Ivory Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord De Mauley

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, due to illness in the family, my noble friend Lady Bakewell is not present for this part of Committee, although I believe that she will be along later. In her absence, I want to intervene briefly in support of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has started off Committee in fine, eloquent style, but the phrase “coach and horses” springs to mind as a result of what he had to say. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the kind of amendment that the noble Lord is putting forward would serve only to introduce further ambiguity and uncertainty into a Bill which has been designed to make sure that we do not have the ambiguities and uncertainties of the current legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had it absolutely right: the difficulties in identifying the difference between pre-1947 and pre-1918 ivory are rife. John Betjeman disapproved strongly of fish knives—

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I draw the noble Lord’s attention to Clause 7, for example, which already contemplates differentiating by date. The Government are obviously aware of a way in which this can be done.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will deal with that issue as far as this amendment is concerned, but to introduce further differentiation into the Bill is extremely unhelpful, particularly in the light of its intentions and the fact that the CITES convention will take place later next month. I do not think that that would be a particularly good symbol.

I am the proud owner of a set of fish knives—I do not believe that John Betjeman would have approved of them. I am firmly in the category that the noble Lord, Lord, Cormack, has identified as being caught by this provision. I am very relaxed about it. I do not believe one should be able to trade, deal or sell that kind of commodity. It is the sort of thing you pass on to your descendants. I very much hope this provision will remain part of the Bill.

Economy: Growth

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 18th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I cannot give the noble Lord the details that he asks for here because it would take too long, but I will write to him.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, we all want to see a strong business and growth strategy legacy from the Olympics, particularly looking beyond the next few weeks, and we want to sell our capabilities internationally. However, does not the insistence by the IOC that some 75,000 of our businesses cannot associate themselves as having been suppliers to the Olympics rather militate against that?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend raised this point in a debate the other day. The building of the Olympic park and other Games venues for London 2012 has been a great success story for the UK. In order to secure over £1 billion of sponsorship, restrictions on marketing rights have had to be put in place. The many thousands of suppliers for both the build and the staging of the Games have received a full commercial rate for their goods and services. However, the Government are committed to working with the British Olympic Association and others, and through them the IOC, to find a way to ensure that contractors and subcontractors can seek a form of recognition of their superb contribution to the Games.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- 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.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 16th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive comments in connection with these clauses and amendments.

Clauses 121 and 122 address problems in the system of fees under the Licensing Act 2003. Local government has been calling for action on both these points ever since the Act was introduced. Clause 121 introduces the suspension of licences or club premises certificates for failure to pay the annual fee. Currently, an authority must pursue unpaid annual fees through the courts, and there is no other sanction for non-payment. The sanction of suspension will provide a considerable added incentive to licence holders to pay the fee on time. Clause 122 introduces locally set licensing fees. The purpose is to ensure that licensing fees properly recover the cost to licensing authorities of discharging their functions under the Act. Although this clause was introduced on Report in another place, it was not a decision taken in haste. We needed time to ensure that the clause achieved full cost recovery for licensing authorities in a way that is fair to fee payers, licensing authorities and council tax payers.

There are a number of amendments in this group, and I hope noble Lords will bear with me as I attempt to give each amendment the response it deserves. Amendments 240Z and 240XC would remove the requirement on local licensing authorities to provide a receipt. Amendment 240XA aims to reduce the burden of the requirement by requiring that the receipt must be provided only if it is requested. I recognise that these amendments aim to reduce what may look like excessive bureaucracy. At the outset, it is worth emphasising that the clause requires the provision of a receipt only in a case in which a licence or certificate has been suspended and is then reinstated when the fee is paid. We do not expect this to be a frequent occurrence, as we expect licence payers to be assiduous in avoiding suspension. It is not unreasonable for the licence holder to expect clarity as to whether the licence has been reinstated because carrying out licensable activities without a licence is a serious offence. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to £20,000, or both. Amendment 240XA is a compromise solution whereby licensing authorities will be required to provide a receipt only on request. Having considered it, I believe that this amendment would actually increase the bureaucratic process in terms of the correspondence relating to whether or not a receipt is required, with, I suggest, only marginal benefit.

