Transport: Pedicabs

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 27th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It would perhaps be presumptuous of me at the Dispatch Box to say what Government will be returned on 8 June. I have already made my position and that of the current Government clear: we would look to legislate at the earliest opportunity. The noble Baroness raises an important point about the image of London in the view of tourists who are not aware, perhaps, whether they are getting into a regulated vehicle or of the price that will be charged. I am acutely aware of the challenges the noble Baroness poses. As I said, I am certainly keen to see this area regulated at the earliest opportunity, but it is a matter for a future Government.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I would like to explore this a little more with the Minister. I agree with the comments made so far about the problem that needs to be addressed. However, my recollection is that in May last year the Government announced that they would regulate the industry. Unless the Minister tells me I have this wrong, I thought they said then that legislation would come forward later in the year—2016. Clearly, it did not. Is this a particularly complex area to deal with? Is that why legislation did not come forward in 2016? Is it proving more difficult than thought, or is there some other reason why nothing was done within the timescale that, as far as I know, the Government originally suggested?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Government explored various legislative vehicles, such as the opportunity for a sponsored Private Member’s Bill. As I said earlier, without pre-empting what may have happened or will happen in coming months, it is important to recognise that there were opportunities. Certain legislative vehicles in the current timetable could have been used to legislate in this respect. It remains the case—I have given a personal commitment and that of the current Government to this—that this is an important area to legislate in. We will continue to do so at the earliest opportunity if a Conservative Government are re-elected on 8 June.

Specified Agreement on Driving Disqualifications Regulations 2017

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 27th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument is being made to reintroduce an agreement to allow for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Noble Lords may recall that our previous arrangement on this matter under the 1998 European Convention on Driving Disqualifications ceased to apply in the UK from 1 December 2014, when the UK exercised its right to opt out of various EU police and criminal justice matters under the treaty of Lisbon.

The United Kingdom has one of the best road safety records in the world, and this co-operation between the Administrations of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will improve it further. This measure is particularly important for the people of Northern Ireland, who share a 310 mile-long border with Ireland, where around 15,000 people cross at 300 crossing points on a daily basis, travelling between the two. Last year, traffic accidents caused 68 people to needlessly lose their lives in Northern Ireland.

In summary, if a British or Northern Irish driver receives an instant disqualification from driving while travelling in the Republic of Ireland—say, for example, for drink-driving or for causing a serious injury to another road user—the disqualification can follow the individual back home. The same is true for Irish drivers disqualified here in Britain or in Northern Ireland.

The treaty that my officials have negotiated with the Irish is almost identical to the now defunct European Convention on Driving Disqualifications—but with one important difference. The convention gave rise to a loophole in its wording, whereby some drivers could escape a ban following them home by falsely claiming normal residence in the country where the offence occurred. We have amended the wording accordingly, to close this loophole. This will ensure that those unscrupulous individuals trying to escape punishment can no longer do so.

The mutual recognition process is straightforward. When a British or Northern Irish court determines that a driver is to be disqualified, and that driver is normally resident in Ireland—the driver can be the holder of any particular driving licence, whether Irish, EU or another—the driver will be able to appeal the decision. If an appeal is either heard and rejected, or not filed, the DVLA will write to the Road Safety Authority in Ireland and inform it that a driver resident in Ireland has been disqualified. It is then that the case is referred to the Irish courts, and judges there can elect to uphold the ban. Again, the same is true of British and Northern Irish drivers disqualified in Ireland.

These measures are not to be considered as a double punishment. Drivers have the right of appeal against the initial ban, and indeed against the ban applying in the country of normal residence. But a driver who commits an offence serious enough to merit instant disqualification needs to be taken off the road both in the UK and Ireland for the appropriate duration. If the Irish court imposes the additional punishment of being forced to resit a driving test or taking an extended driving test, we in Great Britain and Northern Ireland will similarly impose such additional punishments. Any driving disqualifications arising from the totting up of penalty points are not covered in this series of measures. However, Ireland and Northern Ireland are continuing to engage on a bilateral basis, through discussions in the North/South Ministerial Council, for the mutual recognition of penalty points.

The agreement on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between the UK and Ireland will not be affected by the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union. Indeed, as the Prime Minister herself stated on 30 January following a meeting with the Taoiseach, for the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland the ability to move freely across the border is an essential part of daily life. That is why the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister have both been clear that there will be no return to the borders of the past. Maintaining the common travel area and excellent economic links with Ireland will be important priorities for the UK in the talks ahead. I look forward to the brief debate this afternoon.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I note that the Minister referred to the “brief debate” this afternoon. I take it that that is a statement of hope on his part—although, judging by the numbers in the Chamber at the moment, perhaps we have both misjudged the situation and the debate on the Specified Agreement on Driving Disqualifications Regulations 2011 really is packing in noble Lords. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose of these regulations, which we support, and the background to them—but I have one or two queries that I would like to raise.

The Explanatory Note indicates that mutual recognition of driving disqualification between the UK and Ireland was previously in operation between January 2010 and December 2014, pursuant to the European Convention on Driving Disqualifications. It indicates that, following the Lisbon treaty, we opted out of the convention from December 2014 as part of a block opt-out under the treaty. It states that the purpose of this instrument is to specify a bilateral agreement dated 30 October 2015 between the UK and Ireland on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications imposed by either state for certain specified road traffic offences, which, as I understand it, and indeed as the Minister has confirmed, do not include disqualifications arising from the totting-up process. Now that the Minister has confirmed that that is the case in relation to the totting-up process, I invite him to say a little more about why.

In the Commons the government Minister said that Northern Ireland and Ireland were engaged in bilateral discussions through the North/South Ministerial Council about the mutual recognition of penalty points, but added that it was still work in progress. Is this such a big problem that it still cannot be resolved some 18 months after the bilateral agreement dated 3 October 2015, even accepting that penalty points are assessed in a different way in Ireland? Frankly, how much longer is it going to take?

However, the main point I want to clarify is the length of time for which there has been no mutual recognition of driving disqualification between the UK and Ireland. On the understanding that the previous arrangements ceased on 1 December 2014, I simply want to clarify—although I think I know the answer—that they were not then reinstated through the signing of the bilateral agreement dated 30 October 2015, and that the impact of that agreement is being brought into effect by these regulations only some 18 months later and some two and half years after they ceased to apply. That appears to be the situation, and I think it is what the Minister has indicated.

If indeed these arrangements have not applied for that lengthy two-and-a-half-year period, why has it taken so long? Presumably, the Government had decided well in advance of the 1 December 2014 opt-out date that they would be making the block opt-out from the Lisbon treaty, and surely steps that would at least have reduced this apparently lengthy gap could have been put in train much earlier. I would like an explanation from the Government of why this whole process could not have been expedited more quickly. It does not look as though it has been given very high priority even though it relates to road safety, and even though the opt-out led to a weakening of legislative powers on road safety for which there was no supporting evidence or justification on road safety grounds.

What happened to the mutual recognitions on disqualifications then in force under the convention when we opted out? Did they remain in force, or did they then no longer have any legal standing? What is the Government's estimate of the number of people who could have been disqualified under the mutual recognition arrangements had these not apparently been brought to an end in 2014 with the opt-out, in respect of whom who it has not been possible since then to apply the mutual recognition arrangements because they have no longer been applicable since the opt-out? In particular, how many people to date have we had who have been able to drive in the United Kingdom who would not have been able to do so if we had not opted out of the convention on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications? How many of those people have subsequently committed road traffic offences in the United Kingdom?

