Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lord, I strongly support the basic thrust of Amendment 183 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I do so having regard to the negative effects of the system of tier 1 visas, both in our own country and overseas. The first undesirable effect of this dirty money is on the economy of London; in particular, the cost of housing being pushed up to unaffordable levels by foreign so-called businessmen seeking secure investments, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. My noble friend Lord Faulks identified a lack of progress by the Government in this area.

I accept that there may be some business opportunities in meeting the demand and providing both professional and artisan services to tier 1 investors. Personally, I would not want to earn my living from dirty money, in effect stolen from people of overseas countries. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, explained this with his usual skill. Not only do some of these tier 1 investors illegally suck money and assets out of their own country to enjoy in ours but they take full advantage of our well-developed system of justice and the rule of law—JROL. This means that they can keep their assets secure and also enjoy a reliable means of passing them on to their offspring. Of course, they have no incentive to seek to implement any decent form of JROL in their own country because it is not in their interests to do so. The lack of JROL and the negative effects of corruption mean that countries such as Russia, and many developing countries, will never be able to achieve their full economic potential.

For instance, defence equipment apart, I cannot think of any manufactured product that comes from Russia. No wonder it has an economy the size of Italy’s, despite its natural wealth, larger, if declining, population, and vast space. It is not for us to interfere with the internal arrangements of other sovereign states, but if we denied oligarchs, the super-rich and despots of countries without JROL the safety and advantages of a safe landing and base in UK and other similar countries, they might be more inclined to seek to put their own countries in order. This would have enormous economic benefits and other benefits for the people of those countries.

I turn to the problem of Ukraine. It is clear that any invasion by Russia will result in severe sanctions against Putin’s regime, including Russian tier 1 investors in the UK who are judged to be close to Putin. I am confident that the Government are planning such potential sanctions as we speak, although the likely targets will already have taken precautionary action. However, if our worst fears are realised, we should go much further and hit all Russian tier 1 investors, whether they are President Putin’s friend or foe. That way, they might be more inclined to get off their posteriors and put pressure on Putin and maybe even think about improving JROL and press freedom in Russia. Furthermore, this course of action would not adversely affect the inhabitants of Russia.

We cannot continue to allow filthy, dirty money to come into the UK via the tier 1 investor visa route, because it pollutes our economy, damages the economies of other countries, and seriously erodes our soft power position.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Amendment 174 would return rights to people in the UK who are on the overseas domestic workers visa—primarily, the right to change their employer and renew their visa for a period of not less than 12 months. The then coalition Government changed the visa regime in April 2012, so that workers and their immigration status are tied to their original employer, and their visa cannot be renewed past six months. That has caused real concern that the working people involved are tied into situations of abuse and slavery. The cross-party Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill, as it then was, said that the changes to the regime had

“unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery.”

It concluded:

“Tying migrant domestic workers to their employer institutionalises their abuse; it is slavery, and is therefore incongruous with our aim to act decisively to protect the victims of modern slavery.”


In 2015, the independent Ewins review called for all overseas domestic workers to be given the right to change employer and apply for further leave to remain in the UK for up to 30 months. It found that the terms of the domestic worker visa were

“incompatible with the … protection of overseas domestic workers’ fundamental rights while in the UK”.

Unfortunately, the Government disagreed with the recommendation; instead, they made more limited changes to the Immigration Rules, with the effect that all domestic workers can change employer during their six-month visa, but only those who are found to be victims of trafficking or modern slavery can change employer and apply to stay for longer in the UK. The problems with this limited approach were set out in the Ewins report: they failed to provide an immediate escape route out of abuse; the six-month limit makes it difficult for people to find other employment; and the national referral mechanism requirement means that a person must have taken the step to report, and met an evidential burden to prove, that they are victim of slavery, which, frankly, many are too frightened to do. We certainly support the thrust of Amendment 174.

Amendment 181 would exempt international volunteers from paying the immigration health surcharge, and I await the Government’s response with interest. I would like to know what consideration the Government have given to extending the exemption, and have the Government met charities which have raised concerns about its effect on volunteering in particular sectors, especially social care?

Amendment 183, about which most has been said—with some feeling and fervour—would require the Government to suspend the tier 1 investor visa route, known as “golden visas”, until the review into those visas has been made public. In its 2020 Russia report, the Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that a key measure for

“disrupting the threat posed by illicit Russian financial activity”

is an

“overhaul of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa programme—there needs to be a more robust approach”.

In March 2018, the Government announced a review of golden visas issued between 2008 and 2015. This followed revelations that the Home Office and banks had made next to no diligence checks in that period. According to a freedom of information request in June 2021, the Home Office is reviewing 6,312 golden visas, half of all such visas ever issued, for a range of possible national security threats. Almost four years since the Government announced the review, and as has been said more than once this evening, the findings have not yet been reported.

Many of those who received visas during this period will have been eligible to apply for British citizenship over the past seven years, and it is surely essential that there is full transparency about the findings of the review, including: a detailed breakdown of how many visas have been revoked; how many cases have been referred to law enforcement; and how many applications for renewal or citizenship have been denied.

In the Commons last month, Stephen Kinnock MP asked the following question:

“Six months ago, the Government said that they were finalising their report into how more than 700 Russian millionaires were fast-tracked for British residency via their so-called golden visa scheme. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House when that long-overdue report will be published?”


The Foreign Secretary’s reply was:

“We are reviewing the tier 1 visas that were granted before 5 April. I am sure the Home Secretary will have more to say about that in due course.”—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/22; col. 60.]


Therefore, I ask the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government: does the Home Secretary have “more to say” about this tonight? We are all waiting to hear why it has taken so long to produce this report. In the absence of a credible explanation, one can conclude only that there are some embarrassing reasons that have led the Government to delay producing this report.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I most sincerely apologise to the House for not being present at the start of this debate. I strongly support the thrust of the amendment about bridge-bashing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. One day the holes in the cheese will line up and there will be a very serious accident, and the whole world will ask why we did not use technology to avoid such accidents. I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about “exceptional hardship”; I would not actually vote against the Government on it, but I strongly support it.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We welcome the fact that the Government are committing to a call for evidence on road safety issues next year. Like other noble Lords, I should be interested to know how long this exercise is expected to take. Also, is it purely a DfT matter, or a cross-departmental matter—and, if so, which departments are involved? On the general issue of road safety, I comment briefly on what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, just said. You could always reduce the number of road accidents fairly dramatically if you reduced the speed limit everywhere to 10 miles an hour, but, as a Government, you might not survive very long politically if you did that.

On “exceptional hardship”—the subject of one of the other amendments—maybe there are cases where courts are a bit too lenient. You have to draw the distinction between hardship and inconvenience, because the two are not the same. You do, however, get cases where there could be exceptional hardship and you have to think long and hard. An example would be a single parent who loses access to a car. That could have quite a profound impact on the children, particularly if they do not realistically have anyone else to help them out. You could also end up with a situation where the disqualification of a carer might involve significant impact—hardship perhaps not so much for the carer but for the person being cared for. When you are faced with some of these situations, it is not quite as straightforward as saying “You’ve broken the law, you’ve reached 12 points and you’re off the road”: you may need to look at the consequences. I note with interest the amendment on exceptional hardship. It may well be taken into account in the review what exceptional hardship means and whether it is being applied too leniently and too frequently.

We support Amendment 58—the minimum driving disqualification periods—as we have the increases in sentences for those offences, including causing death by dangerous or careless driving. We welcome the change that the Government propose.

I think that Amendment 64, relating to hit-and-run, mentions a maximum sentence of 14 years in custody. That seems quite a dramatic increase from the current limit. I am not sure whether it is envisaged that if an accident has caused a serious or fatal injury the maximum of 14 years for not stopping is in addition to what you would get for causing the fatal injury—in which case you could get quite a high sentence. I am just commenting on the fact that it seems to be raising the maximum sentence for failing to stop quite considerably. I do not know what the Minister will say about this on behalf of the Government but again, presumably, there is no reason why that should not be considered as part of the review.

With regard to the new amendment on the hitting of bridges, which my noble friend Lord Berkeley has proposed, I have some sympathy with the view that has been expressed that surely there must be a way that technology can reduce the frequency of these events. Perhaps one is a bit too prone to make speeches saying that technology must be able to resolve these issues for us, but one would have thought that this is one area where technology should play a role, and I hope that the Minister will take this issue away and that the Government will reflect on it as part of their general look at road safety issues. I will leave it at that, without commenting on the other amendments in this group.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I have sympathy for the noble Baroness’s amendment regarding collection of ethnic minority data. I would like to pick up on the point about education. So long as we are not properly educating the Traveller community it will continue to be exceptionally difficult for it to engage exclusively in legitimate economic activity.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will add a few brief comments to what has been said, without seeking to repeat the arguments which have already been made. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, may have been quoting from a letter, dated 2 November, which the deputy chief constable of the Cheshire Constabulary, who is the NPCC lead for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller issues, wrote to Elizabeth Truss at the Ministry of Justice. In this, she drew attention to the amendments to the Bill which we are discussing tonight. I will give a further quotation from the letter. She says:

“It is my firm belief that the lack of robust and reliable data on the Gypsy and Traveller population is a major barrier to developing a coherent understanding of these communities and their social, economic, education and welfare needs. Updating the ethnicity monitoring systems in youth justice to include Gypsies and Irish Travellers would be an integral step in helping us to address the disproportionate number of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children in both Secure Training Centres and Youth Offender Institutions”.

She concludes her letter to Elizabeth Truss by saying that:

“I hope you and your Department are able to support the amendments”.

I hope that when the Minister replies she may be able to tell us what Elizabeth Truss’s response is to that request from the NPCC lead for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller issues to support the amendments that we are discussing this evening.

I have also got a copy of a letter which the chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales sent very recently to Kate Green MP, in response to a letter that she had written to him about the collection of data on the number of Gypsy and Traveller young people in the justice system. He says in his reply that:

“The YJB currently records the ethnicity of young people in the youth justice system using the 2001 census categories, which does not include Gypsy, Traveller or Romany (GTR) as a category. Consideration has been given to changing information systems to capture the number of GTR young people but it is too costly at present to make the required changes to existing local and central case management systems to make this possible. This position will be reviewed as new IT systems are developed and implemented”.

I am not sure that that statement holds out a great deal of hope. Perhaps in her reply the Minister could say something about what the costs would be of making the required changes to the existing local and central case management systems to achieve the objective being sought, so that we can all form a view of whether that is too costly or not.

I also ask the Government to respond to one other thing. Since the position will, apparently, be reviewed as new IT systems are developed and implemented, are we talking about new systems that will be developed and implemented within the next six months, the next six years or the next 60 years? Once again, the letter does not make that clear. It is interesting that the letter from the chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales then goes on to assert that,

“it is not the case that no data exists in this area”.

He then refers to the fact that:

“The YJB and HM Inspectorate of Prisons publish an annual report, Children in Custody, based on surveys of children in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) and Secure Training Centres (STCs)”.

That is an interesting observation since, as I understand it, certainly on at least one previous occasion the relevant Minister has expressed the view that, as not all young people return a completed survey, they cannot determine the actual number of GRT young people held in YOIs and STCs, or even know if the sample is representative. That would suggest that on previous occasions the Government have not regarded the data contained in Children in Custody—in those annual reports—as necessarily being particularly reliable or particularly helpful.

Like others, I very much hope that the Government will be able to give a helpful response to this amendment. If the argument is going to be all about the cost of doing it, we will really need to ask the Government for a full breakdown of those costs and when they expect to rectify the situation so that we can all form an assessment of the validity or otherwise of that particular argument.

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of our Amendment 40CA in this group is to provide anonymity for victims of female genital mutilation by providing for any offences under Sections 1 to 4 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 to come within the terms of Section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, which for example provides anonymity for rape victims and victims of various other sexual offences to encourage more to come forward.

We recognise that protecting young girls and women from FGM requires action beyond legislation to tackle the social norms in which it operates, and implement a preventative approach. However, if progress is to be made in addressing and preventing what has already been described in this debate as the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation, then cases will have to be successfully prosecuted through the courts. That means people who are victims of this practice being willing to come forward and give evidence. As we know, this is not some small, minority offence. It has been estimated that more than 20,000 girls under 15 are at high risk of female genital mutilation in England and Wales each year, with the risk being highest for primary school girls.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, who will surely know better than anyone the difficulties in persuading victims to come forward and give evidence in court, has called for victims to be given the right to anonymity to make it easier to bring charges against alleged perpetrators. She was quoted as saying recently:

“It is a very difficult injury to talk about. It is an abuse of their body and it is not a part of the body that people want to talk about in public”.

The Home Affairs Select Committee has also identified that a key difficulty in securing prosecutions is the ability to gather sufficient evidence and has said that,

“if victims had the protection of press and broadcast anonymity, this might encourage more to come forward. … we recommend the Government bring forward proposals to extend the right to anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to include victims of FGM”.

Our view is similar. Anonymity is granted to victims of rape, among other offences, because of the sensitivity and stigma attached to such an offence, and the sensitivity and stigma that surround female genital mutilation must be at least as intense. Victims should be protected in the way called for in our amendment. If anonymity would encourage more victims to come forward, it must surely be overwhelmingly in the public interest to go down this road, particularly taking into account the lack of prosecutions to date. Where cases of female genital mutilation go to court, victims should also be entitled to the same support and special measures to which other vulnerable victims are entitled. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the expert way in which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, introduced his amendment. I have no greater arguments than the ones he adduced. I strongly support him and urge the Minister to consider his suggestion very carefully. I have one final thought: what would the view of noble Lords be if we were talking not about FGM but MGM?

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to make an addition to page 11 after line 25, which sets out the matters that must be covered in the annual report by the Service Complaints Ombudsman. We are proposing that there should also be a requirement for an assessment of the adequacy of the resources of the ombudsman’s office to fulfil his or her functions. I believe it has already been indicated that there will be an increase in the number of staff that the Service Complaints Ombudsman has—this has been compared with the staff of the Service Complaints Commissioner. If memory serves, I think the figure that has been mentioned is an increase from nine to 20, but I may be wrong on that.

Clearly, a key part of the ability or otherwise of the ombudsman’s office to be able to carry out the duties and responsibilities it is given under the Bill will be the resources available to it. We have already discussed today the issue of whether the ombudsman should be able to undertake thematic reviews—or already can do so under the clauses in the Bill before us. If the ombudsman is able to go down that road of carrying out that kind of review, and if that is to be done effectively, then clearly that has implications for resources. Resources can be both financial and human.

In the context of this amendment about resources, I also raise a point with the Minister that I accept may well need a subsequent response in writing. The Bill sets out the areas that the ombudsman will cover. I am not entirely sure at the moment whether that also covers the Royal Military Police, in respect of complaints both made by the police about its own working environment or whatever other issue it might be and that might be made by service personnel about the activities of the Royal Military Police or how it carried out its role. I am not clear whether those issues are ones that the Service Complaints Ombudsman would be expected to investigate. If they are not, I am then not quite clear on who deals with, for example, issues that service personnel wish to raise about the way they believe the Royal Military Police conducted its affairs in relation to those service personnel. I would be grateful for a response but accept that I may have to wait for a reply in writing.

Put simply, at the moment, the full extent of the role that the ombudsman could have is not entirely clear. Of course, that will also depend on the amount of resources needed, whether financial or human, and on the number of complaints that come in. I do not suggest that suddenly the situation will be such that morale will plummet and everyone will put complaints in. However, if people perceive the Service Complaints Ombudsman to be somebody to whom it is worth making a complaint, that might encourage some people to do so who currently would not make a complaint because they do not think much of the present system. That might have an impact on the workload of the ombudsman.

I rather hope that the response I get back will not be that there is no need for this because it is already covered in the Bill in the previous matters referred to in new Section 340O. I appreciate that that refers to,

“the efficiency, effectiveness and fairness”,

of the system,

“the exercise by the Ombudsman … of the Ombudsman’s functions”,

and,

“such other aspects of the system mentioned in paragraph (a) … as the Ombudsman considers appropriate”.