Amendments 240XB and 240XD would greatly extend the grace period that applies in cases of dispute or administrative error. The period of 21 days is not set in stone as a matter of principle. However, three weeks seems to us a reasonable length of time in which to resolve a dispute or administrative error. It would allow evidence to be provided that the fee has already been paid or that the supposed due date was not the anniversary of the licence. I cannot yet see a case for extending this period by five more weeks, and I would be concerned that it would considerably weaken the sanction of suspension.

Amendments 240XE and 240XG remove references in Clause 121 to the Secretary of State’s powers to prescribe fees. I understand absolutely that the intention is to emphasise the Bill’s contribution to the localism agenda. However, the references which the amendments seek to remove are cross-references to the existing powers to set fees centrally. They are a necessary part of the mechanism by which Clause 122 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to provide that fees are set locally. So the result of the amendments would actually be that the clause no longer provides for locally set fees.

Amendments 240XF and 241 would remove the reference to the licensing authority’s general costs from the description of what fees must cover. I emphasise that there is no intention that locally set licensing fees will fund the general costs of local government in the everyday sense of the phrase, which means that they could raise money from fee payers for something unrelated, such as to help build a new swimming pool or, as my noble friend Lord Astor suggested, to collect refuse. That would mean that licensing fees had become a form of discretionary local taxation. This is certainly not permitted by Clause 122 through the insertion of Section 197B of the Licensing Act, specifically subsection (3), which defines general costs and limits them to costs referable to the discharge of functions under the 2003 Act.

Amendment 241ZA also seeks to reduce the costs that can be recovered by licensing authorities through locally set fees. In this case, it seeks to remove the costs incurred by the licensing authority under the Act, but in a capacity other than that of a licensing authority. The costs referred to are those of the responsible authorities that are part of the licensing authority. These costs were intended to be taken into account by the current centrally set fees. Not to permit these costs to be covered by locally set fees would be to impose a new burden on local government and would therefore be contrary to established government practice and the intention of the clause. Our intention in introducing locally set licensing fees is that they should cover the cost to licensing authorities of discharging their functions under the 2003 Act. The current fees, set centrally, were also intended to cover the general costs as they are defined in this clause, and the defined costs of a licensing authority acting as a responsible authority. To remove these costs would mean that fees did not achieve what they are supposed to do.

Amendments 240XH and 241ZZA seek to ensure that the power to set fees locally is constrained and subject to guidance. I can assure your Lordships that we do indeed intend to make locally set fees subject to constraints. Specifically, we intend to make each fee subject to a nationally set cap, and we will consult on the level of that cap. However, to impose a requirement for the imposition of unspecified constraints would be both excessive and, I suggest, ineffective. A future Secretary of State may, for example, have a legitimate reason to utilise the power to make different provision in respect of different authorities, or not to impose additional constraints on a particular authority. However, it must be remembered that such an authority would still be subject to the limitation that income from fees equates as nearly as possible to costs.

Amendment 241ZZA introduces a duty on the Secretary of State, when providing for locally set fees, to issue detailed guidance. Again, I can assure your Lordships that it is our intention, after consultation, to issue guidance covering all these points. However, I suggest that it is excessive to require all these specifically in the clause. Section 182 of the 2003 Act already requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under the Act. It also enables her to make such revisions to the guidance as she considers appropriate. The addition of a new duty, that of setting fees, would therefore justify such a revision, and it is our intention to do so.

Amendment 241ZB seeks to ensure that the costs of social services and trading standards, in their roles as responsible authorities, can be taken into account within locally set fees even when they are located in an upper tier authority. Currently, the clause has the effect that these costs are recoverable only in a single tier authority, such as a unitary authority. I thank noble Lords for drawing attention to this. I know that many noble Lords will be concerned about the addition of any further costs that will be recovered by fees.

It should be noted that the amendment specifies that the costs that should be recovered are those of these two public bodies, but only in their roles as responsible authorities: for example, in considering applications and, in rare cases, applying for a review. This is expected to be a very marginal cost in the context of overall fee income. It does not incorporate the wider costs of these public bodies in dealing with licensed premises. We intend that locally set fees should cover costs that are not covered by the current centrally set fee levels. For example, the costs of the environmental health authority in respect of its wider statutory duties connected to licensed premises are not covered; only the marginal costs that arise from the 2003 Act are. Having said all that, I see sense in the intention of Amendment 241ZB and, if I may, I shall reflect on it further.