If the Minister thinks that I am asking for somewhat obscure information, I am certainly not; this is about road safety and potentially about people who should not be driving around on the roads in the United Kingdom. I ask for this specific information particularly in the light of paragraph 7.2 of the Government’s own Explanatory Memorandum, which accepts that it,

“is important to the UK for reasons of road safety to ensure that drivers so disqualified in Ireland cannot drive on UK roads”.

It appears that they have been able to drive on UK roads for the last two and a half years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, maybe I was a bit presumptuous in my opening remarks, but from the response from your Lordships’ Chamber perhaps I was right that this would be a short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support for this measure. He has raised a number of important points. I would not for a moment suggest that his points at this time, or indeed any that he raises with me at the Dispatch Box, are not important. I of course align myself totally with his sentiments about the importance of road safety.

I shall take some of the issues that the noble Lord has raised in turn. First, on the question of why it has taken since 2014 to do this, and with regard to the European convention itself, the 1998 convention ceased to apply in the EU in December 2016. With regard to the mutual recognition between ourselves and Ireland, the only way that we could introduce these arrangements was via the treaty. The Irish constitution itself forbids agreements of this nature to be made by items such as an MoU, for example, or similar informal instruments. Such matters therefore take time to be agreed. I believe the provisions from the Irish side were carried within a wider Bill that was subsequently passed by the Irish Parliament.

On the issue of penalty points not being included, there are different methods of calculating points between the UK and Ireland. To give some practical examples, they are legally incompatible, and the UK counts one way and the Irish count the other. As to actual enforcement, different points are applied to different defences. If I may, I will get the Northern Ireland Office to write further about specific arrangements between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

On the numbers of drivers, I can tell the noble Lord that about a hundred people per year from Ireland were banned under these measures in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and about an equal number were banned under these measures in Ireland.

I think I have answered most if not all the questions that the noble Lord asked. I emphasise to him once again, as he raised the importance of this issue, that here we are on the last day of term, so to speak, and the Government are putting this forward again. That underlines the importance that we attach to ensuring these provisions can be made and translated into statute.

[Lord Rosser]

Did the disqualifications in force under the mutual recognition arrangements at the time of the opt-out in December 2014 continue to apply, or did they no longer have any legal status following the opt-out? Could the Minister, whatever the reasons may be, confirm that it has been a two-and-a-half year period during which people have been driving around on the roads in the UK who would not have been able to do so if that opt-out had not been made in 2014?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I said, the convention continued and ceased to apply in the EU in December 2016. On the specific issue raised by the noble Lord about the number of people who may or may not have been driving through any intervening period, I will get that information to him in writing. I emphasise once again that the reason why there has been a delay, as he sees it, between 2014 and the date that we are now putting forward is that we were respecting the other side of the discussion, the Irish side, in ensuring that it could go through its appropriate due process to ensure that it could implement this legislation.

HS2 and CH2M

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 5th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Let me assure the noble Lord on the subject of Crossrail. The fact that it is delivering on time, the management is in place and it is on budget has nothing to do with the fact that I am the Crossrail Minister. On the point he raises about large infrastructure projects, of course he is right: we want a sustained level of continuity in management for all large infrastructure projects. That is an important part of the delivery of all projects and I note his concern in that respect.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As I understand it, in January of this year it was announced that the European managing director of the global engineering company CH2M, which is mentioned in this Question, would be the new chief executive of HS2. Last month in a Written Answer, the Minister said that there were 84 CH2M people located in HS2 Ltd offices, with 37 CH2M staff on secondment to HS2. In view of this, how many of the other bidders had similarly close connections of this kind with HS2 at the time decisions were made on which bid should be accepted for the phase 2b development contract? Can the Minister confirm—I think he has half said it, but I am not entirely sure—that the Government are satisfied, in the light of what I have said, that the procurement process up to the time that HS2 said in February that CH2M would become its phase 2 development partner was run in accordance with and in the spirit of the laid-down guidelines, standards and requirements with which HS2 is presumably expected by the Government to comply?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The short answer to the second part of the noble Lord’s question is yes. In terms of the specifics—the other bidders and the numbers involved—I will write to him.

Diesel Vehicles

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That is why the Government are incentivising new cars in our tax regime, in road tax. On diesel, what we need to consider carefully—and history is a source of great learning on this—is that although change might sound appropriate and the right thing to do at the time, we need to ensure that whatever changes and schemes the Government put money behind are sustainable over the long term.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Minister has referred more than once to the fact that the Government are looking at the issue which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Dubs but he has not said what action they propose to take to reduce the number of diesel vehicles. I am still not entirely clear whether the Government envisage taking further action or not. The Minister has referred to what the Government have already done, but are they looking at taking further action? If so, by when will we know what that action is likely to be?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, to continue on the sustainable theme, I am inclined to say “shortly”, but I will not do so. As the noble Lord is aware—I have already alluded to it—the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, supported by the Secretary of State for Transport, will publish the new air quality plan later this month. That is to be a consultation and will provide the time and the opportunity to consider the issues. I encourage all noble Lords to contribute to the consultation to ensure that when the final plan is published in the summer, it reflects the concerns that have rightly been raised in your Lordships’ House.

Aviation: Large Electronic Device Ban

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I already said, I will not comment on the specifics of the reasoning for this action. We monitor all issues of security and evolving threats and will continue to do so.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister did not deal with a previous question. I ask him for an assurance that he personally, as Aviation Minister, is satisfied with the reasons he has been given why the electronic devices in question present a threat if carried in the cabin of the aircraft but not if they are carried in the hold. Can he give us his personal assurance that he is satisfied with the reasons that he has been given, as Aviation Minister, why in one scenario there is a danger and in the other there is not? I will pursue another question that has already been asked, and ask for very firm assurances: can the Minister confirm that the Government are satisfied with the security arrangements and standards at the airports in the six countries concerned from which the inbound flights to the UK affected by the new arrangements are departing? Can he provide that unequivocal assurance?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, on the noble Lord’s specific questions about providing assurances, our intelligence agencies, which are some of the best among the world, provide the advice on the evolving security threat that we monitor. As for giving a personal assurance as the Aviation Minister responsible, of course we look to our security and intelligence agencies. This is an evolving threat and we continue to monitor it and, based on that, we have put in additional security measures. On the second question, of course I can also give the noble Lord the assurance that on the additional security measures, as I have said, we are working specifically with the carriers, British and foreign. I have spoken to them directly myself. Officials are working with them and, equally and most importantly, we are working with those countries and airports that have been identified and continue to receive full co-operation to ensure that those embarking on a visit to those countries, and indeed returning from those countries, are safe and secure.

Shipping: Safety

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 27th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Unlike the noble Lord, I cannot claim to have 4,999 close friends. There are many noble friends in your Lordships’ House, but, even if we went on a cruise together, I am not sure that we would quite reach that standard.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, can I clarify the Government’s position on this question? Bearing in mind the increasing number of British citizens who go on cruises, can the Minister—I do not think that he has done it so far—give an assurance that the Government are satisfied that the existing safety of life at sea regulations on evacuation in an emergency and the associated crew training and practice drill procedures reflect the reality of today of much larger cruise liners than before carrying many thousands of passengers and crew?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I can give that assurance. We are working on several streams; first, looking at adapting existing fleets in accordance with the challenges and the way in which the industry operates; secondly, looking at crew training; and, thirdly, ensuring that emergency and evacuation procedures reflect the language of those travelling on those ships. So, yes, we are satisfied, but one can never be overly prepared for such emergencies. When such incidents happen, the real test will be of the stability of the ship, the operation of the safety regulations and how well crew members are versed in them, and how well educated and informed are the travelling public. Work is going on to improve that. I suggest to the noble Lord that it should be an ever-evolving exercise, so we look to embrace the latest technologies and address the concerns which noble Lords are right to raise.

