identified in the Bill as requiring a reduced levy. This will also safeguard the initiatives themselves and encourage further take-up in areas where such partnership approaches do not yet exist.

I dare say that many of us have received correspondence from some of the projects, particularly the business improvement districts. I have received several of those. The Nottinghamshire Leisure business improvement district experience is extremely interesting. Some of the correspondence relates to the community alcohol partnerships, which have also been very successful. I understand that the Government plan to recognise in guidance, and perhaps in regulation, the nature of these schemes and the fact that they will receive discounts. However, I hope that they can be a little more forward in the Bill by recognising that that will definitely be provided for. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I support the previous speech and the amendments that it introduced. On this side of the House, we believe that premises that work with the police and local authorities to minimise crime and disorder should qualify for a reduction in the late night levy. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it would be helpful if this could be put in the Bill, not just because we like to see things in legislation but because it is so important that we recognise what they are doing.

In many cases, for example, these venues are safe havens for young people. If you put young people in a protected environment rather than having them out on the streets you are doing some public good. In a sense, that is something that we want to encourage and we would be grateful if it could be considered in that way. Well run and responsible venues already participate in voluntary schemes to combat anti-social behaviour, and if they are forced to close at midnight to avoid the levy then they will effectively be throwing their young clientele out of a safe venue onto the streets.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, licensing authorities will have the discretion to decide which of the exemption and reduction categories they will apply in their application of the levy. Although I am unable to accept these amendments, I welcome their overall intention. It is precisely these types of premises and the schemes that they run that we want to consider for reductions from the levy charge. However, the amendments would prejudge our public consultation on exemptions and reductions, which we will introduce through regulations.

We have already begun the design of that consultation through a number of working groups, with representatives of the trade, licensing authorities and the police. I would urge noble Lords to await this consultation so that we might have the opportunity fully to consider the views of our partners. There are many schemes, such as the ones mentioned this afternoon, that allow the business community to work together to address some of the negative effects of the sale of alcohol in the night-time economy. I support the principle that drives these local initiatives. However, there is a range of such initiatives and we need to consider the breadth of these schemes and how we might define workable categories for reductions. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which gives all the right signals in terms of the kind of scheme that would be included. Of course, I was trying to prejudge the consultation to a degree, but I elicited a response from the Minister that is helpful.

Having reached the last amendment dealing with the licensing and levy in Part 2, I must say that an awful lot of weight is now being borne on the consultation. On many occasions replying to groups of amendments today, the Minister has relied on the efficacy and fairness of that consultation to business, particularly, but also to residents and local authorities. I hope that she gets it right because it is of huge significance that the balance and outcome of that consultation are fair. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 241T withdrawn.