Amendment 241Y seeks to remove the provision in the Bill for regulations to be made providing that club premises certificate holders can make a free minor variation before a late-night levy is introduced in their area. It is consequential on a number of amendments that have the combined effect of removing members’ clubs from the application of the late-night levy. I hope that we will be able to discuss it later, alongside those amendments. For the reasons that I have given, I therefore ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments today.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, briefly, before my noble friend replies on her amendment, I welcome the Minister’s useful clarification of the definition of general costs. I shall certainly reflect on that before the next stage. The technical references were extremely helpful. The Minister was also very helpful in talking about the guidance on how fees are calculated and will be dealt with by local authorities.

I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for my amendment. It was like the first swallow of summer or something of that sort. On my Amendment 241ZZA, the Minister said that guidance will be published, which is helpful. However, as far as one can see there is no appeal mechanism in the proposed new section that is already incorporated in the Bill. Is it possible for guidance to deal with how that sort of thing should be dealt with as well?

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 9th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Licensing Act 2003, as currently drafted, allows local residents, businesses or bodies representing them to raise concerns about new licence applications and reviews to existing licences. To make a representation, residents or businesses must be within the vicinity of the premises in question. The determination of a vicinity is made locally by licensing authorities. However, residents or businesses are sometimes uncertain whether they are in the vicinity of a premises. Given that they are unable to make a representation if they are outside the vicinity, this is clearly of considerable concern to some people. As such, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones rightly says, we propose in the Bill to remove the definition of “vicinity” from the Licensing Act. This would mean that any person, business or representative body would be able to make a relevant representation to the licensing authority, regardless of their proximity to a premises.

I recognise that Amendments 237B and 239A are intended to restrict those who can object to persons who live sufficiently close to premises or whose business interests might be affected. This means that licensing authorities would still have to determine who lives sufficiently close to licensed premises. The purpose of what the Government propose is to remove any uncertainty for local residents and businesses if they are affected by premises, regardless of their—shall I say—immediate proximity to those premises. If accepted, these amendments would continue to raise uncertainty among local communities. They would also mean that residents and businesses that are affected by premises are unable to make a representation if the licensing authority decides that they do not live sufficiently close to those premises.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was concerned principally about from how far and wide relevant representations may come. “Relevant” means that the representation should specifically be about the likely effect of the grant or variation of the premises’ licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives and, if the representation has been made by anyone other than a responsible authority, is not frivolous or vexatious. The licensing objectives are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. One noble Lord—I think it was my noble friend Lord Shipley—said he understood that an objector must live in the same local authority to object. I can tell him that that is not the case; that is not how the Bill is drafted.

I also recognise that Amendments 238 and 239 are intended to ensure that residents and businesses in adjoining local areas receive more information on licensing applications. Currently, applicants for licences are required to advertise new licence applications in the local newspaper, as well as to display notices at or close to the premises. However, during the consultation entitled Rebalancing the Licensing Act the Government received significant representations from the alcohol industry, asking for the requirement to advertise to be removed altogether. We feel that the existing methods of communication, which require an applicant to advertise in the local newspaper and display notices at or close to the premises, complemented by the new requirement to publish key information on licensing authority websites, will ensure that all persons who could be affected by premises will have access to the relevant information, while balancing the burden on business. For these reasons, I ask that these amendments are not pressed.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I confess to being rather disappointed because, if anything, he has interpreted the clauses more widely than I had. He has said that they both apply regardless of proximity. That means that although they may have been constrained to some extent by their objections having to be relevant—it is perfectly possible to be relevant—the individuals or organisations involved will not in any sense have to be proximate. That is an extraordinary proposition. We have, perhaps, the example of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, of somebody coming down from Scotland and objecting to something in the Edgware Road. This means that some uncertainty is removed, but it seems to me that there is the certainty that a licensed premises is fair game for anybody, which creates enormous business uncertainty for them. Licensed premises—club premises—will essentially be fair game for national campaigns in the future. I cannot really believe that that is the objective of these clauses.