However, there is then the question of whether the ombudsman believes that the resources are sufficient to carry out that role as effectively as the ombudsman believes it should be. There are a number of uncertainties about what workloads are likely to be. Other issues about what the ombudsman’s report must cover are written into new Section 340O, too, so there cannot be an objection to writing this in. I would have thought that writing into the Bill specifically that it should also cover whether the ombudsman believes the resources are adequate to enable his or her office to fulfil their functions is entirely appropriate. I hope the Minister will agree. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I urge the Minister to exercise some caution. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has made some good points, especially about possibly increasing levels of demand on the ombudsman, especially in the number of complaints. However, the ombudsman will never have completely adequate resources and may well not be able to do everything that they want. Ombudsmen will have to prioritise their activities. I can think of no Defence Minister in the last 22 years of my service in the House of Lords who would deliberately underresource the ombudsman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My immediate reaction is to say that I want at some stage to have that on the record in Hansard. I appreciate the Minister’s lack of enthusiasm for standing up to read it all out now, so I am not wondering why he is not doing that, but I may have to consider whether to table an amendment on Report to achieve that. We are always extremely grateful—and I mean this—for the letters that the Minister sends and the care that he takes to respond to questions raised. I appreciate his approach and the assistance that he provides, but I think that some letters ought to be on the record in Hansard, so I may table an amendment on Report with the purpose of getting that one on the record.

As for the rest of the amendment, I hinted that under the wording of the Bill the Service Complaints Ombudsman could probably comment if they felt that the resources that they had were inadequate—or even if they were adequate, because an assessment of the adequacy could mean that the ombudsman says that everything is fine. I do not share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that an ombudsman would never consider what they had to be adequate—that was what I inferred from what he said. After all, if an ombudsman were to announce that resources were inadequate, they would have to submit some justification in the report, which would be, or be in, a public document. The very fact that they had to write it down and could be questioned on it might make them think very hard whether they were being reasonable in their approach.

I included the provision because I think that there are uncertainties about what the workload will be. There is the issue of the wider-ranging reviews and whether they are already encompassed in the Bill; there is the issue of the number of complaints that may come forward if people have real confidence in the new arrangements. It did not seem to me to be unreasonable to include as a requirement an assessment of the adequacy of the resources. After all, if the ombudsman is entirely happy, it is a one-sentence response: “I consider that my resources are adequate”.

[Earl Attlee]

My concern is that if the ombudsman feels that there are adequate resources, the ombudsman needs to say nothing, but if the ombudsman cannot meet all the demand and has to report on that, he or she is bound to say, “I cannot meet all the demand”, but he or she may still be an effective ombudsman, although not meeting all the demand.

[Lord Rosser]

I do not particularly disagree with what the noble Earl says—that you could still be effective without meeting all the demand. I am not sure that that knocks my view that it should be a requirement that the ombudsman makes a comment on the issue of resources within the annual report.

However, I do not seek to turn this into a major issue, as it is clearly not. It has been an interesting discussion and I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Monday 3rd March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I could add one or two comments. I thank the Minister for his reply and for the amount of information contained in it. I think that I recall him saying that “liable to be detained” was not a new phrase, but I am not sure how extensively it has been used before in immigration law.

I listened carefully to what he had to say about the situation of those whom immigration officers would not want to arrest. I will read his response carefully in Hansard, but at the moment I am not entirely clear what happens when someone whom they do not want to arrest declines to enable their fingerprints to be checked. I am not sure whether they will just be allowed to go or if in fact they will be arrested, which raises the question of why the existing powers are not adequate and why this new terminology is needed. As I say, I will read very carefully what he had to say.

Finally, I asked how many cases there have been in the past 12 months of people who would have had their fingerprints taken and checked if the “liable to be detained” provision in the Bill had been in force who could not have their fingerprints taken under the current wording in the Immigration Act 1971. I was not particularly expecting the Minister to come up with an instant response, but since that calculation is presumably the justification, at least in part, for this change in legislation that we are considering, I hope he will be able to provide me with an answer to that question later on.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the main justification for Clause 5 is to avoid unnecessarily arresting people and to make it easier to carry out immigration checks. I described a situation where someone cannot speak English or pretends not to speak English. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what the definition of “liable to be detained” is and how many cases it will affect. If I have any information about how many cases, I will write to him. A person is liable to be detained if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that removal directions may be given—that is, that the person requires leave to enter or remain but does not have it.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked whether a person who refuses to give their prints can be arrested. They cannot be arrested solely for refusing to give fingerprints, as they can be taken only by consent. This may not give enough reasonable suspicion that a person may be an immigration offender.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the external examination. The whole point of these provisions is that the checks can be external examinations only.

[Lord Rosser]

Presumably immigration officers would not want to check a person’s fingerprints unless they had some suspicions in the first place or some doubts.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, they would not be able to check fingerprints unless they had some good reason to do so.

[Lord Rosser]

I thought the Minister said that you cannot arrest someone who refuses unless there is some suspicion. To do the check in the first place must mean that you have some suspicion and, therefore, if they refuse, you could arrest them.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, there would indeed be an element of suspicion if someone declined to give their fingerprints to be checked, but I suspect there would have to be other evidence as well. I will write to noble Lords to clarify these points.

Immigration: Economic Impact

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We recognise that, while there are real benefits from immigration, they are not equally shared, due to inadequate labour standards, exploitation of the supply of low-waged migrant labour and the failure to provide young people with the necessary skills. What steps are the Government taking to see that the minimum wage is properly enforced? Do the Government agree with us that the maximum fine should be doubled to £10,000 and are the Government, like us, also prepared to consider whether the scope of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority needs to be extended to new sectors in order to stop exploitation? Finally, are the Government reviewing sectors that have become dependent on migrant labour, to identify where enough has not been done to equip young people with the skills they need to compete?

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord asked rather a lot of questions. I share his concern about the exploitation of migrant labour. All employers must adhere to the minimum wage provisions, which apply to migrants as well as to UK natives. There are very few prosecutions for paying below the minimum wage; however, it is normally dealt with by means of fixed penalties and the income is about £700,000 of fixed penalties.

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

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Rosser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

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

[Earl Attlee]

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

[Lord Rosser]

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

[Earl Attlee]

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

Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Earl Attlee]

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

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

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

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

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

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

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

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

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

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

[Earl Attlee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Railways: High Speed 2

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I very nearly slipped up in what I said. I nearly said that we would be introducing a property bond, but I corrected myself and said that we would be consulting on a property bond, which is rather different.

My noble friend gave us an amusing analogy about the Palace of Westminster, where the Cross Benches are and so on. This claim reflects neither the current strategy provisions nor the discretionary proposals put forth by the Government. Property owners may be entitled to Part 1 compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973. This is paid if the property loses value due to the impact of physical factors arising from the use of new infrastructure, such as noise, dust and vibration. It is available for owner-occupiers of residential properties, small businesses and agriculture units. Owners can put in claims once the railway line has been open for a year. This allows the actual impact of the infrastructure to be understood.

I have completely run out of time. I will have to write on all the other issues, apart from the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of a below-ground station at Euston. I read the noble Lord’s proposal very carefully but I am afraid that it has been rejected. In order to avoid Underground lines and the proposed Crossrail 2 and Thameslink station at Kings Cross, the station would need to be very deep—50 metres or more. The significant additional cost and complexity of constructing such a station, and the significant safety issues that it would present in respect of evacuation, mean that this option is not viable. I have discussed this with the engineer, and will happily discuss it further with the noble Lord if that would help. I would also be very happy to have separate meetings with Members of the Committee on each individual issue, as I have only 12 minutes to respond today and it is very difficult for me to do justice to noble Lords’ points.

I reassure the Committee that the Government will continue to listen to concerns about the impact of HS2. The consultation on the draft environmental statement and route refinement will be an opportunity for people to respond with their views on what is needed. HS2 is about helping Britain to thrive and prosper.

[Lord Rosser]

Before the Minister sits down, in the light of what he said at the end about the consultation on the environmental statement, I am still not clear, and would therefore like him to confirm whether the outcome of that consultation could lead to the route that has been determined so far being changed, and whether it could lead to the extent to which a line is in a tunnel, in a cutting or on the surface also being changed—or is that all fixed now?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, at the end of the day, nothing is fixed until Parliament has determined what the route will be. The role of the Government is to propose to Parliament what the route should be, using the appropriate procedures, and then Parliament will agree what the route will be.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Friday 18th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

A three-year review does not mean that it automatically ceases after five years, which is the effect of the sunset clause. The two are different. The first is a review: the sunset clause means that the Bill ceases to exist unless further action is taken.

What guarantees will there be that the Bill, if the amendment is agreed, will not be subject to similar threats of being talked out that it has already experienced when it returns to the Commons once again as a Private Member’s Bill. It could be talked out either by the two Conservative Members already involved, who have after all already tasted blood, or through various amendments to the amendment that we are now considering by one or more other Members who might be less than impressed with what has already happened in the Commons and the way that the Government have dealt with it. They may feel that the Government should now be left with a choice of either having no Bill or bringing forward their own Bill.

The noble Earl does not know what will happen to the Bill if it has to go back to the Commons because it has been amended in your Lordships’ House. He cannot give any guarantees, since I assume that the Government are not at this stage thinking of taking the Bill over.

Agreeing to the amendment will create further delay and uncertainty for this Private Member’s Bill which, once again, will run the risk of being talked out in the Commons. The way to avoid further delay to the Bill becoming an Act and the way to avoid the uncertainty caused by the risk that it will be talked out if it has to return to the Commons, is to not agree to the amendment or, far better, for the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

Failure on the part of the noble Earl to do that will surely show that addressing internal party problems is of more concern to the Government than securing the passage of the Bill as quickly as possible in the interests of all those who have suffered the consequences of metal thefts, whether from our war memorials, churches or railways. I urge the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment and let us get this Bill to the statute book as quickly as possible and not delay unnecessarily. There is no dishonour in this House in doing that.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this important debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the need to use Private Members’ Bills. The noble Lord knows perfectly well how difficult it is to secure time for a government Bill. My noble friend Lady Browning’s comments reminded me of my Road Traffic (Enforcement Powers) Bill that I ran as a Private Member’s Bill in your Lordships’ House on behalf of the Labour Government and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I experienced similar problems trying to get the Bill through the House of Commons because of the sadly deceased Mr Eric Forth.

There is no benefit to be gained from inadequate reform of the scrap metal industry. The clause would allow for the system of regulation to be fully reviewed and assessed and for the government of the day to re-legislate in five years. The Government are not making these amendments because we do not have faith in the Bill delivering what is required. We believe that the Bill will be effective and that the review will bear testament to that.

How the House of Commons decides to handle a Bill is clearly a matter for that House. I agree that the House of Commons has problems in the way that it handles Private Members’ legislation—in a way that we do not. I do not accept that this Bill would be at an unacceptable risk if we sent it back to the other place amended. The Government are fulfilling their commitment, made in the House of Commons. We expect individual Members of the House of Commons to fulfil their commitments.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this amendment is fairly wide-ranging in calling for the CAA to,

“have regard to the economic and social impact of services, provided by airport operators and users of airport facilities, on the UK as a whole”.

In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, referred in particular to services between London and Aberdeen. That is presumably the issue that has primarily prompted this amendment. We are aware of the concerns about the present arrangements for determining slots and charges at airports and about the operation of routes in such a way that cities such as Aberdeen may lose out, which would not be to the economic advantage of the UK either, bearing in mind the importance of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland in the global oil and gas market.

Reference has already been made to the letter from the Minister in which he expressed some sympathy with the concerns that have been raised. However, he went on to say that he did not think that this Bill was the appropriate vehicle to address them. Interestingly, he also said that he did not believe that air services between London and Aberdeen were under threat since it was a commercially attractive route for airlines. I will not go through the other points made in the Minister’s recent letter. However, as he said that he had some sympathy with the concerns raised, I am sure that he will want to put on the public record through his response to this debate what action the Government feel should be taken by others and by them to address the issue that has been drawn to the attention of your Lordships’ House through the amendment.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Stephen for tabling the amendment, which provides us with an opportunity to discuss the deeply important issue of regional connectivity. I certainly have sympathy for the underlying issues, and I hope that I will not have to deal a “technical knockout” to my noble friend. He mentioned rail journey times. I hope that he will join me, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and, I suspect, most of the opposition Front Bench in supporting HS2 when we come to debate it.

The amendment would impose wide and unclear obligations on the CAA, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, observed. It could be construed as requiring the CAA, when performing any of its regulatory functions, to take into account the economic and social impact not only of the services provided by UK airports but of the people who use them on the entire UK. However, the duties in Clause 1 of the Bill relate only to the CAA’s economic regulation functions. While the intention of the amendment is not clear, I am aware of my noble friend Lord Stephen’s particular concern over connectivity between Aberdeen and Heathrow. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, suggested that this was not the place for this matter. Fortunately, in your Lordships’ House we have great flexibility to discuss whatever we want. I always find the noble Lord’s contributions very illuminating and I am very happy to debate the issue.

The issue of regional connectivity was raised previously in Grand Committee with specific reference to connectivity between Belfast and Heathrow airports. My noble friend referred to the economic activity around Aberdeen, with the oil and gas industry. When I was on holiday in the area, I was definitely aware of that activity. On the issue of connectivity, I will take the opportunity to commend the work of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who has been extremely active and effective both in Westminster and Brussels on this issue. As the noble Lord observed, he will be promoting his Private Member’s Bill this Friday, and I am sure that he will succeed in breathing life into the Chamber on Friday afternoon.

Noble Lords will be aware that the primary objective of the Bill is to reform the framework for airport economic regulation. However, the amendment appears to apply to all the CAA’s functions, including safety and the enforcement of European consumer protection law. I am sure that that is not my noble friend’s exact intention. For many functions, such as safety, it is not appropriate for the CAA to have regard to economic and social impacts because the safety of an aircraft is of paramount importance. Furthermore, the CAA has well established duties set out in Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. These duties are disapplied for some of the CAA’s functions, such as airport economic regulation, where the CAA has alternative duties as set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. It is unclear how the duty contained in the amendment would interact with existing duties. Which set of duties should the CAA prioritise?

Despite these concerns, the duty in the amendment appears to be most relevant to the CAA’s airport economic regulation functions. However, I fear that the amendment would not have the desired effect of improving regional connectivity. Airport economic regulation concerns the regulation of the services provided at an airport by the airport operator, as well as the regulation of the landing fees that the airport operator charges to airlines. The noble Lord made a point about landing fees and I will write to him about that. Airport economic regulation is not concerned with the allocation and regulation of landing slots, which are governed by EU law, and an airport operator does not have control over where airlines fly to. Consequently, this Bill is not the right vehicle to address my noble friend’s concerns. In the UK, airlines operate in a commercial market environment and thus it is for an airline to determine what services it operates between Aberdeen and Heathrow, doing so based on its own assessment of the commercial viability of the route. These are not matters for economic regulation. Therefore, seeking to impose a duty like the one in this amendment will not influence which routes airlines decide to operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we considered this amendment and Amendment 54 in Committee. There is concern that there could be a significant or damaging loss of staff with experience relevant to security issues when aviation security regulation functions are transferred from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority. The amendments are designed to ensure, first, that the Secretary of State consults fully with all those directly affected before making a transfer scheme to the Civil Aviation Authority and, secondly, that the Secretary of State reviews the impact of such a transfer on the security functions of the Civil Aviation Authority before making such a scheme.

In the Minister's response in Committee, he confirmed that the real driver for the switch of aviation security functions from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority was financial. He said that,

“this is about efficiency and that the principle is that the user pays”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. GC 353.]

It has nothing to do with enhancing aviation security regulation since it is generally recognised that the current arrangements are highly successful and effective. The Government intend to change the current successful and effective arrangements for financial reasons and thus could be placing effective airport security regulation at risk. The onus is on the Government to provide convincing evidence that that will not be the case.