Drones

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I believe that the Government’s consultation document is 58 pages long. It covers a wide range of issues relating to drones and is not just about safety and security. We cannot wait months while the Government consider their response to all the many questions posed in the consultation document about drones before decisions are made on what changes are needed to the safety and security laws and procedures. Will the Government give a clear and unambiguous assurance today that the issue of safety and security and the responses received on the issue will be treated as the number one priority for conclusions to be reached, and that decisions will be announced following the conclusion of the consultation in the middle of this month—and dealing with the safety and security issue will not have to wait until the Government have reached their conclusions and made their decisions on all the other issues relating to drones raised in the consultation document?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, just to correct the noble Lord, I am sure that he meant “next month”. I was just checking dates—and I know that there was a late ending yesterday. Towards the middle of March we will, as I said, be concluding the consultation. He has asked me before about timelines; we are looking to produce our consultation results, including the important areas that he mentioned—and yes, the Government have prioritised those areas. The consultation looks comprehensively at those issues and the positive use of drones, and we will look to produce our conclusions from that consultation in the summer of this year.

HS2: North of England and Scotland

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Crystal ball gazing is not my expertise, but it is important that this is a phased project. It is right to look at building the first phase of this project. I am being advised by certain noble friends that I should say “shortly”. Perhaps I will not go to that extent, but I have already indicated that northern powerhouse rail, together with DfT, Network Rail and HS2 are already undertaking work, and we will produce a report towards the end of 2017 that will underline the importance of this connectivity.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, can I ask when the final route plans for HS3—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, can I ask when the final route plans for HS3 will be published, and when the hybrid Bill for the next stages of HS2 to Crewe, Manchester and Leeds will be published? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question, but of course if he cannot he could always say “shortly”.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I will be the first to say that perhaps we are overusing the word “shortly” in this regard. On the first part of the noble Lord’s question, about links between the great cities of the north, I have already indicated that a report on a single integrated strategy will be produced by the end of 2017. We hope that the Bill for the next phase of HS2 will be introduced later this year, as I have also already indicated. Once I have a specific date, I will of course share it with your Lordships’ House.

Railways: Fares

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord is right to raise the important issue of compensation for Southern passengers. The Government are acutely aware of the challenges on that network, as many from across your Lordships’ House have also made clear to me during our debates on this issue. As the noble Lord will be aware, we have issued additional compensation schemes but we continue to work with and monitor Southern, and to hold it to account for any issues which arise. If the noble Lord has specific matters or a particular case to raise, I ask him to please write to me.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Why do the Government keep claiming that the regulated fare increases are needed to fund the investment programme in the railways, when the increase in fares paid by rail passengers is really intended to achieve a continuing reduction in government subsidy, and a continuing increase in the percentage of rail costs that are paid for by hard-pressed fare-paying passengers to well beyond that in nearly every other country?

Southern Rail

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I agree with my noble friend, and that is why my department monitors the operational and contractual performances of all franchises. If a franchisee does not meet its contractual commitments, the Secretary of State will make a decision on next steps.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

What benefits have current Southern rail passengers gained from a private operator running their railway service under the present franchise agreement, in view of the extent of the widely recognised poor performance from that train operator over the past two years not related to industrial action?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

We are acutely aware of the challenges which everyone who uses that franchise currently faces. The noble Lord tries to distinguish the effect of the industrial dispute, which, as I have always said from this Dispatch Box, has compounded the challenges that Network Rail is facing. The Government have committed an extra £300 million to investment on the Brighton main line. Let us contextualise the industrial dispute, as I have done before. RMT is out on dispute on a new contract. Every train supervisor, as they are now called, has signed that contract—every one; not one is exempted. They are working on the new contract. There are no job losses on the new contract. There is no pay cut on the new contract. What is more, they are guaranteed a job until 2021—even I cannot lay claim to that.

High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 31st January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Although the amendment is listed as changing one word, it would in fact change just one letter; it would substitute “t” for “w” in the word “now”. In so doing, it seeks to consign HS2 to the dustbin.

HS2 was initiated by a Labour Government and was taken forward first by the coalition Government and then, following the general election, by the present Government. There is clearly a mandate to proceed. The Bill has been debated and considered both in this House and in the Commons and has been the subject of detailed consideration by Select Committees of both Houses. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the outstanding compensation issues that have still to be determined.

The Companion to the Standing Orders indicates that, on an amendment of this nature at this stage:

“Any remarks should be brief and should not seek to reopen debates at previous stages of the bill”.


Consequently, my remarks will be brief. First, I thank the Minister, his ministerial colleagues and the Bill team for the way in which they have dealt with the debates as the Bill has progressed through this House and for the full responses that they have sought to give to issues that have been raised both in the House and at meetings. I also thank my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe for his most welcome and much-appreciated advice and guidance and Hannah Lazell in our office for the considerable work that she has put into the Bill, which has been of such help to me. Finally, I thank the members of your Lordships’ Select Committee, who considered the Bill in detail over some months, for their invaluable and painstaking work.

The amendment is fatal and hardly appropriate for the unelected House to pass, even more so when the Bill has already been passed in the Commons by, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, an overwhelming majority of over 350. HS2 will bring a major and much- needed addition to this country’s transport infrastructure, including relieving the increasing pressure on the west coast main line—an issue that has to be addressed and cannot just be ignored and waved away. The pros and cons of HS2 have been considered and debated for a number of years. Inevitably, there will be some who will never feel able to agree to it, but the time has now come to make a decision. That decision must be to proceed. We can do that now by ensuring that the amendment, if put to a vote, is defeated and that the substantive Motion that this Bill do now pass is agreed.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I recognise the strength of feeling expressed by my noble friend in raising this issue. Indeed, I met him again only yesterday to see whether we could allay some of his concerns. I do not share the experience that he cited of the passage of the Bill in your Lordships’ House; I am sure that most noble Lords across the House share my sentiment. Several noble Lords have rightly, at various stages of the Bill’s passage, challenged aspects of cost and detail, but—I look across the House to the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bradshaw—they made it clear that, while challenging key aspects of the construction of HS2, they did so with the understanding and absolute assurance that they were committed to the project.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, clearly articulated the benefits of HS2 and I thank him for putting the whole project into context and correcting some of the history of railways in our great country. He talked about the time pre-1838, before Queen Victoria’s coronation. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord West, is no longer in his place, but I am sure that he made a particular note of that.

My noble friend Lord Framlingham rightly raised the issue of costs and the control of costs. It is right that your Lordships’ House challenges the basic element of costs. However, given the recent experiences of infrastructure projects and the intense debates, discussions and scrutiny in Select Committees of both Houses on the Bill, it was very clear that that issue would be addressed. Noble Lords from across the House quoted the positive nature of projects such as Crossrail that are running to time and budget. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, talked about the brave new world in which our country finds itself. It is projects such as Crossrail that we are taking to the world to showcase the best of British engineering, supply chains and apprenticeships. I believe earnestly that HS2 provides opportunities of this magnitude. For example, the training facilities associated with the skills element of the HS2 project are an important legacy of any infrastructure project.

I assure my noble friend again that the scrutiny of costs will not only be internal. As I am sure he is aware, the Commons Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have already produced several reports on the costs of HS2, which are publicly available. These bodies will continue to examine the cost of HS2 as we move forward and as more detailed costs on the project become available.

I am mindful not to detain your Lordships’ House longer than necessary. It is important that this project is supported across your Lordships’ House, as it is in the other place. My noble friend Lord Framlingham raised the issue of the CBI and the BCC. They are fully supportive of HS2 and have gone on record to say that the additional capacity it will create is vital.