No doubt we will ruminate further on these parts of the Bill and the implications of the abolition of the vicinity test. However, I remain to be convinced that it is a sensible way forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) Order 2010

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 16th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I am sorry, my Lords, but the timing of that is rather important. Once the spectrum is subject to auction, the emergency services will not have access to it. The spectrum below 1 gigahertz is of extraordinary importance because it means that the masts do not have to be so close together. It means that you have fewer masts, less cost to the emergency services and so on. What worries me in all this is the question of whether the emergency services should be subject to a market test. It is rather like the NHS—we do not subject that to a market test.

[Lord De Mauley]

I agree with the noble Lord about the seriousness of the matter. It is, as I said earlier, a complex area. It might be helpful if I wrote to him further about that matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, expressed a number of concerns about the auction, competition and coverage. The important thing is that we have asked Ofcom to conduct a competitive assessment of the future development of the 3G and 4G markets in the United Kingdom to inform the design of the auction. Ofcom may well decide that some form of capping is appropriate; the noble Lord referred to that. I agree with him about the importance of competition.

The noble Lord also asked about the benefits for consumers. Again, I broadly agree with him. Widespread next-generation mobile broadband services, which are capable of delivering data at speeds that are considerably in excess of today’s offerings, will be of huge value both to consumers and indeed to business. For the consumer and citizen, access to real-time information while on the move will be invaluable as well as offering a considerable market opportunity to creative industries wishing to develop content.

The noble Lord asked about the perceived blight of masts across the country. One has to say that if people want additional coverage of mobile broadband services, some increase of masts is likely. Given the capital expenditure involved, though, no operator will want to deploy more masts than are necessary to deliver an acceptable level of service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. If there is some interdepartmental fencing, that is extremely concerning. I will go back to my department and shake some cages. Having said that, I hope that I have addressed as many of your Lordships’ questions as possible and if I have not I will, as I say, write to noble Lords. This is—

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but, when the Minister says that, I hope specifically that he will include the radio mikes PMSE issue as well.

[Lord De Mauley]

I certainly intend to include that.

This area is, as I say, immensely complicated, as I am sure has become abundantly clear in the course of the debate. There are those who assert that the Government’s approach is flawed or lacks ambition, but it is clear that years of debate and consultation have shown that any proposals—whether they come from the Government, the regulator, or indeed the European Commission—are unlikely to receive universal acclaim. Experience shows that any proposal will receive differing levels of opposition and support. The point is that a consensus on what should be done is, frankly, unlikely.

That lack of consensus has been the case over a number of years. Ofcom’s attempts to find proportionate measures to deal with the issues raised by the refarming of 2G spectrum have faced challenges which, in turn, have led to delay. Any further delay cannot be to the benefit of consumers or business users, nor, I suggest, to the operators themselves. Regulatory uncertainty is seldom helpful to industry. The longer we delay, the further the UK will fall behind other countries that are already deploying new high-speed broadband services.

The issues involved have, as I say, already been the subject of considerable discussion, debate and consultation involving industry, the regulator and the Government. In our view, this direction to Ofcom represents the most appropriate way forward to allow the earliest deployment of next-generation mobile broadband services, to make a valuable contribution to the broadband infrastructure of the United Kingdom and to ensure that this country remains competitive in a digital world. I commend the order to the House.

Visas

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the impact of the points-based visa system on visiting artists and performers.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there are no current plans for such a specific review, but a broader survey across all categories of tier 5 applicants—including, of course, artists and performers—has recently been undertaken, the findings of which will shortly be published. The arts and entertainment task force is closely involved to ensure that the detail of the system reflects the creative sector’s needs while being robust and fair.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. It was a breath of fresh air compared with replies on the subject from the previous Government. Will the Minister ensure that, in the process that he has described, he will consult the Manifesto Club and talk personally to the arts community, which has a great concern about this? Will he include also the issue of academic visiting visas, which is a matter of concern to the academic community?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. As I have said, the survey has been completed and the results will shortly be published. My noble friend was good enough to give me sight of a paper from the Manifesto Club which referred to three specific examples of artists. To explain each in detail would take too long today but, to summarise, in one case the applicant cut rather fine the timing of the application; in the other cases, the applicants provided no evidence of funds to support them in the UK. Although advice and guidance are available, it sounds as though in the latter two cases better advice could have been provided, and I have made that clear to the department.