In Committee, the Minister said that his department had already begun to engage with staff and their trade union representatives on the proposed transfer of staff from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority. He went on to say that his department would engage with staff and their trade union representatives as the transfer arrangements were developed over the coming months until the planned transfer in spring 2014, if memory serves me right. If the Minister’s contention is once again going to be that no problems are anticipated over the retention of the necessary experienced staff due to the change, will he substantiate that stance by telling us whether any significant outstanding issues have appeared that still have to be resolved with the staff and their trade union representatives over the transfer arrangements? Will the Minister also tell us how many staff it is now expected will be either transferred or seconded from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority?

These are perfectly reasonable questions to raise in the light of the Minister's statement in Committee that the Government would not make the change if they thought they would lose a majority of experienced staff as a result and in the light of the concerns on this issue expressed by the Transport Select Committee in the other place. What hard evidence do the Government have that aviation security regulation functions will not be weakened by this transfer, or is it the case that when the Minister expresses such a view—namely; that they will not be weakened—that, frankly, is just a statement of hope?

The most important thing should not be the financial considerations that are clearly driving this change: the most important thing is the need to retain effective aviation security regulation arrangements. On that point, the Government have so far failed to prove their case. The amendments are designed to address the concerns that have been raised. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. It is vital that these issues are handled correctly and sensitively. The Department for Transport has already begun engaging with staff and their trade union representatives on the proposed transfer of staff from the DfT to the CAA. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the risk of the loss of valuable staff and I agree that it is essential that this is avoided to the maximum possible extent. The department’s human resources unit is formally engaging with the Public and Commercial Services trade union and the Prospect trade union on matters relating to the proposed transfer of posts and post holders to the CAA. There have been regular briefing events for staff and visits to the CAA building in central London, where staff can see their new office space and meet existing CAA staff. I should also remind your Lordships that many of the staff in those posts due to transfer to the CAA are mobile and routinely work at airports across the country.

Staff are kept informed with regular written and oral updates and we shall continue to engage with staff and their trade union representatives as we develop the transfer arrangements over the coming months and up until the planned transfer in spring 2014. So there is no shortage of time. The department appreciates that engagement with staff is vital, not least because we want to ensure that as many as possible transfer to the CAA, taking their skills and experience with them. We are working with staff to provide as much visibility and clarity as possible about the transfer. The transfer will follow the principles of TUPE and we aim to set out to staff the terms and conditions in April 2013—that is one year before the planned transfer.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the risk of deterioration in security performance. I am satisfied that there is no reason why this should occur. Indeed, it may be better—we do not know—but I am satisfied that there is no reason why there should be a deterioration.

The noble Lord asked whether there are any outstanding issues. There will always be HR issues with these changes. What is important is that these issues are handled sensitively and effectively. I am sure that that will be the case.

The Government believe that there is no need to amend the Bill to achieve something that is already happening. I hope that, with that comfort, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

The question I asked was not whether there were any outstanding issues still to be resolved but whether there were any “significant” outstanding issues to be resolved. I accept that there will always be some issues. I am not sure, therefore, that the Minister has answered my question as it was whether there are any significant outstanding issues.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I do not know whether there are any significant outstanding issues. It depends on what you call “significant”. An individual staff member who is possibly being disadvantaged would regard it as very significant but at the strategic level it might not be regarded as significant. I do not know the answer but one would expect that there are issues to be managed. As I said before, it is important that these matters are handled sensitively.

Perhaps I may give the noble Lord a little more information about the need to ensure high levels of security. The Government believe that the industry will benefit from the efficiency that could be gained through having aviation security and safety regulation in one place. The CAA has potentially valuable experience of safety management systems designed to manage risk as effectively as possible. This move will also mean that the user-pays principle is applied to aviation security as it is currently applied to aviation safety.

[Lord Rosser]

A significant outstanding issue would be one which might lead to a damaging loss of staff with experience of relevant security issues. That would be a significant issue. Another would be one which could result in a weakening of the current aviation security regulation arrangements. In the context of the Bill and what the Government are trying to achieve, I would define those as significant outstanding issues.

The Minister said that he is not aware of any significant outstanding issues that would jeopardise the two quite crucial aspects to which I have just referred. He said in relation to the possible weakening of aviation security regulation functions that they might be strengthened—but he did not know whether that would be the case—and that there was no reason why there should be a weakening as a result of the transfer. The Minister saying simply that he can see no reason why there should be such a weakening is not quite the same as saying that he is absolutely satisfied that there will not be.

The only other point I wish to make—I intend to withdraw the amendment—relates to the Minister’s accurate comment that as the move does not take place until the spring of 2014 there is “no shortage of time”. The difficulty with that—I am sure it will not happen—is that sometimes a feeling that there is no shortage of time to get things resolved can lead to a degree of complacency and then you suddenly find yourself in a situation where there is a shortage of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I suspect that there are sanctions but I would prefer to write to the noble Countess and other noble Lords to give the full details. I believe that we will all find the answer to the noble Countess’s question to be very interesting.

Secondly, on payment surcharges, I share consumers’ concerns about the high level of payments surcharges applied by some companies and the fact that often people are not aware of the level of these charges until they are almost at the end of the booking process. This makes it difficult to compare prices and to shop around for a good deal. Noble Lords will recall the debate initiated a while ago by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, on this point—a very useful debate, I thought.

It is not right that a business should try to hide the true costs of its services by implying that its prices are made up of elements beyond its control when they are not. Your Lordships will be aware that consumers are already protected against misleading pricing under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The CAA has been able to enforce the principal obligations imposed by Article 23 through these regulations. In addition, the Government have publicly consulted on whether there should be early implementation of the payment surcharges provision of the new European consumer rights directive ahead of its deadline for introduction into the UK in 2014. This is important to aviation consumers because some businesses add a charge to the price of goods or services when the consumer chooses to pay by a particular method, for example by credit card or debit card. These additional charges are known as payment surcharges.

The BIS consultation set out the Government’s proposal for early implementation of a provision of the consumer rights directive. This will put in place legislation to ban businesses from imposing excessive payment surcharges on consumers. Businesses will remain able to add a charge only so far as it covers the actual costs of processing any particular form of payment. The consultation has sought views on the timing of the implementation of this legislation and how best to define the scope and application of the provision. Consultation on this early action closed on 15 October and BIS is now considering the next steps. The responses to the consultation will inform BIS guidance to businesses on how to set its fees in compliance with the directive.

I hope it is clear from what I have said that the intent of this amendment is already implicit in the primary duty of the CAA and that there are actions in hand and effective mechanisms already in place to secure the intended result. Given this, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his response and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for their contributions to the debate.

We are back in an argument that we seem to have so often. We put forward an amendment that highlights a problem and seeks to address it and the Minister says to look elsewhere in the Bill or to refer to European Union regulations where the problem has already been solved, and therefore the proposed wording need not be put in the Bill. It is never very clear why the Minister makes that objection. The wording that we are seeking is very precise in the sense that it covers fares, charges, surcharges and matters like that, whereas much of the Bill is addressed in more general terms and does not actually give a guarantee that the Civil Aviation Authority will pursue this particular issue.

I asked the Minister if he could tell me where in Clause 83 it referred to fares and charges, but he did not respond. He has given a lengthy reply, but he has not actually responded to that quite key point, bearing in mind his assertion, as I understand it, that Clause 83 covers this issue. I believe that it covers this issue only if the Civil Aviation Authority chooses to interpret this general wording as covering this issue. It does not in fact put a requirement on it to do so.

As to seeking to tie the hands of the Civil Aviation Authority, Clause 83 sets out a number of things where it could be argued it is tying the hands of the CAA, in the sense of telling the CAA that there are certain things it has to do. Is it really tying the hands of the CAA to tell it to provide information to the travelling public on something as important as fares, charges and surcharges? The Minister makes it sound like a minor issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is an important issue and therefore I expect that the CAA will cover it. Why would it not?

[Lord Rosser]

I will tell the Minister why it would not: because it has not been put explicitly in the Bill. This amendment does so, and the Minister is backing off from it. He keeps saying that it is covered in the Bill, but when I ask where it is in the Bill, once again I do not get an answer. I realise that we are banging our heads against a brick wall—it is quite clear that the Minister is not going to move. I think that this is a matter of real regret because the amendment is designed to assist the travelling public and to make sure that they can be aware of charges and not face the kind of scenario described to us by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

We have had the argument again from the Government, as we had in Committee, that people do not know about the CAA website. Frankly, if this kind of comparative information were published and publicised, the public would very soon get the message that the website is the place to go to find out what the charges are. If it is not being published, or if it is to some degree but no one really publicises that fact, then of course people will say that the CAA website is not where they would normally go to look for that kind of information.

I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response. I do not quite know why he wants to dig in in this way on an issue that even he accepts is a problem—a problem that this amendment is one way of addressing. As far as I am concerned, the Minister is not prepared to accept an amendment which is in the interests of the public who use air services. The Minister accepts that there is a problem but, in my view, is not prepared to address it by accepting this amendment. We express our strong regrets at the Minister’s stance, but nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

We discussed this amendment at some length in Committee. I do not intend to go through all the points that were made then, which related to a possible conflict concerning the duties of the Civil Aviation Authority. As the Minister will know, this amendment seeks to ensure the production of,

“an annual report on disabled and reduced mobility air transport passenger experiences of airport operation services and air transport services”.

In Committee, the Minister said that one of the reasons he could not support the amendment—I do not wish to suggest that there was the only one—was that it was drafted in such a way as to put the obligation to produce an annual report jointly on the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority, and he had a significant doubt about linking together the regulator and the Secretary of State in that way. We hope that we have addressed that issue since we have removed the reference to the Secretary of State, leaving just the Civil Aviation Authority to produce the annual report.

In Committee, the Minister also said that,

“the CAA already publishes an annual report and corporate plan and makes a considerable amount of consumer information available on its website”—

a matter that we were discussing in the previous amendment. He went on to say:

“An extra annual report on a specific area of legislation, on top of those more wide-ranging reports, would be disproportionate”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. GC 384.]

I do not see that even with this amendment there necessarily needs to be a separate report from the existing annual report, which I think goes a little way towards addressing that particular concern raised by the Minister in Committee.

The reality is that the Civil Aviation Authority will have a more influential role under this Bill, which gives it additional responsibilities and lays on it a general duty to carry out its functions in a way that,

“will further the interests of users of air transport services”.

The CAA’s enhanced role in furthering those interests of users of air transport services justifies this amendment, which calls for an annual report on the extent to which,

“relevant legislation, regulations and codes”

are being complied with in the experience of disabled and reduced-mobility air transport passengers.

Our main concern is not that there has to be a separate document but that the issue is actually addressed. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment—I imagine that I am not being unrealistic in supposing that that will be the case—can he give assurances that in the annual report from the Civil Aviation Authority there will be a relevant section addressing the issue referred to in this amendment in order to ensure that the interests of disabled and reduced-mobility air passengers are properly furthered and protected by the Civil Aviation Authority, which should stand out as a beacon to be followed in this field? I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I hope that I can do a bit better to meet the needs of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on this amendment.

A similar amendment was debated in Grand Committee and during the Commons Committee stage of this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, observed, the key difference with this amendment is one of form rather than substance as the requirement to produce an annual report is placed only on the CAA, not jointly with the Secretary of State, as previously tabled.

I am afraid that I must oppose this amendment again and I will try to explain why. Of course, the Government agree that it is very important that airlines and airports are sensitive to the needs of disabled people and those of reduced mobility and that they fully comply with the European regulation that has been enacted to give access to air travel for people with disabilities.

There are, however, a number of reasons why the Government do not support this amendment. First, there are effective mechanisms already in place to secure the result intended. The CAA already publishes an annual report and corporate plan and makes a considerable amount of consumer information available on its website. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me to commit the CAA to including a section on this issue in its annual report. I have already made my Bill team manager very cross and I do not intend to risk doing it again. The noble Lord will understand that I would be making a serious mistake if I agreed to commit the CAA to include anything in its report that was not actually required by statute. An extra annual report on a specific area of legislation, on top of these more wide-ranging reports, seems disproportionate.

The CAA is already committed to the principles of Better Regulation and aims to be as transparent as possible in all its work, including in relation to compliance and enforcement with consumer protection legislation. It is also worth pointing out that disabled consumers benefit from the whole suite of EU consumer protection legislation for aviation, not just regulation 1107/2006 on specific rights for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, but regulation on cancellation and delays and on ticket price transparency. Therefore, it makes more sense for consumer issues to be considered in the round when these matters are reported on.

Secondly, such an obligation could result in an extra administrative and resource burden on the CAA, whose costs would have to be passed on to the industry. Thirdly, and most importantly, there is a new and better mechanism that I believe should be utilised instead. The CAA has set up a new consumer advisory panel to act as a critical friend to the regulator on behalf of all consumers as it moves forward in putting the consumer at the heart of its regulatory effort.

In April, the CAA announced that Keith Richards would chair the new consumer panel. Mr Richards has considerable experience of the disabled air passenger experience, having been chair of the aviation working group at DPTAC for many years, as well as being a former head of consumer affairs at ABTA. Since then, the CAA has completed the process of recruiting nine panel members to complete its complement, and the new body has had its first meeting. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is not going to suggest that Mr Richards is not a good appointment for this task. I am sure that he will do an excellent job.

Clearly, the CAA and the new panel will need time to develop their relationship, but it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the passenger experience of disabled people at airports and on planes would be of considerable interest to the panel. I suggest that it would be better to allow the panel to have the space to develop how it will go about its work and how best to support and inform passengers rather than to have an obligation imposed on the CAA in this way. In view of this, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

Before I do that, I am aware of the panel, not least because the Minister referred to it in Committee. As I recall, it is an advisory panel—it is not any the worse for being that but it does not have executive powers. Is the Minister able to say whether this panel will produce a report that will be in the public domain?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I would expect it to produce reports that would be published. If I am wrong on that, of course I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Rosser]

I would be grateful to know from the Minister what the position is on that. Clearly, if this panel were to produce reports that would be made public, one would be able to see that the panel was giving appropriate attention to issues affecting disabled and reduced-mobility air transport passengers. More importantly—since I am sure that it would seek to do that—one would be able to see what action the Civil Aviation Authority had taken in the light of any recommendations, complaints or problems the panel had drawn attention to. I would certainly be interested if the Minister could let me know if it will be producing reports that all of us will be able to see. In the light of that, I withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this amendment provides for a new clause which would give the National Audit Office oversight of the Civil Aviation Authority’s accounts. Other regulatory bodies including economic regulators which are also industry funded, such as Ofgem, Ofwat and Ofcom, are subject to National Audit Office oversight. The Office of Rail Regulation is also subject to National Audit Office oversight and is likewise funded from within the industry.

As we know, the Civil Aviation Authority is funded from the aviation industry and also receives a limited amount of money from the taxpayer, but it is not subject to National Audit Office oversight. In its report, the House of Commons Transport Select Committee called on the Government to explain why the Civil Aviation Authority is apparently unique among industry regulators in being outside the remit of the National Audit Office. So, clearly, it did not think that a strong case had been made for that situation to continue.

In Committee, the Minister said:

“I remain unconvinced that there are compelling reasons to believe that NAO scrutiny of the CAA would deliver a different result from the current and new mechanisms by which the CAA's functions are already audited and scrutinised”.—[Official Report, 9/7/12; col. GC 464.]

He accepted that other industry-funded regulators come under the scrutiny of the National Audit Office. In our view, the onus lies on the Minister to show why the arrangements for the Civil Aviation Authority should be different from those for other regulators, rather than, as he put it in Committee, saying that we have to make the case. It is the Minister who has failed to make the case for not having NAO involvement, and for that reason we have brought this amendment back on Report. We hope that the Minister may have had a change of heart on this point. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I fully agree with your Lordships on the need for the CAA to be efficient in carrying out its functions, and I welcome the points made in the debate to provide for auditing of the CAA. However, I am still not able to support the amendment or its principle.