We have debated, discussed and scrutinised this Bill and this project in the true traditions of parliamentary democracy. In closing I again pay tribute to the incredible work that the Select Committees of both Houses have done. My noble friend has been a Member of both Houses and is testament to the incredible work that Select Committees do in scrutinising petitions to ensure that, whoever the petitioner is, their voice is heard, considered and validated. If valid concerns are raised, Bills and projects can be amended—and the same is true of HS2. If you look at the course of the Bill and its progress through your Lordships’ House—I commend the Select Committee analysis of the various petitions—you will see the detailed scrutiny, analysis and recommendations of your Lordships’ Select Committee, all of which the Government have accepted. As I said, there were differences of opinion and we have sought to resolve them. I thank all noble Lords who worked on a constructive basis in that sense.

As I said to my noble friend, both in your Lordships’ House and in other meetings we have held, I appreciate that he has been consistent in his position in opposing this project. However, we have addressed and scrutinised this issue and the project and we have put in place the checks and balances necessary to ensure that the cost implications of the project have been fully considered and will continue to be so. I implore my noble friend, even at this late stage, to consider carefully the responses I have given and the valid processes, checks and balances that we have put in place. As we have heard, this project is not only necessary for investment in our railways but is important to ensure connectivity, capacity and that our country is truly a 21st century country on the world stage.

My noble friend has made his consistent position absolutely clear. He knows that I have respected his position throughout the process, as I assured him again yesterday. However, when he reflects on the debate this afternoon, the other debates and scrutiny that have taken place and the assurances that the Government have given, I hope he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

Autonomous Road Vehicles

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness referred to Southern rail. I am sure that across the House we welcome the fact that one of the two unions is now sitting down to talk. That will be welcomed not just by those who use the network and who have particularly suffered over a long period but by us all. We hope that the result of those discussions will be positive. She talked about the importance of innovation and autonomous vehicles coming on line. Of course, she is right to raise insurance and other areas related to the use of such technology. The DfT is investing a great deal of time in research and development and in talking to the industry in exactly the way that she has suggested.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Before Southern rail tracks are tarmacked over, perhaps I may again take the opportunity to ask the Government the question that I asked the other week but to which I received absolutely no answer—namely, what financial penalties has Southern rail or its holding company, Govia, had to pay for poor performance unrelated to industrial action over the last 18 months under the terms of the franchise agreement providing for them to operate the rail service?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As the noble Lord is aware—we have already had an exchange on this—first, we hold the company to account. My honourable friend the Rail Minister meets the company once a week. Secondly, we have levied penalties in accordance with the current contract. Thirdly, as he is fully aware, the operator has invoked force majeure clauses. We need to look at each case before we decide on further action, and that work is nearly complete. However, to put it into context, as some noble Lords may know, there were 10,000 different cases and claims of force majeure between April and June, and that underlines the challenge that we face.

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, after what has been said, I suppose I ought to add my thanks to the members of the Select Committee. In saying that, I did express my thanks to them in Committee. I also expressed my relief that I was disqualified from sitting on the committee at all.

The amendments in this group call for,

“a review of the merits of establishing Old Oak Common station as an interim eastern terminus for Phase One of High Speed 2”,

with construction work not beginning until the report of the review has been published. This debate has not done much to put Old Oak Common on the tourism map, despite the later comments of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about its future.

We had some discussion about Old Oak Common in Committee. An amendment was moved calling for a spur from it to the West London line north of Shepherd’s Bush to improve access to HS2 for people to the south of London. I seem to recall that I asked the Government if they were looking at improving connections between HS2 and other suburban lines in the vicinity of Old Oak Common to improve access to HS2. In his response, the Minister said that the West London Line Group, which had put forward proposals for the link from Old Oak Common to the West London line, had met DfT officials to discuss their proposals and that those discussions would continue. Perhaps the Minister could give us an update on the progress being made in these ongoing discussions.

I understand that the issue of Old Oak Common was considered during the Lords Select Committee hearings—noble Lords on the Select Committee confirmed that in their contributions today. The committee has not made any recommendations on this matter nor suggested that the Government should consider going down the road called for in the first amendment. In the light of this, we do not intend to either.

The second amendment in this group calls for an estimate of the costs for carrying out all the phase 1 works, with the breakdown set out in the amendment to be published, and the construction work not starting until that has been undertaken. What has prompted both the first and second amendments in this group is a view that the work cannot be carried out within the overall figure given by the Government. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that there was a good case for having an independent assessment of the costs and particularly for considering such things as how long HS2 could terminate at Old Oak Common. This could, perhaps, be a considerable period of time which could save a considerable sum of money. Costs are vital. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said in Committee:

“I cannot emphasise enough that the single biggest threat to this project is cost overruns in building the core of it, between cities where there is massive traffic—namely, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and London”.—[Official Report, 10/1/17; col. GC 62.]


The Government have committed themselves to a figure for the construction of HS2 stage one. Different bodies, including the National Audit Office, have looked at the figures and some have produced reports. The costings will, I understand, continue to be the subject of consideration by these bodies as the work progresses and more detailed figures are available. If the overall figure for the cost of construction is breached, it is the Government who will be held accountable—not least by us—since it is the Government who have said that the figures are accurate and can be trusted. They will have to explain why they got their figures wrong if the overall cost is breached, and why it would not have been possible to have got those figures right before construction started.

We do not want to go down the road of further amendments that could delay the starting of this project, which has already been the subject of so much consideration by so many people and bodies, including a Select Committee of this House. If the Government want to go down the road of the second amendment in this group without delaying the start of the project, that is a matter for them. However, one suspects that the production of further figures that have not been produced already, which presumably is what is being sought, would not bring the issue of costs to a conclusion, since there would inevitably then be challenges to the further breakdown of costs provided and the basis on which they were calculated. Our position, as I have said, is that we do not wish to see further delay to the start of this project, and behind the first amendment is clearly a major potential change.

On costs, at this late stage after so much consideration and examination of the project, it is now the Government and the Government alone who will be held accountable for any figures that prove significantly wrong and for any consequential cost overruns, since they have a responsibility to satisfy themselves that the cost estimates they have given are credible and accurate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these amendments. I join other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner, Lord Adonis and Lord Rosser, in adding my thanks—I did so in Committee and I do so again—to the Select Committee and all its members, some of whom are present, for their diligence, perseverance and indeed thorough examination of the raft of different petitions that were presented to them. Indeed, we have reflected on them already in Committee.

I start with an appreciation. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—and, in moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—made it clear in their overall intent that they are both supportive of the Bill and indeed of the construction of HS2. Indeed, the majority in your Lordships’ House recognise the importance of this railway in terms of our future railway infrastructure.

I turn to the amendments. Whether there is an advantage in using the proposed new station at Old Oak Common as a temporary London terminus for phase 1 of HS2 was, as we have heard, examined in detail by Select Committees not just in your Lordships’ House but in the other place. As was set out, the proponents of this option believe that using Old Oak Common as a temporary terminus would provide several advantages, including less impactful construction works at Euston, less disruption to services on the west coast main line and the opportunity to allow a more comprehensive redevelopment of Euston to be undertaken. I do not dispute the intentions behind the amendment but it is for that reason, as noble Lords will appreciate, that the Government have already investigated these proposals in detail. I am minded to agree with my noble friend Lord Brabazon, who speaks with great expertise in this area, that the implication of accepting such an amendment would impede the progress of the Bill.