Noble Lords will recall that very similar amendments to Amendment 61 were tabled in the other place both in Committee and on Report and also in this place in Grand Committee. As I explained in Grand Committee, the Government would look to those proposing to reinstate the role of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to provide compelling reasons why NAO scrutiny of the CAA would deliver a different result from its current mechanisms. In the absence of such a justification, and having considered this issue further myself, I remain unconvinced that there are compelling reasons to believe that NAO scrutiny of the CAA would deliver a different and better result than the Government’s current and proposed mechanisms for the audit and scrutiny of the CAA.

The CAA is already under a duty to keep proper accounts and records in relation to the accounts and to make an annual report to the Secretary of State on the performance of its functions in that year. Copies of the accounts, the annual report and any report made by auditors are laid in each House of Parliament by the Secretary of State. Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 already provides that the Secretary of State will appoint the auditors. The Government have tabled an amendment to the Bill that will provide for better transparency of the CAA’s efficiency measures and for better accountability for those measures, and we will debate this shortly as Amendment 62.

That amendment will provide for increased transparency of the CAA’s action to improve its efficiency by, first, requiring that the CAA includes in its annual report a statement about efficiency in the performance of its functions; secondly, providing a specific power for the Secretary of State to give directions about matters that must be covered in that efficiency statement; thirdly, requiring that the auditors, appointed by the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, produce an assessment of the efficiency statement; and, fourthly, providing that the CAA’s annual report includes the auditors’ assessment of the CAA’s efficiency statement in respect of that accounting year. These are sufficient to give the CAA a strong incentive to secure value for money and to be as efficient as possible in performing its functions. I take it that the noble Lord is worried about the CAA’s efficiency and proper performance of its functions rather than that it properly accounts for expenditure.

Furthermore, it is not appropriate for the CAA to be audited by the NAO. First, NAO audits are usually of bodies whose income is largely from public sources, whereas only 4% of the CAA’s income comes from those sources. Secondly, one consequence of an NAO audit role would be that the CAA’s auditors would no longer be appointed following a competitive tendering process. This would remove efficiencies made possible by the tendering process that would precede any appointment of auditors for the CAA by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, the independent review of the CAA by Sir Joseph Pilling, published in 2008, considered the need for an NAO role and rejected it. The recommendation was subsequently accepted by Ministers under the previous Government, and I have yet to see convincing reasons why they were wrong.

Representatives of airlines have suggested to us that the benefit of an NAO role lies more in the value-for-money audits that the NAO would be able to carry out than in the audit of the CAA’s accounts. In that respect, I remind your Lordships that such NAO reviews typically occur on a cycle of five or so years. However, the efficiency statement and report that are now under consideration would be annual.

In conclusion, while the Comptroller and Auditor-General and his staff at the NAO do a highly effective job, I am not persuaded that it is necessary to bring the CAA within their remit. I therefore see no reasons at the current time why the NAO should audit the CAA. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn, and we should look forward to debating my Amendment 62.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his response. He is obviously very keen to get on to Amendment 62 on the efficiency aspect. I shall withdraw the amendment since the Minister has clearly not changed his view on this, but the reality is that the CAA appears to be largely unique among industry regulators in being outside the remit of the National Audit Office. I was not entirely clear about the significance of the Minister’s point about loss of competitive tendering, if I understood him correctly, since I do not know whether that is meant to suggest that the role of the National Audit Office in relation to other industry regulators is being reduced or eliminated—if that is the Government’s argument for not doing it here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Monday 9th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to stop the Bill from apparently removing the Treasury’s oversight on non-executive pay at the Civil Aviation Authority, which was provided for in the 1982 Act that established the CAA. Under the Bill’s proposals, decisions on pay, allowances, pensions or gratuities will be determined solely by the Secretary of State for Transport.

Following recent failures to take action over excessive pay until forced into it by political and public pressure, as with RBS and Network Rail where the Secretary of State for Transport initially denied that she could do anything about the level of bonus payments to top executives, there should not be any weakening of oversight on remuneration payments. At this time of increased and justified public concern about levels of pay and bonuses, it is hardly appropriate for the Government to be seeking to remove a layer of checks and balances on the setting of CAA non-executive board members’ pay.

The CAA non-executive members were paid varying amounts up to some £77,000 in 2010-11. Non-executive board members are not there simply to make up the numbers or to add a veneer of outside independence and challenge. They are there as critical friends to challenge and question the senior executives on both the policies that they are pursuing and the policies that they are not, including accounting and financial policies, and to ensure that appropriate corporate governance arrangements are not only in place but are being properly implemented and applied.

Under the Bill, the CAA non-executive members will also determine the terms and conditions on which the chief executive is to be employed and who should be appointed. Other executive members are to be appointed by the chief executive with the approval of the chair and at least one other non-executive member who also will have to approve the terms and conditions under which other executives are employed. The role and importance of the CAA non-executive members is further enhanced not just by the more influential role that the CAA will have but also by the fact that the Secretary of State and the chief executive must exercise their powers to secure that, as far as practicable, the number of non-executive members exceeds the number of executive members.

So at a time when there is increasing concern about remuneration packages and bonuses; at a time when CAA non-executives will be involved in the major senior executive appointments and their terms and conditions; at the same time as the role of the Civil Aviation Authority is being increased; and at the same time as the importance of non-executives is being increased by there being a requirement in this Bill for the number of non-executives to exceed the number of executive members, the Government decide that this is the appropriate time to remove the oversight that the Treasury has on non-executive pay at the CAA. The Treasury can provide a degree of impartiality over decisions on the remuneration of Department for Transport appointees, as well as having knowledge of what remuneration levels are for non-executive members appointed through other departments of state. The Government’s logic does not add up. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I hope that I can clarify the Government’s position on these probing amendments. In the current political environment and with the public interest in these matters, I can quite understand why the noble Lord has tabled them.

There are several reasons why I cannot support all these amendments, to which I will come shortly. By way of background, the changes introduced by the Bill that these amendments seek to overturn complete a series of governance reforms recommended by Sir Joseph Pilling following his 2008 strategic review of the Civil Aviation Authority. Sir Joseph’s conclusion was that the involvement of two government departments in remuneration decisions was unnecessary. He said:

“In evidence to the review the Treasury explained that the CAA was the only regulator it looked at in this way … The statutory requirement for the Treasury to approve the Civil Aviation’s members’ remuneration and pensions is an anomaly. I recommend that the Department for Transport seek to amend the legislation so that the responsibility lies solely with the Secretary of State”.

He also asked the Department for Transport to consider the approach of some other UK regulatory bodies where the board appoints executive directors without ministerial involvement. The previous Government accepted those recommendations and consulted on the proposals reflected in the Bill. The Government agree with Sir Joseph’s conclusions that the oversight of the Treasury is an anomaly that adds no value. The Committee should note that there is no equivalent requirement for any comparable regulatory body, so Clause 96 implements an important aspect of the Pilling report. It would remove Treasury involvement in approving the remuneration of non-executive members. Removing Treasury oversight will also remove unnecessary government duplication; there is no need for two government departments to be concerned with CAA board remuneration. It will also reduce unnecessary delays in the appointment of non-executive members of the CAA.

There is nothing so special and different about the CAA board appointments that they alone of all regulatory appointments require the approval of two government departments. The Secretary of State will continue to be responsible for appointing non-executive directors and determining their remuneration. They are part-time posts that currently pay under £25,000 with some small additions, where applicable, for extra work. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, suggested that some were paid £75,000. They are not in a CAA pension or bonus scheme. It is therefore quite unnecessary for the Treasury to undertake the administrative burden of checking the decisions of the Secretary of State. I hope that that provides the Committee with the reassurance required and that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

Obviously, it is my intention to withdraw the amendment, but before doing so perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether he said that the posts would receive less than £25,000. Is he saying that that was the case in the financial year 2010-11 for which we appear to have the figures?

[Earl Attlee]

The non-executive directors are currently paid between £22,000 and £25,000 and are not eligible for pensions or bonuses, although they can receive extra payments for extra days of work. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.

[Lord Rosser]

I note with interest the Minister’s response. Either the figures that I have are incorrect or an awful lot of extra work is undertaken, but obviously I can look at that. The key part of the Minister’s argument is that no other regulatory bodies have Treasury and appropriate department involvement. The Minister has been clear on that. I shall certainly want to reflect on his response, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord on the CAA’s budget. As ever, I will give Members of the Committee a comprehensive answer to any of their more technical questions.

[Lord Rosser]

In writing that letter, can the Minister also give the relevant comparable figures for the other regulatory bodies to which we have referred—Ofgem, Ofwat, Ofcom and the ORR—and which are also funded in part by their industries? If the Minister’s argument on this issue is that the figure for the Civil Aviation Authority is particularly low in either percentage or actual terms when compared with other regulators, which are also partly funded from within their own industries, perhaps in sending that letter he could provide the comparable figures so that we can have a look at them.

I would comment only that while the Minister says that it is up to us to show the case for why a current arrangement should continue, there is to be a changed Civil Aviation Authority under the Bill. We are not talking about that authority as it is now but about one with enhanced powers and influence. I would have thought that the onus lay with the Minister to show us why the arrangements for the CAA should be different from those for other regulators, rather than the context in which he put it: of seeking to say that we have to make the case. It is the Minister who has failed to make the case, frankly, but I will leave it until we receive the letter from him with the information that he has said he will provide.

I am still not clear which clauses the Minister is saying provide the general duty of efficiency. I see a reference in Clause 1(3), to which I think the Minister referred, to the CAA having,

“regard to … the need to promote economy and efficiency on the part of each holder of a licence”,

for example, but that does not relate to the CAA’s efficiency. I can find references, which I think the Minister used, to activities being,

“transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent”,

but those do not necessarily refer to being efficient or efficiency so I do not know what the noble Earl’s argument is. Which clauses is he saying cover the general duty of efficiency? My understanding is that this is not some unique clause that we are proposing to put in, as one can find examples of it applying elsewhere. Once again, why is the Minister saying that it should not apply to the CAA when, from what I have heard from him and from my understanding of the Bill, I cannot see such a clear reference as he can to a general duty of efficiency in any other clauses at present? I wonder if he can assist with that.

[Earl Attlee]

On Amendment 68, the noble Lord’s points are well made. I said that I will continue to reflect on the matter and consider what further reassurances can be given at Report. My reason for saying that is that the noble Lord has put his point very well.

[Lord Rosser]

I am grateful to the Minister. I heard him say that the first time round, but I am grateful to him for having reconfirmed that he is looking at this matter. I appreciate that he has not given any commitments. While I would not want to suggest that when the noble Earl says he is looking at a matter he is not doing it seriously, if I say that he is looking at it seriously I hope he does not take that in the wrong spirit and infer that I think he sometimes does not. However, in view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, these are probing amendments to explore how the Government intend to ensure that there is no significant or damaging loss of staff with experience of relevant security issues when aviation security regulation functions are transferred from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority.

As to the first amendment, Clause 82 refers only to the Secretary of State consulting the Civil Aviation Authority before making a transfer scheme to the CAA. Who else would the Secretary of State consult, particularly on the impact of such a transfer on individual employees who are directly affected or potentially directly affected? The second amendment requires the Secretary of State to review the impact of such transfers on the security functions of the CAA before making such a scheme, given that there does not appear to be a clear provision in the Bill, and proper assessment of the impact of such a transfer scheme on security and security functions must surely be a key responsibility of the Secretary of State before deciding whether to proceed.

It appears from the impact assessments for the legislation that the primary purpose of this switch of aviation security regulation functions from the Department for Transport to the CAA has been driven by financial considerations and the spending review, which may not be the most appropriate driving force for change when dealing with an issue of this nature—particularly when a highly successful security regime has been in operation since the tragic Lockerbie bombing.

The Transport Select Committee in the other place expressed concern that the decision to transfer aviation security regulation functions from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority was included in the draft Bill at a late stage and was not subject to consultation. The committee also said that it was important that the CAA had sufficient security expertise to undertake its new role and that the Department for Transport and the CAA should investigate employment arrangements, possibly including secondments rather than transfers, precisely to avoid losing experience staff and expertise in the transfer of posts from the department to the CAA.

In Committee in the other place, the Transport Minister said that some 85 staff might be seconded rather than transferred, and no doubt the noble Earl will give an update on the present arrangements and intentions, the number of staff who will be transferred and seconded, and why being seconded would not be a better option for the staff as a whole. It would also be helpful if the noble Earl could say what steps are being taken to encourage staff affected to stay on in order to ensure that this transfer will not lead to loss of expertise in such a crucial part of our security provision and protection. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, let me begin with Amendment 52. The Department for Transport has already begun to engage with staff and their trade union representatives on the proposed transfer of staff from the DfT to the CAA. The department’s human resources unit has formally engaged with the Public and Commercial Services trade union and the Prospect trade union on matters relating to the proposed transfer of posts and post holders to the CAA.

There have been briefing events for staff, including a joint event with the CAA on 31 January, and staff are kept informed with regular written and oral updates. We will engage with staff and their trade union representatives as we develop the transfer arrangements over the coming months until the planned transfer in spring 2014.

Engagement with staff is vital, not least because we want to ensure that as many staff as possible transfer to the CAA, taking their skills and experience with them. A particular concern of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is that we do not lose this valuable expertise. We have no intention of doing anything that would cause unnecessary losses. We will work to provide as much visibility and clarity as possible about the transfer, but we cannot answer all the questions yet. The Government believe that there is no need to amend the Bill to achieve something that is already happening, so I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw Amendment 52 in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

It is indeed, my Lords. If we thought that we would lose a large number—or a majority—of the experienced staff due to this change, we would not do it. However, I see no reason why aviation security specialists who currently work for the DfT would not be equally happy working for the CAA. If they were being invited to work in the private sector, that could be much more of an issue. However, they will be transferring from one respected government department to another respected organisation.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I also thank my noble friends Lord Soley and Lord Clinton-Davis for their helpful contributions. The Minister said, I believe, that the driving force on the financial side was the principle that the user pays. Surely when we talk about aviation security regulation the principle that the user pays should not take precedence over the principle that we want the most effective security regulation arrangements.

I have not yet heard the Minister or anyone else argue that the current arrangements, which we have had for a number of years, are not highly successful and effective, as they are recognised to be. Frankly, if the real reason for this change is financial—namely, that the user pays—and is not based on improving the present arrangements for aviation security regulation, I suggest that the Government have got wrong the driving force for the change. Certainly I have not heard from the Minister any criticism of the current arrangements, any indication of how they have failed or any indication of how they will be made more successful and more efficient by the proposed change.

The Minister said that we should not go into detail about numbers. However, as I said, in Committee in the other place the Transport Minister referred to numbers and said that 80 staff might be seconded rather than transferred. I made reference to the view that was expressed that it might be better if staff were seconded rather than transferred.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank my noble friend for that point. Perhaps the Minister will comment on it in a moment.

I asked whether the Minister could give an update on how many staff will be transferred and how many will be seconded and say why secondment would not be a better option for staff generally. I am not asking him to go into the details of discussions that are taking place, but he might be able to respond to those particular points. Is the Minister willing to do so before I withdraw the amendments? I intend to withdraw them—as I said, they are probing amendments.

[Earl Attlee]

The Government believe that industry will benefit from the efficiencies that could be gained from having aviation security and safety regulation in one place. The CAA has potentially valuable experience of safety management systems that are designed to manage risks as effectively as possible. We think that this experience, coupled with the skills and experience of the DfT staff, could bring real benefit to how we regulate aviation security in the UK. That move would also mean that the principle that the user pays is applied to aviation security in the same way as it is applied to aviation safety.

Charging the industry for the regulation of aviation security will align it with the vast majority of other forms of regulation, including the CAA’s regulation of aviation safety. The aviation industry already meets the costs of providing security at close to £1 billion per annum, so the cost of regulation at £4.8 million per annum is a small addition that could be neutralised by efficiency savings arising from the reform package.

The noble Lord asked me about secondments, which the PCS trade union also raised in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons. We can look at how secondments might be used as we develop our plans for the transfer. However, we consider that seconding DfT staff to the CAA instead of transferring them is unlikely to help to ensure that experienced staff remain with the CAA when the secondments end.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sure that when they make a change, all Governments consider whether they have done the right thing. I am not sure about a formal review, but all Ministers look back to make sure that the changes that they have implemented are working.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for the further information that he has given. I am sure that he will not be entirely surprised when I say that I still have the impression that this one is financially driven rather than driven by any real belief that the aviation security regulation function will somehow be carried out more effectively through the arrangements that the Government are proposing than they are at present. However, I have expressed my views on this and the Minister has replied on behalf of the Government. I also said that these were probing amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords share the noble Lord’s view of that airline but, on the issue of publication, it is up to the CAA to determine what to publish, taking into consideration the results of the consultation.

On the second issue of payment surcharges, like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I share consumers’ concerns about the high level of payment surcharges applied by some companies and that often people are not aware of the level of these charges until almost at the end of the booking process. That makes it difficult to compare prices and shop around for a good deal. It is not right that a business should try to hide the true cost of its services by implying that its prices are made up of elements beyond its control when they are not.

Your Lordships will be aware that consumers are already protected against misleading pricing under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. Additionally, on 23 December 2011 the Government announced our intention to consult on implementing the payment surcharges provision of the consumer rights directive ahead of the June 2014 deadline. We intend to issue a consultation in the summer to seek views on the timing of implementation and other details on how the provision should be applied. Responses to the consultation will inform our decision on timing and our guidance to businesses.

I hope that it is clear from what I have said that the intent of the amendment is already implicit in the primary duty and that effective mechanisms are already in place to secure the result intended. Given that, I hope that at the appropriate time the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply, which I thought was going to be even more helpful than it proved to be, although I do not question his desire for transparency to be brought into charges and surcharges levied on air transport users.

I thought I heard the Minister say—when or shortly after he referred to the article under EU regulations—that the Civil Aviation Authority was of the view that airlines were complying with the regulation. If I understood correctly what the Minister said, and if the CAA is basically happy with the current situation, my only comment is that Clause 83(1), with its requirement for the CAA to publish or arrange for publication of information to assist users of air transport services, will not have any great force if the CAA considers that the situation is already satisfactory in relation to making the charges and surcharges known.

However, the extremely helpful contributions of my noble friend Lord Soley and the noble Lords, Lord Rotherwick and Lord Bradshaw, indicated that the current situation is not satisfactory and that charges are not easily and readily available to users of air transport services. For that reason, I feel somewhat concerned by the nature of the Minister’s reply. I get the feeling that the Civil Aviation Authority thinks that, in essence, the situation at the current time is satisfactory. Clearly, from the comments made in this debate, and from reports in the newspapers of individuals who have fallen foul of the surcharges, it is not. If the Government do not like the wording of the amendment, perhaps they will go away and produce wording that they think is appropriate. It is a test of how determined they are to be on the side of users of air transport services.

The Minister may argue that the issues are covered by this or that legislation or by something in the Bill, but Clause 83(1) makes no reference to charges or surcharges. Clearly there is still a problem here. This is an opportunity for the Government to show their determination to be on the side of the users of air transport services, who have suffered from these additional charges. The Government can show that by making it even more explicit than they believe it to be in the Bill that it is a duty and a responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority to make sure that the full cost of travel for users of air transport services, including all relevant surcharges that such users will be expected to pay, is available through CAA channels or directives. The CAA would be regarded as an impartial and objective body that would give reliable information rather than information that might be open to more than one interpretation.

I beg the Minister to think again about this. The issue is about making information clear and stopping people finding additional charges that they did not expect. It ought to be possible—I argue that it is necessary—to make sure that the Civil Aviation Authority, with its powers under the Bill, should provide this service for air transport users. The Government should make it very clear in the Bill that that is part of the CAA’s role and that this is the kind of information that it should provide in a clear, objective and impartial form that is easily available to those who want to use air transport services. This is about the importance that the Government attach to highlighting this problem and dealing with it.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I reiterate to the Committee that the Government accept that there is a problem. We are determined to deal with it but we need to do so in the right way. The noble Lord asked me about what I said about Article 23. Perhaps it is worth carefully going over it because it was carefully drafted. The CAA has been working with airlines to ensure compliance with this requirement and considers that the airlines that it worked with are now compliant with Article 23. That implies that the airlines that it did not work with are not compliant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, if the noble Lord will let me finish my speech, he may gain a better understanding. Also, I will send him more details by post.

Noble Lords will know that the CAA announced in April that the chair of the new panel would be Keith Richards. Mr Richards has considerable experience of disabled air passenger issues, having been chair of the aviation working group at the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee for many years, as well as a former head of consumer affairs at the Association of British Travel Agents. The CAA and the new panel chair will need time to develop a relationship, but, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the experience of disabled passengers at airports and on planes will be of considerable interest to the new chair. I suggest that it would be better to allow the new CAA consumer panel to have the space to develop how it will go about its work, and how best to support and inform passengers, than to impose an obligation on it in the way suggested by the noble Lord’s amendment. In view of this, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment in due course.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for his very helpful contribution. I do not see the amendment, as the Minister implied with his last comment that he sees it, as imposing a great burden in future on the CAA. If part of the problem is that the Secretary of State is also involved and the Minister does not think that appropriate, that issue could be addressed in a further amendment at a later stage.

The Minister did not address the enhanced, more important and more influential role that the CAA will surely have under the Bill, which gives it additional responsibilities and lays on it a general duty to carry out its functions in a way that will further the interests of users of air transport services. Simply to say that it already produces a report perhaps does not do justice to the enhanced role and greater importance and influence of the CAA that appears to be provided for in this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. If the Minister had stood up and said that—unless he is going to say that such a passage is already in the annual report from the CAA, in which case I suspect that it would need to be expanded in view of its enhanced role—I might well have felt that it was a move in the direction of the amendment. My concern is not so much about whether the report is a separate document as about whether the issue is covered and addressed by the CAA. If it can address that properly and fully in an existing annual report, I am sure that that would go a long way towards meeting the point that I have made in the amendment.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about the difficult point of the CAA balancing the needs of different users. As I have already said, they are in the same group—that is, users of air transport services. However, there is nothing to prevent the CAA focusing on different groups of users in exercising its information duties. I will write to the noble Lord in greater and more carefully considered detail on these points. I can see that he is very interested in exactly how the legislation works. The matter is far too technical for me to be able to respond orally, and I am sure that it is much better handled in writing.

[Lord Rosser]

As I said, my main concern is not that there is a separate document but that the issue is covered. Can the Minister give assurances that in annual reports from the CAA—he has expressed his concern about the Secretary of State also being involved—the issues that we have been discussing can be addressed under the new powers that the CAA will have under the Bill?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think it is much wiser for me to confine all that to my letter to the noble Lord.

[Lord Rosser]

I am happy to accept that, if the Minister will address the matter in his response. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Monday 2nd July 2012 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the large airport test certainly applies in Clause 7(2), which refers to areas located in large airports. It goes on to define a large airport. I suspect that the CAA can make a determination on any other airport at a later stage if it becomes apparent that it might be in need of regulation and meets the tests in the Bill. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I might ask the noble Earl one last question before I withdraw my probing amendment. The thrust of his response seemed to be that what I sought to achieve with the amendment was covered by other parts of Clause 7. Do other parts of Clause 7 allow the CAA to initiate a review of an earlier decision that it has made off its own bat, or only if it is asked to by a person listed in subsection (3)?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my understanding is that as soon as the CAA realises that it is appropriate to initiate a review because circumstances have changed, it can do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 20, I shall speak also to government Amendments 21, 22, 23, 30, 32, 33, 35 to 45 and 61 to 63. These 20 amendments are being taken together because they all relate to appeals to the Competition Commission and the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Some 13 of the amendments give effect to our position that the Competition Commission and the Competition Appeal Tribunal should decide appeals on the same grounds. The other seven amendments ensure that both the Competition Commission and the Competition Appeal Tribunal have regard to the duties imposed on the CAA as set out in Clause 1 when deciding an appeal. For brevity, I will refer to the Competition Commission as the CC and to the Competition Appeal Tribunal as the CAT.

It has come to the Government’s attention that the current drafting in the Bill gives rise to inconsistency between the grounds on which the CC and the CAT may allow an appeal. In the present drafting, although the legal grounds on which an appeal may be allowed are the same, the CAT is specifically required to decide the appeal by reference to these grounds and “on the merits”. There is no equivalent provision for the CC to decide the appeal “on the merits”.

The Government are concerned that this inconsistency creates unnecessary and undesirable legal uncertainty. We wish to correct this to shut out any risk that under the current wording it could be interpreted that different powers are being conferred on the CC and the CAT. In summary, these amendments propose changes to the provisions about appeals to the CAT to align them with provisions about appeals to the CC.

Amendment 30 is to one of the grounds on which the CC may allow an appeal under Clauses 24 or 25 which relate to appeals against conditions of new licences and modifications to the licence conditions. The amendment would change the ground on which the CC may allow an appeal from,

“that the decision was based on the wrong exercise of a discretion”,

as it is currently in the Bill, to,

“that an error was made in the exercise of a discretion”,

as per the amendment. This amendment is being made to clarify the current drafting.

The remaining amendments are specific to appeals brought before the CAT. Amendments 35, 36, 37, 40, 43 and 61 delete the subsections that contain the current grounds on which the CAT may allow an appeal in Schedules 1, 3, 4, 5 and 13. Amendment 20 deletes a provision stating that an appeal may be brought on only one of the current grounds. Amendments 21, 38, 41, 44 and 62 replace these grounds with the same grounds as provided for in Clause 26 concerning appeals to the CC from,

“that the determination is based on the wrong exercise of a discretion”,

to,

“that an error was made in the exercise of a discretion”.

In particular, Amendments 21, 38, 41, 44 and 62 ensure that the CAT’s consideration of appeals is consistent with the CC’s by, first, removing the phrase “on the merits” from the grounds on which the CAT must decide an appeal, as just discussed; secondly, introducing an overall requirement that the decision appealed against was wrong on specified grounds—error of fact, wrong in law, and error in the exercise of discretion; thirdly, restricting the grounds for determining the appeal in the same way as for the CC; and, fourthly, reflecting Amendment 20 which, as I have just mentioned, clarifies the grounds of wrong exercise of discretion.

The overall result of these 13 amendments is that both the CC and the CAT may allow an appeal only to the extent that they are satisfied that the decision appealed against was wrong on one or more of the following grounds: that the decision or determination was based on an error of fact; that the decision or determination was wrong in law; and that an error was made in the exercise of a discretion.

These amendments are important to deliver the Government’s policy intention that the grounds on which the CC and the CAT decide appeals should be the same. They are also in keeping with our wish to deliver an efficient and effective appeals regime. These amendments allow the CC and the CAT to take a decision that offers something more than judicial review but does not extend to a potentially lengthy full rehearing of the case. The remaining seven amendments again ensure consistency between the two bodies. Amendments 32 and 33 to Clause 30 specify that when the Competition Commission is carrying out its functions as specified under subsection (4) of Clause 30, it must have regard to the matters,

“in respect of which duties are imposed on the CAA by section 1”.

Amendments 22, 39, 42 and 45 import an express duty on the CAT to have regard to the CAA’s duties as set out in Section 1 when deciding an appeal under Schedules 1, 3, 4 and 5. Amendment 63 imports an express duty on the CAT to have regard to the CAA’s duties as set out in Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 when deciding an appeal under Schedule 13. My officials have engaged extensively with the CAT and the CC on this matter and they are content with the amendments. I commend them to your Lordships.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, perhaps I may take one of the amendments in the group to make my point. Government Amendment 30 deletes paragraph (c) in Clause 26, which says that the Competition Commission may allow an appeal under Section 24 or 25 only to the extent that it is satisfied that the decision appealed against was wrong on one or more of the following grounds, one of which is that the decision was based on the wrong exercise of a discretion. That wording has now been replaced in government Amendment 30 with the wording,

“that an error was made in the exercise of a discretion”.

I endeavoured to listen carefully to what the Minister had to say about this group of amendments and, if he did cover my point, I would be grateful if he could repeat his explanation. He seemed to say that this was all about clarifying the current drafting as opposed to explaining what the difference was between the wording in the Bill and what is being proposed, bearing in mind that it is not the same wording and therefore presumably does not mean exactly the same.

It would be helpful if the Minister could explain what this change in wording means. I refer to government Amendment 30 to paragraph (c) in Clause 26. Does the change from “wrong exercise” mean that although a decision was made incorrectly, the process was fine and the options to choose from were correct, the proposed wording,

“an error was made in the exercise of a discretion”,

is meant to imply that the exercise itself was flawed, had the wrong information to hand, was conducted incorrectly and options were considered that should not have been? It is important that we do not just get told, “We are seeking to clarify the current drafting”, but that we have a full explanation as to what the current wording in Clause 26 means—this relates to,

“that the decision was based on the wrong exercise of a discretion”,

and how that differs in meaning from the wording with which Amendment 21 replaces it,

“that an error was made in the exercise of a discretion”.

I hope that the Minister can clarify the position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the amendment is intended to provide clarity.

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify what the wording means. When I made my contribution a few moments ago, I asked whether the current wording,

“wrong exercise of a discretion”,

meant that if a decision was made incorrectly, the process was fine and the options to choose from were still correct. I then asked if the new wording,

“error … made in the exercise of a discretion”,

was intended to imply that that the exercise itself was flawed, that it had the wrong information to hand or was conducted incorrectly, and that options had been considered that should not have been. Does the wording we now have mean one of those two options—and, if so, which one?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is probably best if I write to noble Lords; this is a very technical point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, as we have just been discussing, Clauses 24 and 25 deal with appeals to the Competition Commission in respect of, first, the conditions of new licences and, secondly, modification of licence conditions. Under the Bill, persons who operate a dominant area at a dominant airport require a licence to levy charges. An appeal lies to the Competition Commission against a decision by the Civil Aviation Authority to include, or not to include, a condition in a licence when it is granted, and an appeal also lies to the Competition Commission against a decision by the Civil Aviation Authority to modify a licence condition.

An appeal can be brought only with the permission of the Competition Commission and the Bill states that the Competition Commission may refuse permission to appeal only on one of the following grounds: that the appeal is brought for reasons that are trivial or vexatious, or that the appeal does not have a reasonable prospect of success. Clearly, from the wording in the Bill there is a concern that trivial or vexatious appeals should be stopped. I am sure we would all agree with that objective, and my amendment seeks to add in a further ground on which permission to appeal can be refused—namely, that the appeal does not demonstrably show that it is in the interests of users of air transport services, in order to further minimise the potential for frivolous or vexatious appeals.

The primary duty of the Civil Aviation Authority, as set out in Clause 1, is that it must carry out its functions in a manner which it considers will further the interests of users of air transport services regarding the range, availability, continuity, cost and quality of airport operation services. Surely, then, there must be an argument for saying that in any appeal to the Competition Commission against a decision by the Civil Aviation Authority to include, or not to include, a condition in a licence, or in any appeal against a decision by the CAA to modify a licence condition—both instances relating to persons who operate a dominant area at a dominant airport—it should also have to be shown quite clearly that the appeal is in the interests of users of air transport services, bearing in mind that that is the primary duty and responsibility placed on the Civil Aviation Authority, whose decision is being appealed.