I will go briefly into the detail of this. We looked at many options put forward by petitioners to the Committee in the other place about options for terminating HS2 services at Old Oak Common temporarily or permanently, as well as splitting the termination of services between Old Oak Common and Euston station. I do not wish to go into the detail on the permanent use of Old Oak Common as a terminus or a splitting of services, as those issues are not the subject of the noble Lord’s amendment and would go against the principle of the Bill as has been agreed by both Houses. However, I note that the overall outcome of the work that was undertaken on those options demonstrated that a complementary solution of two stations at the start of services in London would be the best for HS2 passengers. Putting all our new passengers in one station would overload that station, and it is also important for the strategic objectives of HS2 to bring the benefits of the new railway to as wide an area as we can.

Permanently terminating a portion of HS2 trains at Old Oak Common, in order to be able to descope the proposed Euston station and reduce its footprint as a result of having to cater for fewer passengers, was also considered. The conclusion was that this would, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady O’Cathain, still result in most of the passengers who terminated at Old Oak Common having to change trains in order to reach Euston and incurring several minutes of additional journey time and inconvenience in doing so.

The detailed work that the Government undertook to investigate using Old Oak Common as a temporary terminus, primarily in response to the petitioners from the Camden area, looked at a number of scenarios and demonstrated that using Old Oak Common as a temporary terminus would not eliminate the construction effects and impacts in Euston. This was because there would still be a requirement to construct the tunnels into Euston in order to facilitate the fit-out of the railway further south—that is, the long rails, the overhead line and the other control systems that go with it—which as I understand it will go through sequentially from Old Oak Common, indeed from the depots north of Old Oak Common. It would not be practical to do that fit-out once we had started running trains in any economic fashion.

We also considered using a temporary terminus at Old Oak Common to allow staging of works if one part of the railway construction was slightly delayed by a few months or to facilitate a kind of test-run phase. We concluded that while it would be possible to turn round a few trains at Old Oak Common since the station will have the resilience to do so, this is not the same as turning round trains to a timetable or turning them round without delay. Old Oak Common has been designed as a through station. It will have the ability in emergency situations, such as security or safety events, to be used to get people off trains and turn trains round. However, that is an emergency situation, not a timetabled commercial service situation. I also note that while Crossrail would be able to provide onward journey opportunities for passengers alighting at Old Oak Common, if HS2 passengers consumed the capacity to get into the city centre it would be to the detriment of the capacity and growth opportunities which would otherwise be possible on that new Crossrail service.

The new station at Old Oak Common will facilitate an interchange between HS2 services and the national rail and Crossrail networks on the west coast main line. We consider that between a quarter and a third of all HS2 passengers will choose to use Old Oak Common rather than come to Euston, mainly for those destinations best served by the new Crossrail line. The remaining two-thirds of passengers who are still on the train beyond Old Oak Common will, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, have good access across both central London, London suburbs and to other mainline stations.

I hope that by listing the consideration that was given, I have demonstrated that the temporary termination of HS2 services at Old Oak Common has already been fully explored. That work showed no further merit in investigating this option further and indeed as neither of the Select Committees of either House that also examined this issue saw fit to make any recommendations regarding it, I suggest that the details of this amendment have been looked at. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.

With respect to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on cost estimates, as the noble Lord himself acknowledges, last week I met him to discuss the work that he had commissioned on the costs of phase 1. Indeed, Mr Bing, to whom he referred, was also present with officials from my department and from HS2. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, when he says that the figures presented are flimsy. They are not. I am confident of the robustness of our costs. Indeed, Mr Bing himself acknowledged the expertise of those present from HS2 in terms of providing and determining these costs. What was clear from the costs that Mr Bing had presented vis-à-vis the costs that the HS2 technical experts were presenting was that there was a difference in the basis on which they were detailed. That said, we are confident of our own cost analysis. In response, and in the spirit of openness that I hope I have demonstrated during the passage of this Bill, I have suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, further work on how the differences in cost estimates occurred so that these issues may be addressed. I believe that he has taken up this offer with Mr Bing.

The Government in no sense underestimate this issue of costs. Infrastructure projects are a serious matter and—as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has acknowledged on the Crossrail project—their costs are a major determinant of their success. Therefore, as many will be aware, an updated cost estimate for the project is being published at each iteration of the business case, the next such iteration being due in the summer of this year.

The project as a whole, including its cost estimate and business case, is, as we have heard from several noble Lords, subject to regular independent reviews from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the Public Accounts Committee. Having illustrated the checks and balances and our continued belief in the robustness of the costs that have been presented—a point validated in the assessments made by various other bodies, including the Public Accounts Committee—I do not feel that a further independent review is necessary and hope that on the basis that I have detailed, the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I will make a few brief comments. First, I thank the Minister for the consultation that has taken place since Committee with local highway authorities, and for the retabling of the new schedule. Certainly, as a result of what has happened since Committee, a lot of the sting seems to have been taken out of the issue.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, there are still some outstanding issues. The noble Baroness mentioned Camden Council. It has indicated to us—and to the noble Baroness—that it is still pursuing certain points with the promoter. It has indicated—no doubt to all of us—that it wants the Secretary of State to provide a justification when using the powers around traffic management in the new schedule.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to the issues of bus lanes, cycleways, the Safer Lorry scheme and the congestion charge zone, and the Minister has already touched on that. However, Camden Council, as I understand it, is asking the Government to agree to specific provisions to ensure that these powers will not affect bus lanes, cycleways, the Safer Lorry scheme and the congestion charge zone, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether he feels that he has already met, in his earlier comments, the wish of Camden Council for those specific provisions.

The third request by Camden Council is for an assurance that the promoter of HS2 will meet the costs incurred by local authorities in putting in place, and removing, traffic regulation orders required by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that. If he feels that he covered it in his introductory comments, I apologise for raising them again. I am, however, raising them just to make sure that they have been covered.

Will the Minister also say how many organisations or local highway authorities are still making representations to him on this issue? Is the number considerable, or is it fairly limited? Is the number of outstanding points fairly limited? As I understand it—as others have said—discussions are still taking place, and it would be welcome if the Minister could let us know, either now or at Third Reading, whether those outstanding issues have been addressed. It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to say something at Third Reading, bearing in mind the late arrival of the amendment in Committee and the fact that the Minister agreed to withdraw it and we are having our first discussion on the schedule only today. In that context it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to update us today, and indeed at Third Reading, on whether there are outstanding issues with local highway authorities.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, again I thank the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their contributions, and for making time to meet me and my officials to discuss this issue. As I said in introducing the amendments in my name, I have made full acknowledgement, both in Committee and earlier this afternoon, about the way the amendments were originally presented. We learn from some of the issues that arise both from the legislative process and from the scale of a project such as this. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, there are occasions when challenges arise and we try to deal with them. Equally, with infrastructure projects—not just HS2 but other projects coming forward—it is important to learn from experience, as we have from Crossrail. We have been putting in place much of what we have learned from the Crossrail experience, which has been positive, in our discussions.

I will speak to the specific amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I will address some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on issues around existing provisions and assurances. First, I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord for his specific help with the further development of the Government’s amendment on TROs. As I noted earlier, I totally understand the sentiment and I acknowledge the contributions made in this regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about ongoing discussions. My understanding is that there are ongoing discussions but that they are mainly with TfL. Indeed, the latest meeting took place only a few hours ago—and, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, outside the Chamber this afternoon, these discussions are going forward in a positive way, in terms of understanding and taking account of the concerns of, in this case, TfL. I will check, but my understanding—as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—is that the discussions are only with TfL and that the concerns of other local authorities have been addressed. If that is not the case I will confirm it to the noble Lord, as he suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

As has been said, the amendment calls for a plan to be published for each construction site in the Euston area to show how the number of lorries delivering to or from the site could be limited to meet laid-down restrictions by the weight of materials transported by road, with the remainder being carried by rail. As has been said, this is an issue to which the Lords Select Committee, on which the three main parties and the Cross Benches were represented, gave consideration. The committee said in paragraph 411 of its report:

“We are very strongly of the opinion that as much material as possible should be moved by rail, so as to reduce road traffic congestion and air pollution. However, we are convinced by the evidence that this aim will be significantly more difficult to achieve at Euston, as compared with most of the other projects referred to by Mr Dyer and Lord Berkeley. We are satisfied that HS2 is taking this responsibility seriously, and we are hopeful that significant progress will be made as the time comes for contractors to be appointed and become involved in the detailed planning. In the meantime we see no useful purpose to be served by attempting to set fixed targets. It would be little more than plucking aspirational figures out of the air”.