Clause 30, on the procedure on appeals, states that subsections (1), (2) and (5) of Clause 1 apply to the carrying out by the Competition Commission of its function of deciding an application for permission to appeal under Clauses 24 and 25. Clause 30 refers to subsections (1) (2) and (5) of Clause 1, and subsection (1) refers to the Civil Aviation Authority having, where appropriate, to carry out its functions in a manner which it considers will promote competition in the provision of airport operation services. In a debate on an amendment when we were previously discussing the Bill in Committee, the Minister said that subsection (1) of Clause 1 would take priority over subsection (2) as far as the Civil Aviation Authority was concerned if promoting competition in the provision of airport operation services conflicted with its duty under subsection (1) to carry out its functions in a manner which the Civil Aviation Authority considers will further the interests of users of air transport services regarding the range, availability, continuity, cost and quality of airport operation services.

However, it is not clear whether the giving of priority to subsection (1) over subsection (2) in Clause 1 where there is any sort of conflict applies also to the Competition Commission under Clause 30. Without it apparently being clear that it does, the Competition Commission, bearing in mind its name, might well give greater weight to promoting competition when deciding whether or not to refuse permission to appeal, rather than wanting to satisfy itself that the appeal is in the interests of users of air transport services, which is clearly stated in this amendment and is in accordance with the primary, overriding duty of the Civil Aviation Authority as laid down in Clause 1(1).

I hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment or be able to provide an assurance that giving priority to subsection (1) over subsection (2) in Clause 1 applies equally to the Competition Commission in Clause 30 as to the Civil Aviation Authority. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining the concerns that his amendments seek to address. However, I believe that the Bill already takes those concerns into account. The proposed appeals process has been carefully designed to ensure that where an appeal is brought, ordinarily for it to succeed, the appeal body should consider whether it is in passengers’ interests in the provision of airport operation services. It is our aim to have in place an appeals process that facilitates transparency and a timely manner of resolution of appeals, and that permission to appeal should be granted only where appropriate. However, we do not wish to stop those whose interests are materially affected from appealing. In meetings with airlines and airport bodies, my officials have sought to assure parties of this.

Clauses 24(5)(b) and 25(5)(b) as currently drafted already ensure that permission to appeal a licence condition or licence modification would be refused if the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success. Where an appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, it would be unjust and wrong in principle to refuse permission. In answer to the important question put by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I refer the Committee to Clause 30, which contains provisions stating that the Competition Commission “must have regard” to the same duties as the CAA in the discharge of stated functions. Included in these is the determination for permission to appeal under Clauses 24 and 25.

The Bill as drafted empowers the Competition Commission to refuse to grant permission to appeal so as to avoid parties bringing an appeal as a “spoiling” tactic. Nor can appeals be used as a delaying tactic. The default position is that the CAA’s licence condition or modification comes into effect while the appeal is being heard. Therefore, I do not believe that the inclusion of a further subsection in Clauses 24 and 25, as suggested by the noble Lord, would add anything of further substance to the Bill.

In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

Before I do so, while I think that the noble Earl has probably given me the assurances that I seek, perhaps I may ask him again directly whether he is saying clearly that, under the terms of Clause 30 where it states—as I indicated and the noble Earl has repeated—that subsections (1), (2) and (5) of Clause 1 apply to the carrying out by the Competition Commission of its functions, which include determining appeals brought under the two clauses that we are talking about, in carrying out those functions the Competition Commission is bound in the same way under Clause 1(1) and (2) as the Civil Aviation Authority is itself. Will it have the same general duty in respect of determining whether those appeals should be heard? In other words, it is to give priority—and see as its primary duty as the Competition Commission—to making the decision to furthering,

“the interests of the users of air transport services regarding the range, availability, continuity, cost and quality of airport operation services”,

thus ensuring that that duty overrides the duty to promote competition in the provision of airport operation services. I think that that is what the Minister said to me, but I should be grateful if he could confirm that that is the case.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Competition Commission must have regard to the CAA’s general duty under Clause 30, as per the set of amendments accepted earlier today. We do not believe that it would be sustainable for the Competition Commission to promote competition where to do so would be inimical to the interests of users of air transport services, as described in Clause 1(1).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I do not seek to play with words; I am just anxious to be clear. The Minister said that the Competition Commission must “have regard”. Does that mean that its general duty in hearing these appeals is the same as the CAA’s general duty under Clause 1, which states that its primary and overriding responsibility in determining whether those appeals should be heard is to,

“further the interests of users of air transport services”,

rather than, where there is a conflict, to promote competition? I do not know whether we are playing with words over “have regard to”. In the Minister’s view, does that mean that the Competition Commission is bound in the same way as the CAA is in its general duty under Clause 1(1) and (2)?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord’s question is yes.

[Lord Rosser]

In that case, since the Minister’s very specific answer makes it clear that the Competition Commission has the duty in the same way as the CAA has the duty under Clause 1(1) and (2), I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

The amendment relates to Clause 29, which deals with appeals determined by the Competition Commission under Clauses 24 and 25, which we have just discussed. Clause 29 states:

“A determination made by the Competition Commission … must be contained in an order”.

Later, it states that the Civil Aviation Authority,

“must take such steps as it considers requisite for it to comply with the order”.

It then goes on to say:

“The steps must be taken … if a time is specified in the order or is to be determined in accordance with the order, within that time, and … otherwise, within a reasonable time”.

The effect of the amendment would be to remove “within a reasonable time” and insert,

“within the period of 24 weeks beginning with the day on which the Competition Commission published the relevant order”.

This is a probing amendment, which seeks to find out what the Government mean by “within a reasonable time” and how they believe those words should be interpreted. Do they mean more or less than 24 weeks and, if it could be more than 24 weeks, will the Minister give some examples of where it might be reasonable for the Civil Aviation Authority to take longer than 24 weeks to comply with an order made by the Competition Commission when no specific timescale is laid down by it? It would also be helpful if the Minister could say who will be responsible for deciding whether the Civil Aviation Authority has taken steps to comply with an order within a reasonable time. Will it be the Civil Aviation Authority itself, the Competition Commission, the Secretary of State, the courts or some other individual or body?

As I say, this is a probing amendment. I hope I have explained the motive for tabling it and the issue that we hope the noble Earl will address. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the amendment seeks to amend subsection (7)(b) of Clause 29. The clause contains provisions relating to the publication of, and other matters connected to, the determination of appeals.

The current drafting provides that the CAA must take steps to comply with the appeal determination within any time period specified in the order. When none is specified, it must do so within a reasonable time. I am unable to support the amendment for two reasons. First, we do not think that it is necessary. Under subsection (7)(a) of the clause, the Competition Commission may specify a time limit in the order. We would expect it to do so if and whenever appropriate. Why would it not do so? Secondly, in circumstances where it is not appropriate to specify a period, it will be necessary to afford the CAA a reasonable time within which to comply with the order. What will comprise a reasonable time depends upon the context. There may be cases where action should be taken in fewer than 24 weeks and others where it is not reasonable to expect the CAA to take action within that period.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me to give examples. I do not have any to hand but there may, I suggest, be a requirement to provide IT facilities or some capability that might require the CAA to procure something. It simply would not have time to take the necessary procurement action, although it might have every intention of doing so and perhaps give assurances that it would do so.

Against this background, to set an arbitrary time limit of 24 weeks is not appropriate and may cause injustice. Therefore, it is prudent to retain the flexibility that subsection (7)(b) provides the CAA. This flexibility is consistent with our wish for the CAA to be an efficient regulator but to allow it appropriate periods of time to comply with orders. I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am not a lawyer but I do not have any difficulty in understanding the provisions. I do not understand why the Competition Commission or the Competition Appeal Tribunal would not set a time limit if it were appropriate to do so. If it were inappropriate—the CAA might have said that it was already complying and had no intention of stopping complying—it would be totally unnecessary to impose a time limit. However, I would expect the Competition Commission to impose a time limit if it were desirable.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I also thank my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for the points he made. Obviously it is my intention to withdraw the amendment since it is probing in nature, but will the Minister respond to the other point I made about who will determine whether it has been done within a reasonable time? The clause provides that it should be done “within a reasonable time” if no time limit is set. Who makes the decision as to whether it has been done within a reasonable time?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question, but I imagine that if it was not done within a reasonable time, there would be a mechanism for the appellant to go back to the Competition Commission or the Competition Appeal Tribunal. However, if I have got that wrong, obviously I will write to the noble Lord.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the terms “a reasonable time” and “a reasonable person” are frequently found in legislation. The noble Lord is absolutely right.

[Lord Rosser]

I am happy to leave this in the context that if the Minister finds that the response he has given to me on who will determine whether it has been done within a reasonable time is not the position, he will write to say that. As I say, it is a probing amendment to try to find out more about the Government’s intentions so far as the definition of “within a reasonable time” is concerned, and what kind of cases might come within that category rather than in subsection (7)(a), which provides that,

“if a time is specified in the order”.

I thank the noble Earl for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for tabling the amendment. An amendment of this kind would address a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its helpful report on the Bill, which was published four days before the start of Grand Committee. I have no complaint, but we will need a little more time to determine which way to go. However, I agree with the general aim of the amendment and have much sympathy with it.

The current drafting of the amendment is not technically correct. It would need alternative drafting to make a consequential amendment to the Airports Act 1986, where the provisions are to be inserted. I therefore wish to consider the matter further, with the intention of bringing forward a government amendment on Report. However, I do not anticipate having any difficulty with accepting the advice of the DPRRC. I hope that this reassures your Lordships that my intention is for a government amendment to be brought forward on this, in order to respond effectively to the DPRRC recommendation that if the purpose of the order provided for in sub-paragraph (11) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 is to ensure that the threshold can be increased for reasons other than inflation, the current negative procedure should be amended to an affirmative procedure to give Parliament greater scrutiny. With this assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. I fully accept that the amendment might not be worded in the appropriate manner. It appears from what he said that he intends to take the matter away with a view to producing an amendment that is in the right place in the Bill and says the right things to achieve the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

Yes. However, we are talking about the principle of regulation that you do not do things that are unnecessary: you target your effort at a problem. If there is not a problem, you leave it alone.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked whether the subsections could leave the CAA open to JR. These are secondary, subordinate obligations to which the CAA must have regard. Provided the CAA turns its mind to these matters and considers them, it will, prima facie, have complied with the obligation.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and other noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate.

The Minister said that he will look at Hansard to see what point I was making. To reiterate, the question I am raising is: what is the necessity for the two paragraphs that my amendment seeks to delete? Paragraph (b) states that,

“regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed”.

That comes after paragraph (a), which states that,

“regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent”.

I appreciate that the Minister has said that he will look at the question and respond but, to reiterate the question that I asked, how can something be proportionate if it is a regulatory activity targeted at a case in which action is not needed? Surely, by definition, if regulatory action is not needed and you take regulatory action, that cannot be proportionate.

I am happy to leave it in the context that the Minister will look at the point I have raised and respond to me. I would be grateful for that. I am asking a genuine question. We are all interested in making sure that there is no unnecessary verbiage in legislation, which is the point I am making about the two paragraphs that the amendment proposes should be deleted. However, in the context that the Minister will look at the issue and write to me, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in a terrifying case of urgency, it is in my opinion inconceivable that the British Transport Police would not agree to assist.

In answer to the noble Lord’s question about the British Transport Police Authority, he is right to point out that the chief constable of the British Transport Police is accountable to the British Transport Police Authority in the same way that chief constables of police forces in England and Wales are accountable to their respective police and crime commissioners. However, in the case of a directed tasking to the British Transport Police, the Secretary of State for Transport is ultimately responsible for the security of passengers and staff on the national rail network and on underground and light-rail systems. It is therefore right that she should have the ability to consent to direct tasking of the British Transport Police at the national level aimed at tackling serious and organised crime.

Moreover, tasking by the National Crime Agency may need to take place in time-critical situations. Members of the British Transport Police Authority meet six times a year to set British Transport Police targets and to allocate funds for its budget. It may not be possible to clear consent with the British Transport Police Authority in time for the necessary executive action to take place. This is not to say that the British Transport Police Authority would not be notified by its chief constable of a direct tasking request. I have no doubt that the chief constable of the British Transport Police would notify the British Transport Police Authority of direct tasking as soon as it was feasible to do so. Noble Lords have not convinced me that a situation would arise where the British Transport Police would refuse to provide assistance voluntarily.

[Lord Rosser]

If the Minister believes that there are no circumstances in which the British Transport Police would fail to provide the assistance required, why does he need directions in the Bill at all on the basis that, presumably, any police force would provide the assistance required?

[Earl Attlee]

As I said, it is to provide a necessary backstop. When two negotiating parties know that one party will win at the end of the day, it is amazing how agreement is reached quite quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I think the Minister has answered the point that I made. If he is arguing that about the British Transport Police, he does not need the provision in the Bill for any police force.

I want to clarify that I have understood correctly what has been said. What I have inferred—and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that I have understood it correctly—is that if the director-general makes a direction under Clause 5 that would require a chief officer of an England and Wales police force to perform a task, that direction does not require the consent of the Secretary of State, albeit that it would if it was in relation to the British Transport Police. Likewise, Schedule 3 provides that the director-general may,

“direct any of the following”,

including the chief officer of an England and Wales police force and the chief constable of the British Transport Police,

“to provide specified assistance to the NCA”.

While the approval of the Secretary of State would be required for a direction to a chief officer of an England and Wales police force, it would not be required for a direction to the chief constable of the British Transport Police. I simply want the Minister to clarify that I have understood what he said and that that is the distinction between Clause 5 and Schedule 3. I see the noble Lord, Lord Henley, nodding so I take it that what I have just said is a correct understanding of the position that the Minister explained.

I listened—frankly, I will wish to read it in Hansard—to the distinction between performing a task, which is referred to in Clause 5, and the director-general directing,

“any of the following to provide specified assistance to the NCA”.

Bear in mind that from the director-general’s point of view, if he can satisfy himself—or herself—that he requires a task to be performed by the chief officer of an England and Wales police force, he does not need the consent of the Secretary of State. Therefore, it might be quite tempting for a director-general to try to make sure that any direction that he gives comes under the heading of “performing a task”, rather than “providing specified assistance”. That is also what I have inferred from the Minister’s answer.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that the director-general would base an operational decision on bureaucratic convenience.

[Lord Rosser]

I am sure it would not be based on bureaucratic convenience. If he could satisfy himself that he was asking for a task to be performed, there would be less bureaucracy as he would not have to get the consent of the Secretary of State. Once again, I fear that there may be a view that there is a very clear divide between what could be defined as performing a task and what might be deemed to be providing specified assistance. I suspect that there will be grey areas over that in at least some cases.

I pointed out to the Minister that it was said at Second Reading that,

“the Bill provides that the director-general should, in exceptional circumstances, be able to direct police forces in England and Wales”.—[Official Report, 28/5/12; col. 974.]

I asked where in the Bill it says “exceptional circumstances”. I take it from the noble Earl’s answer that he agrees with me that the statement that the Bill provides for the director-general to be able to direct police forces in England and Wales in exceptional circumstances is not correct. Such wording does not appear in the Bill, although this was implied at Second Reading. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

People Trafficking

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, on securing a debate on this important matter and I thank him for raising it today with his usual skill and measured tone. I broadly accept your Lordships’ analysis of the situation. The Government certainly share the noble and right reverend Lord’s forcefully put view that human trafficking is a horrendous crime that needs to be addressed in a systematic and co-ordinated way. Right at the top of that process is my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I can assure noble Lords that she takes this matter very seriously.

As noble Lords have rightly observed, estimating the numbers of adults and children trafficked into and within the UK is difficult owing to the hidden nature of this criminal activity, but through the national referral mechanism we are starting to gain some valuable data about the scale of the problem. We know how many victims are referred. What we do not know is how many trafficking operations were successfully deterred or disrupted by the policies of this Government and the previous Government. However, for those victims we do indentify, our systems are now much more able to support them, according to their individual needs. I do not accept that Ministers underestimate the scale of the problem just because we cannot accurately measure it.