We do not diverge from the position of the Select Committee. Since it is also our view as much material as possible should be moved by rail, we will not vote against the amendment if it is put to the vote. Indeed, we want to see the “significant progress” made with contractors to which the Select Committee referred in its report.

The amendment does not indicate what should happen once the plan has been published. The plan would be required to set out how the number of lorries could be limited to deliver the restrictions on movement referred to. Presumably, this would be without any detailed reference to costs or any other potential implications. Frankly, rather than the terms of the amendment, with what the Select Committee might or might not regard as its aspirational figures, surely what is required to deliver for the citizens of Camden is a firm commitment from the Government to hold HS2 to the undertaking it has given to maximise the movement of materials by rail, including in the Euston area, despite the difficulties referred to by the Select Committee, with a view to its going well beyond the guaranteed baseline for moving materials by rail of 28% of excavated soil and 17% of imported construction materials. Paragraph 117 of the promoter’s response to the Select Committee’s special report says:

“The Promoter reiterates its overarching commitment to continue to seek to maximise, as far as reasonably practicable, the amount of material that can be moved by rail, and the underlying commitments it has given the London Borough of Camden”.


I hope the Minister will address this point about how the Government intend to ensure that maximising the movement of materials by rail is delivered.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I do not think there is a difference of opinion over the intent here, whether in the amendment that the noble Baroness has tabled, in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, with which I find it very hard to disagree, or the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee. As I noted in Committee, I agree with the ambition to maximise the use of rail for the transportation of material in relation to HS2. The Government absolutely share the concerns about the impact of HS2 construction on the road network, and have already made commitments with similar intentions. I assure the noble Baroness that we have also committed to maximise the volume of excavated and construction material to be brought in and removed by rail. This will need to be done while balancing the wider environmental impacts on the local community and on passenger services.

In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness talked about specific infrastructure projects; indeed, she mentioned Crossrail. Firm targets on this issue are not the manner by which previous infrastructure projects, which she mentioned, were managed, and that includes Crossrail. The amendment as tabled suggests those particular targets. It is not that we are shying away from targets but, as I have said—perhaps I can reassure her again—we are already committed to work with local traffic management authorities in developing plans in liaison with the relevant highway and traffic authorities, which will be the means by which we agree, manage and monitor lorry traffic flows. Ultimately, and I emphasise this point to the noble Baroness, it is also the local authority that must approve the local routes used in connection with HS2.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the Government’s position. A commitment is an assurance to Parliament, and all assurances will be passed to the contractors in the contracts that are negotiated.

To come back to Crossrail, what worked so well was the fact that the agreements were locally negotiated. I totally concur with the conclusions of the Select Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, alluded to in his comments; he mentioned quite specifically that setting targets now would mean plucking figures out of the air. This does not take away from the importance of HS2; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked in his contribution about the intent that has already been shown in the response to the Select Committee by HS2 regarding the important issue of moving material as much as possible by means other than roads. I come back to the key point that those local plans must be agreed by the local authority.

I hope the noble Baroness is not just assured but reassured by the commitments that I have given. I have listened very carefully to her contributions and those from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Rosser, and I do not think there is a difference of opinion about material—excuse the pun—or the substance of what is being proposed and the way forward. This is about ensuring that HS2 works hand-in-glove with the local authorities to ensure that, whatever local targets are set, it maximises the use of alternatives to roads, and that any roads that lorries may use in removing such soil is approved by the local authority and the local traffic management authority. I hope that, with the assurances I have given, the noble Baroness will be minded to withdraw her amendment.

High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 12th January 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords and I shall turn first to that final point. There are other Ministers taking part in the Committee today. I back exactly the sentiments of the noble Lord and would add my name to the list, in the sense that the HS2 project underlines the importance of the railway infrastructure as a whole. We have discussed in previous debates the importance of the building of HS2 not just for itself but also in terms of the impact it will have on the railway infrastructure.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for explaining that the amendment is probing in nature, but perhaps I may refer to the specifics. With respect to the Railways Act 1993, only one minor change is being made, which is a partial disapplication of the licensing provision so that the pre-operation testing phase does not require a licence. It is simply not considered to be necessary during that period. As I have said, we learn from experience; such a change was made for the Crossrail Act 2008 and a rather wider disapplication was also included in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, in which I am sure both noble Lords are well versed. The Bill would also disapply closure provisions in the Railways Act 2005 in the case of closures that are necessary because of the construction of the works. In this regard there is only one closure, that of the Wycombe Single to allow Old Oak Common to be constructed. This has already been discussed in the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on the Bill, and it was decided that the closure procedures in the 2005 Act should not apply as Parliament will have already approved the closure. As I say, such a provision was also included in the Crossrail Act.

I appreciate that in the interests of time the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has spoken to Amendments 19 and 20. Specifically on Amendment 20, I can confirm that the existing safety and economic regulatory regime for the railway is unchanged by the Bill and so it would continue to apply to HS2 in the same way that the regulator, who as he pointed out has an important role, sees fit. For these reasons, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary.

[Lord Rosser]

On the question of the Government’s intentions in the longer term for HS2, recently we had an announcement from the Secretary of State about a new link between Oxford and Cambridge. As I understand it, the company running the line would also be responsible for the track. Are the Government intending that the arrangements for HS2 will be on a similar basis to that project?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State referred to a specific line. I am sure that the noble Lord will acknowledge that other announcements also made by the Secretary of State in this regard refer to the importance, whatever governance structure is set up, of those who are responsible for running the railway line and the rail service working together in an integrated fashion. The underlying purpose is that common objectives can be set. At this juncture, I cannot give the noble Lord a complete answer on the running of HS2 in terms of who will run the service and who will run the lines; there are, of course, other ways in which services across the country are run. The Secretary of State has underlined the importance—and it is his intention—that, whatever the governance structure, there should be an integrated way of running lines and train services, with common objectives being set if different companies are running different services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, again, I note very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has suggested. I cannot disagree with his sentiments about the need for and emphasis on an integrated approach; indeed, we perhaps touched on it in the previous debate in response to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. HS2 services will run on Network Rail’s infrastructure as well as on the new railway. I assure the noble Lord that the management of the HS2 infrastructure and HS2 train operators will need to work closely with Network Rail and other train operating companies to manage all operational interfaces. As he suggested, work on the timetabling is an important part of that, and is already very much part of considerations.