In answer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, I agree that this is a moral issue. I am sure that Ministers would still not be happy even if we had reduced the numbers to only 100 people being trafficked. We would not stop until we could get it to almost zero. I assure the House that this Government continue to use all resources at their disposal to identify, prosecute and convict traffickers, often working with other countries to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, talked about the problem of forced labour within the UK. I can assure her that the Government are well aware of that problem.

We continue to review our approach to trafficking to ensure that we remain one step ahead of those seeking to exploit our borders. My noble friend Lady Jenkin raised the problem of men being trafficked out of the UK to places such as foreign construction sites. I was not personally aware of this but I will discuss it with my officials afterwards.

Free movement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland continues to be of immense importance to the economic, social and cultural well-being of both countries. I can assure noble Lords that the UK and Irish Governments are working in partnership to prevent abuse of the common travel area by strengthening its external border while preserving the right of free movement within it for those who are lawfully present. That is enforced by the UK Border Agency and the police carrying out intelligence-led operations to target the potential abuse of the CTA and to identify those who would otherwise seek to avoid UK controls.

Many noble Lords have expressed concerns about the vulnerability of children seeking to travel on Eurostar. Children and any accompanying adults looking to travel to the UK by Eurostar are routinely interviewed at our juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium. Officers seek to establish the relationship between children and the adults who are accompanying them or meeting them on arrival in the UK before allowing them to leave the juxtaposed border control. If trafficking is suspected, they are immediately reported to the appropriate French or Belgian authorities.

The UK Border Agency closely monitors all trains arriving from Brussels and Lille and carries out detailed checks on passengers where it is suspected that a passenger has evaded the juxtaposed controls. Full ticket controls are routinely mounted at St Pancras, Ebbsfleet and Ashford upon notification of a potential passenger who is seeking to arrive in the UK with a ticket to Lille. To supplement this, multi-agency child safeguarding periodic monitoring exercises advised by Paladin are also conducted at St Pancras. We are currently working closely with our Belgian counterparts and Eurostar to resolve the underlying issues.

My noble friend Lady Doocey raised the problem of unaccompanied children. The travel documentation and letter of consent for all unaccompanied children on Eurostar services are examined by border force officers at the controls. It is important to understand that the form signed by the parent or guardian is not designed to be a reliable check in itself; rather, it is the starting point for any inquiries that might be made by the authorities as they see fit. My noble friend also asked me to give undertakings as regards this being an operational matter for Eurostar. Officers regularly contact the parents or guardians of unaccompanied children to verify the letter of consent for travel to the UK. If there is any cause for concern on the authenticity of the consent of the parent or guardian or about the reception arrangements in the UK, officers will interview the parent or guardian. If doubts persist after all appropriate checks have been undertaken, the UK Border Agency may prevent the child travelling to the UK unaccompanied. For those children who do travel, staff at St Pancras identify unaccompanied children as they disembark and escort them to the concourse to ensure that the sponsor is present and is known to the child.

However, in my capacity as government spokesman for DfT matters in your Lordships' House, I have asked my officials to seek a visit by me to Eurostar at St Pancras. I would expect to include an examination of British Transport Police operations in that visit. I am sure that as a high-profile and responsible operator, Eurostar will be keen to show me first hand how it deals with the problems which my noble friend has identified.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, are concerned that we might not be compliant with the EU directive because we do not appear to have a national rapporteur. However, the UK is already compliant with this measure through equivalent mechanisms in the form of the UK Human Trafficking Centre as the central repository for data and the interdepartmental ministerial group for oversight. I believe that this meets the need identified by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. This equivalent mechanism is broadly in line with practice among our EU neighbours. We are aware of only two countries within the EU that have an independent national rapporteur on human trafficking—the Netherlands and Finland—and I am not convinced that they each operate in the same way. Several noble Lords have referred to the interdepartmental ministerial group. We recognise the need to work across government and we will consider how to strengthen the group to fulfil the national rapporteur role in the coming months. It is important to understand that the EU directive on national rapporteurs requires a national rapporteur or equivalent mechanism to assess trends in human trafficking and activities on anti-trafficking, and to work with civil society organisations and to report. It does not require the role to be independent.

Responsibility for the care, protection and accommodation of child trafficking victims falls within the designated responsibilities of local authorities for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children under the provisions of the 1989 and 2004 Children Acts. To support local authorities, we recently revised practice guidance on safeguarding trafficked children with the Department for Education, which will aid practitioners in identification and safeguarding of child victims of this horrible crime. Once a child is placed in care, a care plan is drawn up by their allocated social worker bringing together a range of information and support. The social worker will assess suitable accommodation, educational support and other services based on need. This care plan is regularly reviewed by an independent reviewing officer to ensure that the child’s needs are being met. This will include stability, safety and emotional well-being. IROs are also able to assist the child in obtaining legal advice. My noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich talked about his important amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Henley is looking forward to responding in due course. New guidance for IROs makes it clear that every child has the right to be supported by an advocate. The advocate must accurately represent the child’s wishes and feelings, irrespective of personal views on the child’s best interests.

Another key area is that of missing trafficked children, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, among others. Your Lordships should not underestimate the progress the Government have made on this. The first CEOP scoping report on this issue, published in 2007, found a shocking 55 per cent of trafficked children missing from their care placement, but with effective work at a local level to tackle this issue, the most recent CEOP strategic assessment showed that this figure had been reduced to 18 per cent. Local authorities such as Hillingdon, Hertfordshire and Harrow are leading the way with proactive, multi-agency partnerships to identify and safeguard trafficked children from going missing from care. Simple changes to the way they handle, for instance, a child’s access to accommodation front doors, mobile phones and other issues have allowed them to make great progress in reducing the number of children going missing. The national picture is still not good enough but the figures are undeniably heading in the right direction. The new human trafficking strategy commits us to working to raise awareness of these issues locally to ensure in all areas where there is evidence that a child has been trafficked, care planning and activities to support the child must minimise the risk of traffickers reinvolving the child in exploitative activities.

As usual, where I have not been able to respond fully to noble Lords’ substantive points, I will, of course, write. In summary, I can assure the House that this Government will lead the fight with our partners at all levels to ensure that our response to this crime remains an effective deterrent to drive down the number and level of people affected.

[Lord Rosser]

As the Minister is closing his comments, in the light of what he said about the Government’s determination to fight human trafficking—I am sure that is the case—is it the Government’s view that sentences for human trafficking are appropriate, bearing in mind that the average determinate custodial sentence for drug trafficking appears to be some 50 per cent higher than that for human trafficking?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, that is a detailed question on which I shall have to write to the noble Lord. An interesting problem is that it can be very difficult to secure prosecutions for trafficking. Often we see criminals being prosecuted for offences other than trafficking because it is easier to secure the evidence. I neglected to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, about a possible gap in the legislation in Northern Ireland. I can assure him that we have not revoked anything and that there will be no gaps.

Rail: Great Western Passenger Franchise

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, an issue raised by train operators is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, if they want to increase rolling stock capacity to meet extra demand, they have to secure the approval of the Department for Transport either to use existing rolling stock more intensively or to lease additional rolling stock from the leasing companies. The approval of the Department for Transport is also required before train operators can speed up scheduled services following improvements to the infrastructure. Will the Government make provision in the new Great Western passenger franchise and in existing and other new franchises to enable the train operator to make such changes in future, subject to the other terms of the franchise remaining the same, without having to go through the, at times, time-consuming and lengthy procedure for obtaining prior approval from the Department for Transport?

[Earl Attlee]

I think that the noble Lord broadly describes some of the difficulties of franchising. We will have to see what the result of the consultation is.

Aviation: UK Civil Aviation

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

Secondly, this Government have an open mind, which is the right way to go into a consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, effectively asked whether we are going to do a U-turn on Stansted. The commitment in the coalition agreement still stands.

[Lord Rosser]

In the light of what he said about the Government having an open mind, will the noble Earl confirm that the previous government statements about no new runways at any of the three largest airports in London and the south-east no longer stand?

[Earl Attlee]

Definitely not, my Lords. The noble Lords knows perfectly well that that is in the coalition agreement and will stay.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, asked me what more can be done to support industry and its people. The Government recognise the value that the aviation industry brings through supporting a network of highly skilled workers that adds value to the economy. The sector is at the forefront of technological progress, delivering R&D projects and large-scale investments that drive industry and the economy forwards. It is important that the trade union sector fully engages in the consultation process. The noble Lord also touched on the important issue of pilot fatigue. On the matter of flight-time limitations, we will support the proposed requirements only if the Civil Aviation Authority determines that they provide an appropriate level of protection against crew fatigue.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, touched on the 76,000 employees at Heathrow, plus those in related service industries. We have to take their position into consideration as well. The noble Lord also talked about biofuels. The Government are clear that sustainable biofuels have a role to play in reducing CO₂ emissions from transport, particularly in sectors such as aviation where there are limited alternatives to fossil fuels. In recent years, the aviation industry has conducted research and carried out flight tests to help provide information on different fuels. This work has demonstrated that biofuels for aviation are technically feasible. However, there are currently a range of barriers to introducing biofuels, including sustainability, scalability of the feed stocks and commercial viability. The Government will continue to work with European partners, the wider international community and industry to explore how to bring about a significant increase in the use of biofuels in aviation. Advanced biofuels, such as those derived from algae, when commercialised, could offer particular advantages, such as reduced land use impact.

On UK connectivity with China, the Government recognise the importance of developing and maintaining good links between the UK and emerging economies. That is why this March we are calling for evidence on options for maintaining the UK's hub status. Heathrow currently has fewer scheduled flights to mainland China than Paris or Frankfurt, but more than Amsterdam. However, if flights from Heathrow to Hong Kong are included, there are more flights from Heathrow to China than from any other EU hub. Hong Kong serves around 45 destinations on the Chinese mainland.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised the issue of connectivity with the regions, particularly Northern Ireland. The Government recognise the vital contribution that air connections make to regional economies and acknowledge Northern Ireland's concerns about the air service between Northern Ireland and Heathrow should BMI be sold to British Airways. However, airlines operate in a competitive commercial environment, and it is for individual airlines to determine the routes that they operate. The options for supporting regional air services to London are limited. Member states can impose public service obligations to protect air services to remote airports, which could permit slots to be ring-fenced. However, they can be imposed only between specific cities, not specific airports, a difficulty identified by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. We have written to the EU Commission on that point, but there is no other mechanism for the Government to intervene in the allocation of slots at UK airports. The noble Lord introduced the Airports (Amendment) Bill, which would provide for the protection of air services between Heathrow and the UK regions. The Government are considering in detail the measures included in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Lea, got quite excited about a number of points. Although we are committed to not authorising additional runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, we are looking at our aviation policy framework with an open mind. The aviation industry is vital to our country. Our next step is to publish the draft aviation strategy and call in March for evidence on hub connectivity. With that strategy, we want to move away from the polarised opinions that have dominated discussion in the past and develop a broader consensus for change.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, our Amendment 43 in this group seeks to ban the use of fixed barriers by private parking operators unless they comply with new statutory rules on maximum parking charges and signage. The need for this amendment arises from the Government’s decision on Report in the Commons to introduce new subsection (3) into Clause 54, as has already been referred to, as a clarification in order to maintain the lawful use of fixed barriers in private car parks. However, the effect of that subsection appears to be also to reinstate mechanisms by which less principled operators will effectively be able to immobilise vehicles and prevent drivers from leaving without paying excessive or erroneous parking charges.

As Diana Johnson MP said during the debate in the other place,

“I am even more concerned that companies that wish to get round the law, operate in an intimidating way and issue excessive parking tickets will see this as an opportunity to go ahead. Under clause 54(3) putting down a barrier in effect immobilises a vehicle”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/10/11; col. 139.]

Subsection (3) risks creating a loophole that will see the return of the very same regime of rogue operators that the Bill is trying to eradicate. Our amendment seeks to ensure that only reputable operators are allowed to use the added measure of fixed barriers in order to ensure the on-the-spot payment of tickets. If not, they would have to pursue vehicle keepers through the DVLA as provided for by Schedule 4.

Reference has already been made to Schedule 4. Under it, landowners—that is, in this context, parking providers—may pursue vehicle keepers for unpaid parking charges through the DVLA, subject to certain conditions. Concerns have been expressed about that arrangement. Consumer groups, Citizens Advice and trading standards have pointed out that rogue ticketers, whose numbers may increase following any ban on clamping, will be able to access vehicle keepers’ highly sensitive information through the DVLA and pursue them for excessive or unfairly levied charges.

The present position is that existing regulations enable only those who provide parking in accordance with industry best practice to access details of vehicle keepers from the DVLA. Industry best practice is defined in the regulations as membership of an accredited trade association, of which the British Parking Association’s approved operator scheme is currently the only one. However, the concerns that have been expressed relate to the fact that adherence to best practice is equated with membership of the BPA. The BPA is a trade association and is not resourced or intended to enforce compliance. In addition, the BPA approved operator scheme is not independent since it is decided on by the membership—namely, the parking providers—and therefore does not guarantee fairness to consumers.

In her amendments, my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town has raised an important issue, which was referred to at Second Reading when reference was made to what would happen in the event of a total ban on clamping if people found their driveways being used if they happened, as has been said today, to live near a railway station, a football stadium or perhaps some other major leisure centre, where this is a hazard that at least some of them seem to face. It is not clear, if there is to be a complete ban on clamping, exactly what their redress would be. There certainly would not seem to be much point in calling the police, since even if they felt moved to act in relation to a car on someone’s driveway, it is highly unlikely that they would regard the issue as a particular priority. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss my noble friend’s amendments but will seek to address an answer to the issues and concerns that she has raised.

We have also heard concerns raised about the impact on disabled drivers. Does the minister believe that the Government’s proposals have an impact on disabled drivers? In written evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the British Parking Association said that it was particularly concerned that the equality impact assessment assumes that there will be no impact. We have certainly heard during today’s debate of circumstances that will have an adverse impact and which appear to arise directly from the provisions in the Government’s Bill. I hope that the Minister will give a straight answer on those concerns.

We would support the establishment of an independent appeals process, but it must apply across the whole sector, not just in relation to the BPA. I assume that the Minister would have no objections to that, but no doubt he will be stating his position shortly.

I conclude by saying that in this very interesting debate a significant number of concerns have been raised and there is a degree of consensus, though not complete, from all sides of the House about the concerns that need to be addressed. Because I accept that there are no easy answers, I invite the Minister to consider whether he might convene discussions outside the Chamber with the interested parties—those who have contributed to the debate today—to talk about those concerns and see if any consensus can be reached on progress that might be made in addressing them.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, her Amendment 42 seeks to introduce a number of exemptions to the ban on vehicle immobilisation and towing. The amendment would allow wheel clamping and towing to continue on private land where the vehicle was unregistered in the United Kingdom, causing an obstruction or parked in a residential estate where parking was permitted only for residents or their guests, or the vehicle was adapted for towing—in other words, it was a trailer or a caravan. I understand why she and others seek these amendments, but I personally have received complaints about the activities of rogue clamping companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we have Amendment 53 in this group. I shall attempt to be reasonably brief as many of the points were made in the previous debate. However, to recap, it is under Schedule 4 that landowners—that is, parking providers—may pursue vehicle keepers for unpaid parking charges through the DVLA, subject to certain conditions. As I said earlier, some concerns have been expressed about this arrangement, not least by consumers’ groups and Citizens Advice. I think that the Minister will find, for instance, that Citizens Advice Scotland has some examples of the adverse impact of the scheme as it applies there and it can give information on that.

The question of access to information is potentially of some concern. In evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee last week, the Corporate Affairs Director of the DVLA said that if there were an allegation, for example, about damage or harm done through the use of a vehicle, the person alleging the harm would be given details of the keeper of the vehicle from whom they could make inquiries as to who was the operator of the vehicle at the time the alleged harm was done. When asked to whom this information would be given, the DVLA representative said that if they were in the private parking field, the companies would have to be members of the accredited trade association—that is, the British Parking Association’s approved operator scheme, which is the only approved operator scheme in the parking sector.

When it was then suggested that as long as an organisation joined the BPA, the DVLA would hand over information to it about the keeper of a vehicle, the DVLA said that it would, provided that it was convinced by the details of the request and the organisation was known to be a member of the approved operator scheme. However, as the Minister will know, recent media stories have claimed that the personal details of more than a million motorists were sold to private clamping companies by the DVLA in 2010, which suggests that maybe the safeguards against giving information to organisations or representatives of organisations who should not be entitled to know details of the keeper of a vehicle are not as strong as they should be.

Our amendment seeks to address the issue by requiring private parking providers to demonstrate adherence with industry best practice—that relates to all private parking providers—on issues such as signage display or maximum penalties to gain details of the vehicle keeper from the DVLA. The amendment also places a burden of responsibility on the DVLA to ensure that a keeper’s personal information is provided only to reputable parking providers by establishing a code of conduct on fair practice, including appropriate penalty charges and requirements for the display of notices in respect of parking of vehicles on the relevant land. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the amendment which seeks to ensure that there is a code of practice and that it is an independent code of conduct that is operated and run not only in the interests of the parking providers but in the interests of those who use the parking facilities.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group seek to amend in their various ways the provisions on keeper liability in Schedule 4 to the Bill. Amendments 44 and 54, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, set out a further set of conditions that the creditor must comply with to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle. Unless the Committee appears to desire it, I do not propose to weary it by going through each one in detail, much as I would enjoy doing so.

Although the amendments are clearly well intentioned and designed to offer further safeguards to the motorist, I would hope to persuade my noble friend that they are in the most part either unnecessary or inappropriate. I say that because the amendments do not appear appropriate for trespass situations which the Bill also covers, and in relation to private car parks. The issues that the amendments address can be dealt with either through self-regulation within the industry, or they will be matters that may be considered by the independent appeals body that will be established before the provisions come into effect.

First and foremost, we do not consider that it is appropriate to add further conditions over and above those contained in the schedule for landowners who wish to take action against those who trespass on their property. In relation to non-trespass situations—private car parks—a number of the suggested conditions will be subject to the individual facts of a given case and would anyway be dealt with by the disputes arrangements, whether that was an internal scheme or through the independent appeals body. We have already made it clear that any notice to the driver or keeper of the vehicle intending to recover unpaid parking charges must set out what the appeals arrangements are. As such, we believe that the conditions that we have set out in the schedule adequately cover what would be expected of the creditor in seeking to recover unpaid parking charges. It will be more appropriate for the independent appeals body to hear disputes and review the evidence presented by either party rather than seeking to specify these matters in legislation beforehand.

In addition, consumer protection legislation already applies to parking contracts and there is the added safeguard that only those parking providers who are members of an accredited trade association will have access to DVLA vehicle keeper data and can therefore pursue keeper liability as part of their general enforcement arrangements. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who asked about the 1 million occasions when the DVLA data were accessed, an accredited trade association can get DVLA data. A high figure is representative of the high number of on-road offences in which keeper details were requested. It also covers private policing to, for example, supermarkets. The Government have made it clear to the parking industry that members of such accredited trade associations—in this case the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme—will need to sign up to a code of practice that will include an agreement to have disputes and complaints dealt with via an independent appeals body.

In a similar vein, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, seeks further regulation in the form of a statutory code of conduct covering penalty charges and signage. Any creditor would have to demonstrate that they had complied with the code before being able to obtain keeper details from the DVLA. Again, this is an overregulatory approach that would apply to all private land, including to trespass situations. It is both inappropriate and unnecessary. As I mentioned, members of the British Parking Association's approved operator scheme already operate under a code of practice that provides guidance on both penalty charges and signage. The Bill also contains reserve powers to prescribe signage if this proves necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, touched on Scotland and the experience of Citizens Advice. I will follow it up and if the noble Lord could assist me with further details, it would be much appreciated.

The purpose of Schedule 4 is simply to strengthen the arrangements for the enforcement of unpaid parking charges as an alternative to wheel clamping once the ban has come into force. Schedule 4 covers all land not subject to statutory control, from private car parks to the front driveways of private properties. It would be neither sensible nor appropriate in these circumstances to introduce wide-ranging regulation that would seriously impinge on the ability of smaller landowners to control parking on their land. The self-regulatory approach for larger operators as a condition of membership of a government-accredited trade association is the right approach for larger private car park operators and their agents.

I turn to the government amendments. As I indicated, we will not commence the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 until an independent appeals body is in place. Government Amendments 48, 50 and 52 reinforce this point. They clarify the conditions that must be met when issuing a ticket to a driver or vehicle keeper for an unpaid parking charge by requiring that the ticket must include details both of any arrangements offered internally by the company, and any arrangements available by independent adjudication or arbitration. This reinforces and strengthens the Government's commitment that Schedule 4 will not commence until an independent appeals service is in place.

I will deal briefly with government Amendments 56 and 57. They make a small change to Schedule 4 following representations from the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. I declare a small interest as I attended its 2005 annual dinner and found myself sitting next to a lady who appeared to be the girl of my dreams. I am pleased to say that she is now the Countess Attlee. The schedule excludes vehicle hire firms from keeper liability provisions provided certain conditions are fulfilled when vehicles are hired out. The association pointed out that the definition of a hire agreement that refers to hire periods not exceeding six months does not reflect modern vehicle rental arrangements, in which longer periods of hire are commonplace. We accepted this point and amended the definition of a hire agreement so that it covers hire periods of any duration.

In summing up, I assure your Lordships and the Committee that the Government are fully committed to monitoring the effect of the ban on wheel clamping and the associated keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4. If there is evidence that we need to take further measures when the new arrangements are in place, we will of course consider this. We do not believe that there will be any need, but if evidence shows that problems exist, we will act. However, there have been no problems of note with rogue ticketing in Scotland, where wheel clamping has been banned since 1992. Given this assurance, I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will withdraw his amendment and that he and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will support the government amendments.

Railways: Brighton to London Line

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Thursday 6th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I fully accept that the Brighton line is running at capacity, but this particular scheme will do nothing to relieve the bottleneck. For instance, the path between Sevenoaks and Orpington is just twin track and there are no more train paths available at the peak period.

[Lord Rosser]

Nearly all line reopenings that have taken place have proved successful and have more than met projected passenger figures. Can the Minister say whether other lines are being considered for reopening? In particular, what is the current position with the reopening of the Skipton to Colne route and the safeguarding of that route?

Railways: Thameslink Rolling Stock Contract

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the ability of bidders to raise the finance. However, the model selected by the previous Administration is a good one and we support it. It is important to remember that the Siemens bid will also create employment in the UK, although I have to accept that it will not be as much.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, on Tuesday, the Conservative MP for Mid Derbyshire said:

“Over the months … we have been waiting for the decision, I personally lobbied the Secretary of State for Transport … Unfortunately, he told me every … time that I was not to worry because Bombardier was fine … as the company had lots of orders and would have no problem going forward. That is clearly not the case, so he misread the situation. I hope that he feels somewhat apologetic about the decision”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/11; col. 10WH.]

That statement by the Conservative MP gives the game away. If the Secretary of State will not review the decision, what will he now do in negotiations with Siemens as the preferred bidder to maximise the number of additional jobs that it creates in this country to compensate for the thousands of jobs that will be lost in Derby and elsewhere in the rail supply chain as a result of the complacency and misjudgment which have now been revealed by one of his own MPs to have been behind the Secretary of State’s decision?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, any job losses are highly regrettable. However, Bombardier has previously advised the department that it expected to make redundancies at this time regardless of the outcome of the Thameslink procurement order as Bombardier’s Derby factory is currently operating at peak capacity and several of these orders come to an end later this year. Noble Lords will know that there are several other rolling stock procurement contracts in the offing.

Rugby Union: Twickenham Railway Station

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in response to my noble friend’s second question, I would not normally expect the business case, the BCR or the transport infrastructure project to be significantly affected by an existing sporting venue. In response to my noble friend’s first question, it is envisaged that many of the eight-coach trains that currently operate into London Waterloo will be lengthened to 10-coach trains by 2014 under the HLOS. Platforms will similarly be lengthened at busier stations, such as Twickenham, providing substantial extra capacity at major events such as the Rugby Union World Cup. There are well established plans to manage passenger flows on to the platform so that there are not too many passengers on it at the same time.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is not much good trying to encourage more people to travel by rail with improved station facilities if at the same time the Government are driving some people away by agreeing to fare increases way above what is already the Government-induced high rate of inflation?

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

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Monday 28th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Earl Attlee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration: Asylum Seekers

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that the wrong test was being applied previously. We are happy with the new test in HJ and HT. He asked me to cite some statistics and I will write to him, but a clearly unfounded claim is one that is so clearly without substance that it is bound to fail even were all other aspects of the applicant’s claim accepted. Certification is subject to judicial review.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, if it is the Government’s view that the right of appeal already exists, as I understand the Minister to have said, in the light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that application for asylum should be accepted if it is satisfied that a gay person who lived openly would be liable to persecution in the country of origin, would it not be appropriate to amend Section 94(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act to add sexual orientation to the list of specific descriptions of named categories of people who have the right of appeal?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, no, because all cases are considered on their merits. If there is no reason to suspect that an applicant is not gay and he comes from a homophobic state, he will have a good claim for asylum.

Roads: Charging

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. First, we have not fixed which scheme we are going to adopt, but it is unlikely that we will rely purely on a paper vignette. EU states have indeed moved from paper to electronic vignettes. Various possibilities are still being considered by the Government, but it is most likely that HGVs will be monitored for compliance by the use of automatic number plate reading linked to a database.

[Lord Rosser]

What progress are the Government making to implement the Conservative election commitment to make foreign hauliers pay appropriate dues when in this country on our roads? Have the Government found a way of doing that by road pricing without also further penalising UK hauliers, already being hit by the increase in fuel prices and the Government's VAT increase?

Asylum (First List of Safe Countries) (Amendment) Order 2010

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Monday 8th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the order adds Switzerland to the first list of safe third countries set out in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. This provision is concerned with situations in which an asylum seeker may be removed to a safe third country—that is, one of which he or she is not a national or citizen—without substantive consideration of the asylum claim. Countries in the first list of safe countries are presumed to be places from which an asylum seeker will not be returned in breach of the refugee convention or the European Convention on Human Rights.

Provided that the Secretary of State is able to certify, therefore, that the applicant is not a national or citizen of the state listed, the applicant may be removed to it and no right of appeal lies against the decision on the grounds of presumed or deemed safety. In other words, the applicant cannot bring an appeal arguing that the country in question is not safe.

Applicants may resist their removal on other human rights grounds in the usual way, although provision is made for such claims to be certified as clearly unfounded unless we are satisfied that they are not. If the claim is so certified, any appeal may be made only outside the United Kingdom. The Part 2 list currently includes all member states of the European Union, Iceland and Norway, all of which are bound by the arrangements for determining responsibility for examining an asylum claim set down in EC Regulation No. 343/2003, also known as the Dublin II Regulation. This regulation determines which member state is responsible for dealing with an asylum claim made within the EU or in another participating country. Dublin II combats the problem of asylum shopping in Europe by making one participating state—most often, though not always, the first one that the asylum seeker entered or the one in which he or she first claimed asylum—responsible for an asylum applicant and allowing him or her to be returned there if he or she tries to make a claim somewhere else. Since 2004, the Dublin regulation has allowed us to remove a net total of more than 7,500 people to other participating states.

Switzerland has signed an agreement with the EU allowing it to join the Dublin system and has been taking part in it since December 2008. The UK Border Agency has considered research from a number of sources, including UNHCR reports and the US State Department, and has conducted its own country research. We are satisfied that Switzerland has adequate procedures in place to ensure that individuals will neither be exposed to persecution in Switzerland nor be returned to their country of origin in breach of the refugee convention. We therefore believe that it is appropriate to make this order, which will allow us to operate the Dublin II Regulation with Switzerland as effectively as possible. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, as the Minister said, the order adds Switzerland to the list of safe third countries to which an asylum seeker can be removed from the UK without substantive consideration of the merits of his or her asylum claim. One effect is that there is no scope to contest removal to the third country on refugee convention grounds either before or after removal from the UK.

The Secretary of State has said that she is satisfied that removing asylum seekers to Switzerland will not be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and that any asylum seeker returned to Switzerland will be afforded the rights and benefits accorded to all asylum seekers under its domestic law. Paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to:

“Extensive research into the treatment of asylum seekers in Switzerland”,

having been,

“carried out using objective material and information provided by the Swiss authorities”.

Can the Minister say a little more about what that objective material was? From what is said in the Explanatory Memorandum, one takes it that it is independent material, but it would be helpful if the Minister could say a little more on that score.

The list of safe third countries includes, as the Minister said, all member states of the European Union and states in the European economic area. The Explanatory Memorandum also states that since December 2008 eight asylum seekers have been removed to Switzerland. Can the Minister tell us in general terms something about the eight cases? Did the people involved seek to contest the decision to remove them? Have there been any cases of decisions to remove to Switzerland being successfully contested and, if so, on what grounds did they succeed? On what general grounds or basis was Switzerland considered in these cases to be the appropriate country in respect of those eight asylum seekers? Was it, as the Minister said in his introductory comments, that Switzerland was the first country entered? With the introduction of this order, is there expected to be an increase in the number of asylum seekers being removed to Switzerland if the process is simplified?

Paragraphs 10.2 and 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum state that adding Switzerland to the safe third country list and its associated procedures will reduce the scope for errors. What kinds of errors are referred to in these two paragraphs?

This does not appear to be a contentious order but, finally, there is a reference in paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the instrument being,

“subjected to internal review within the UK Border Agency to ensure that it has met that aim”.

When that internal review has been undertaken, will the results be made public?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I shall write on the questions that I have not answered.

[Lord Rosser]

One question to which the Minister has not responded—and I can hardly imagine that it is a difficult one—is whether or not the results of the internal review will be made public.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write on that one as well.

Cyclists: Deaths

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Thursday 21st October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Baroness raises an important point. No test is required to ride a bicycle. However, the Bikeability instructors are properly qualified. The enforcement of traffic offences—and riding a bike illegally is a traffic offence—is an operational matter for the police.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, there will be obvious concern about the effect of the proposed abolition of Cycling England on safety. Perhaps the Minister will wish to comment on that. Apart from the wearing of the helmet, a number of measures can of course be taken to reduce deaths and serious injuries among pedal cyclists. Local government plays a fundamental role in that area. Assuming that it will still have sufficient staff numbers in future to enable it to play a continuing, meaningful role in road safety, what assessment did the Department for Transport make of the impact on making further improvements in road safety for pedal cyclists of the future removal of the ring-fencing of nearly all local authority revenue grants, at a time when local authority budgets are being reduced? Did the Department for Transport make such an assessment at all and, if so, what did it show?

[Earl Attlee]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to explain the situation regarding Cycling England. The noble Lord will remember that the Bikeability project is part of Cycling England. The functions of Cycling England will be absorbed into the Department for Transport. However, the Bikeability project will continue. Funding for it is available until at least the end of this Parliament. As for the issue of local authorities, we believe in localism but it is inconceivable that they will not promote bicycling, because of its obvious benefits.

Planning: Appeals

Debate between Lord Rosser and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. At the pre-application stage, an applicant should share his proposals with the local planning authority. That would provide an early indication to applicants of any potential reasons for refusal and would offer the opportunity to amend the proposal. Applicants should also speak to their neighbours and others who may be affected by the proposal before it is submitted to the local planning authority.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, following statements made in the election campaign, it appears that the Government’s policy is that local communities should have a major say about whether there should be significant new housing developments in their backyard. Does that means that this Conservative Government would, or would not, expect local authorities to be deflected from agreeing to planning applications for new housing simply because there are significant local public objections?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, where there are local objections to a planning proposal, the local planning authority will take them into consideration. If it chooses to refuse the application, the applicant has the opportunity to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which will take all matters into consideration.