In addition to day-to-day rail operations, and as the noble Lord alluded to, co-operation will be needed in respect of the wider network roles undertaken on the railway by Network Rail. He raised the issue of a rugby match in Scotland. I am not a rugby fan but I am a football fan, and therefore can imagine having to face a similar challenge. This is a frustration that arises for many people, not just sports fans—when you are visiting family and friends up and down the country, you want to know that there is an integrated approach to the railways. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord that part of co-operation with Network Rail includes long-term planning, timetabling and co-ordinating network-wide responses, particularly at times of major work or disruption. The need for infrastructure managers to work together and co-ordinate was also emphasised by the noble Lord. He will be aware, as will others here this afternoon, that that is already addressed under the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016. I hope that, given the assurances I have provided, and following reflection on the regulations I have pointed to, the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

Can I be clear about what the Government’s intentions are, or whether they have still to be determined? Is the Minister saying that once HS2, or at least the first part of it, has been built—we are talking about that part of the track which is unique to HS2—there will be no involvement of Network Rail in the maintenance and upkeep of that track?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am not sure that the noble Lord heard me correctly. I am saying that an integrated approach to future management will be required as regards the new track, the existing tracks run by Network Rail and those who operate the new services on HS2. The noble Lord is fully aware that Network Rail currently has responsibility for the rail network of the country. As I said, operators need to work in an integrated fashion across the network and to have common objectives, whether it is Network Rail or another company running a franchise on a particular line. I cannot go further than that except to say that these common objectives are aligned under the specific regulation to which I have alluded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I will make a point on Clause 53, which, if I have understood correctly, is one of the clauses that is covered in the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It may be that the Government have already given their response, in which case I would be grateful if the Minister could remind me what it was, particularly bearing in mind that the report was published on 16 November. However, my question is purely to ask where we are with the Government’s response to that committee’s report. With regard to two particular paragraphs, have the Government responded and, if not, will they, or it is up to us to put something down on Report if we want to go down the road suggested?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am just checking as I do not have a response. However, the Government will respond and we intend to publish that before Report.

Southern Rail

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

While lessons of history in your Lordships’ House are always valued—I particularly value them—the situation with the railways was markedly different at that time. Here, as I have said before, the dispute is between the train operator and the unions. However, the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister—indeed, the whole Government—have ensured that they are doing all they can in terms of helping passengers and compensation. As I said—I have contextualised the dispute now—there is no basis for this dispute to continue. The Secretary of State has asked both unions to come in and meet him and call this dispute off. It is about time that they complied.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, it is clear that, as a result of poor performance and days of industrial action, passengers, staff and—because of the nature of the franchise contract—the taxpayer are incurring financial costs. What is not clear, in the light of the nature of the franchise contract in which the operator is paid for running the service but does not retain the fare income, is what financial penalties have been incurred by Govia, the train operator of Southern, as a result of poor performance over a lengthy period of time and days of industrial action. What financial penalties have so far been incurred by the train operator Govia as a result of, first, poor performance and, secondly, days of industrial action? If no financial penalties have been incurred by the operator, what is the incentive, first, for the train operator to address issues of poor performance and, secondly, to resolve the current industrial relations issues if neither matter is affecting it financially?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As the noble Lord is acutely aware, he is quite right that train operators are paid a fee, with the remaining revenue coming to the Government. But the basis of the dispute, which is what we are focused on today, is very much a matter for the train operator. I note that the noble Lord refrained from commenting on the two pertinent issues that I outlined. As far as the issue of the company itself is concerned, as I said, the Government have stood behind it in ensuring that it can provide compensation when necessary. We have called upon and implored both the franchisee and the unions to come together to resolve this dispute.

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Lords & Report stage: House of Lords
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I will just make one or two relatively brief observations. I add my thanks to those already expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to the Select Committee for the work that it did. I know it took up a considerable amount of its members’ time, and I was extremely grateful that I was completely disqualified from sitting on it, for more than one reason, and so was never faced with any request that I should do so.

Clearly, the discussion that we have had, and the amendments that we are considering, have homed in particularly on whether, at some stage, there will be a link between HS1 and HS2. I hope when the Minister comes to respond that he will address the specific terms of the amendment that has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It has a specific proposition in relation to the creation of a link between HS1 and HS2 which is different from it simply going as far as Euston and St Pancras, in that it provides opportunities for interchanges in south London. I hope the Minister will address that point when he comes to respond.

Most speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in a sense raised this point. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made the case that there would not be sufficient demand to run through trains—or that was the basis of one of the key points he made—but under the proposals as they stand we face having not only no through services but also no easy interchange between HS1 and HS2, precisely because one is coming in at one station and departing from another, further down the Euston Road. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister in his response what the Government’s intentions are on improving the interchange link between HS2 and HS1, if they are not looking at going down the road of running through services.

In London transport in recent decades—it is has not happened overnight—we have seen an increase in the number of lines going through and across London, which we used not to have. We have seen Thameslink and the West London line; Crossrail is coming in and Crossrail 2 is projected; the DLR manages to cross the river and go from one side of London to another; there are improvements on the London Overground and the East London line. Improving transport links between one side of London and the other has been a feature of recent decades. It does not appear that this will be repeated with high-speed services.

I have one or two questions about Old Oak Common, which will clearly play a pivotal role in HS2. There are some proposed links to what one might describe as the classic network but, as has been said, there are quite a large number of suburban lines around the Old Oak Common area. Presumably, one of the advantages of HS2 in improving transport links would be good connectivity between those suburban services and HS2 at Old Oak Common. Are the Government looking at improving connections between HS2 and other suburban lines in the vicinity to improve access to HS2 for people in a much wider area of London as a result? As has rightly been said, one thing that attracts people to a service is either not having to change at all—you can run through from A to B—or, if you do have to change, it is straightforward and easy. Will the Minister comment on that aspect as well?

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to the Javelin trains—I hope I am not misinterpreting what he said—and the commuter network that has built itself up around HS1. I have always thought that one of the reasons for so much opposition to HS2 is that there are no proposals whatever for any stations in a large number of the areas it runs through. People therefore see the line as a fairly negative factor. It runs through their suburban area or part of the countryside but they do not get any access to it. I appreciate that the Government are not contemplating it at the moment but, in the longer term, do they intend even to consider whether in time there may be a case for additional stations on the HS2 route? I do not profess to be an expert on this, so I may be wrong, but my understanding is that since the high-speed line opened in Taiwan, more stations have opened on the line. I am not starting from the stance that the Minister should be standing up now and announcing new stations all over the place, but is this something the Government will be looking at in the longer term, in the light of what is happening with Javelin trains and what is happening in another part of the world which has seen a relatively recent development of high-speed services?

I appreciate that the Minister has already been asked this question by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, but I too would like to know precisely when we will get the Government’s response to the report. There are recommendations and urgings—if I may use that expression—in it and it makes debate and discussion a lot easier if we know which of those the Government are picking up and which they are not. The sooner we know, the better it is.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I go any further, on behalf of the Government I join the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Rosser, in thanking the Select Committee. Members of the Select Committee did some incredible work and showed great dedication and devotion to the cause in terms of the petitions that were heard. I want to put on record my thanks and those of the Secretary of State and the Government as a whole for their work in that respect. I tuned into some of the sessions from afar, from my office at the DfT, and some very robust discussions took place in the committee.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, goes to the very heart of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness and acknowledge that these are probing amendments, seeking further clarification. As she rightly articulated, at Second Reading in the other place the principle of the Bill was agreed, and that did not include a spur such as the one being proposed. I empathise with her views and the views of those who support the amendment. I know that this is not the intention behind the amendment but if it was carried, it would have the result of re-hybridising the Bill. I am sure that is not the intention of the noble Baroness or those who spoke in support of the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I do not wish to make a Second Reading speech, but I simply say that at Second Reading we indicated our support for the Bill and the project. That is where we stand. Likewise, we accept the point made that that does not prevent amendments being tabled and debated to discuss issues of outstanding concern.

I wish to raise only one point in the context of my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s Amendment 3 referring to routes east of Old Oak Common. Do the Government intend now, in this debate, to address the point made in the Select Committee’s report in paragraph 178, or is their intention not to respond to this issue at this time, but when they produce their formal reply to the report? The issue I refer to is the point about the comprehensive redevelopment of Euston and this comment in the Select Committee’s report:

“The new station which will eventually emerge after so much expenditure of public funds and so much misery endured by Camden residents, ought to be a world-class railway station, and the splitting of its design into two different operations seems unlikely to assist in the achievement of that objective. We earnestly urge the Secretary of State to ensure that funding is provided for the second planning stage to proceed as soon as possible”.

What will the Government’s response be to that, and, indeed, to the views of Camden Council on this issue of ensuring the design and development of Euston as a coherent whole? Will they respond when they reply to Amendment 3, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, or does the Minister—I would obviously accept this—wish to indicate that that will be covered in the Government’s response to the Select Committee report when it comes out?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions. On the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I have already alluded to the fact that the Government will look to publish their response to the Select Committee report next week, which will certainly cover the two questions that he raised.

On the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about shooting messengers. It is certainly never the intention of government to indulge in such activity. We fully accept that there are challenges. There have been thorough reviews of the proposals behind such a large infrastructure project. I fully accept, too, that strong sentiments are associated with large infrastructure projects such as this, in their building and in the challenges posed in ensuring that we mitigate impact on the environment. As several noble Lords have said, such challenges should be looked at practically to see how best they can be addressed. Without such an approach, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, well articulated, many an infrastructure project, and perhaps our railway as a whole, might not be present today. I was once told by a Parisian that when the Eiffel Tower was being constructed Parisians at the time strongly objected to such a monstrosity appearing in the middle of the capital city. I wonder what they would think wherever they are now. Nevertheless, I note the concerns that have been expressed and will address some of the issues that have arisen.

A number of the amendments that have been tabled for this Committee stage of the Bill have been fully considered by Select Committees of both Houses and look to alternative proposals for aspects of the Bill scheme. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that two Select Committees have already spent a combined period of more than two years hearing evidence and considering all aspects of the proposed Bill scheme and alternatives to it. Those committees received representations from more than 3,400 petitioners and made their conclusions having explored all the relevant issues. As we move through the different stages of the Bill, it is important that we draw a line under such considerations.

On a review of the costs for phase 1 of HS2, I assure noble Lords and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the costs have already been subject to intense analysis and review over several years and will continue to be reviewed for many years to come, and indeed during construction. Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Framlingham, raised the issue of costs. I assure him and others that both the Public Accounts Committee of the other place and the National Audit Office, a body that already has a statutory function to examine proper allocation of public expenditure, have produced several publicly available reports on the costs of HS2. I am sure both bodies will continue to examine those costs as we move into the detailed design and construction stage and as more detailed costs information becomes available.

As noble Lords will be aware, an updated cost estimate for the project is also published at each new iteration of the business case, with the next such iteration due this summer. The project as a whole, including its cost estimate and business case, is subject to regular independent review by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the Commons Public Accounts Committee. I therefore do not believe or accept that further independent review is necessary at this time. The Select Committees and other committees that I have referenced have looked at the costs associated with the project. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that we have produced high-level cost estimates for our Euston proposals as well, but we have to be mindful that we need to keep certain detailed cost figures commercially confidential as we go to market for the construction work. I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge that officials in my department and the team at HS2 have sought to work with him and given time to listen to the proposals he has presented.

I also fully endorse the point that was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that those who may be suggesting alternatives or being critical of certain elements of the construction of HS2 are not against the scheme as a whole. Indeed, I know that the noble Lord accepts that part of the reasoning behind building HS2 is the economic case in terms of addressing issues of capacity. I know that he, as a great champion of the freight industry, also accepts that once we see the extra passenger capacity on HS2 it will release extra capacity for freight on existing lines.

I assure noble Lords that we have produced various costs for both the Select Committees, including funding costs and costs for key elements, but we will provide more detail as we move forward. It is also worth noting that an independent review of the HS2 Ltd cost estimate of a bored tunnel through the Colne Valley has been undertaken. The outcome of that independent cost review, undertaken by the lead non-executive director for the DfT, Ed Smith, has been published and concluded that the HS2 Ltd cost estimates were both reasonable and consistent. Other than delaying the railway, and in doing so adding additional cost, it is not clear to me what benefit the amendment would bring.

With regard to the alternative routes into Euston and the associated request from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to consider a route east of Old Oak Common, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary or appropriate. The noble Lord knows that I respect his commitment to this subject. I know that he appeared before the Select Committees in both Houses to make the case for an alternative solution at Euston. Neither Select Committee saw fit to recommend his alternative solution, nor a value-for-money review as the amendment proposes.

Given that it is the role of the Select Committee to consider such matters and that both Select Committees, having considered all the available evidence on these issues, did not believe any further cost reviews were necessary, I do not believe that the amendment is appropriate at this stage. It would serve only to delay the beginning of construction once Parliament had authorised the project. Clearly, such a delay in and of itself would add additional and unnecessary costs to the delivery of the scheme, which I am sure is not the noble Lord’s intention.

The link to the west coast main line at Handsacre was also considered by the Select Committees of both Houses, which were the most appropriate forum for any subsequent amendments on this issue to have been made. It is also important to note that the link at Handsacre serves a dual purpose. It will allow services to run north following the completion of phase 1 but, following the completion of phase 2A, it will also allow high-speed services to continue serving Stafford, something that the people of Staffordshire value very highly.

As I said, the Select Committee of the other House spent considerable time hearing evidence from parties wishing to promote alternative environmental mitigation proposals, including tunnel options in the Chilterns. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spoke with great passion on this issue. I assure her that this work included reviewing the cost-benefit analysis of the various options. Ultimately, the Select Committee of the other place requested a 2.6-kilometre extension to the Chilterns tunnel, at an additional cost of £47 million, and recommended a 100-metre extension of the Wendover Green tunnel, at an additional cost of approximately £15 million.

However, the committee was clearly of the view that the environmental benefits of further tunnelling did not warrant the significant additional cost. The cost of the other proposed tunnel options ranged from £82 million to £485 million. While I am sure that those who favoured an extended tunnel in the Chilterns will continue to be dissatisfied that their proposals were not supported, I hope that they—including the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who could not attend this afternoon—would concede that the process allowed them to have their say and that we should now respect the outcomes of the process even if we do not always agree with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I say to my noble friend and indeed to all noble Lords that doors are always open. My noble friend Lady O’Cathain made a very appropriate and pertinent point in this respect. I deliberately listened in to the live deliberations of the committee and the tone that was set on certain issues, including this one, was not just sympathetic but—I have used this word repeatedly because I have seen it in action not just in writing—exhaustive when it came to considering the concerns raised by petitioners. The Government fully acknowledge the areas of concern that the Select Committee raised. If we can explore other areas further in discussions or meetings with appropriate parties without impacting any of the additional provisions, I am of course willing to listen and hear more—as I say during the passage of any Bill.

I do not want to give false hope that I can give any new commitments, but I reassure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who also raised concerns, that we are live to the issues of this particular business—other petitions have been raised as well—and we will, as I articulated in my response to his amendment, be looking to ensure that we not only minimise and mitigate the effects but seek to work with the company to address any issues on an ongoing basis. This is not a fait accompli in the sense that the decision has been taken and there is nothing more that can be done.

I reiterate that we will continue to work with the company to ensure that its concerns can be addressed head-on. I asked officials briefly about the issue around Thames Water which he raised and I will seek an update on that. I have yet to sign the letter: perhaps we can reflect on those comments in it as well. I fully accept that my noble friend will not be totally reassured by what I have said, but I hope that at this juncture he will be partly reassured by the fact that the Government are live to this issue and respect the conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee in this regard.

[Lord Rosser]

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has already said, the comments are contained in paragraph 197 of the Select Committee’s report. This follows 196, which deals with a different issue—the owner-occupiers of Park Village East—and recommends that,

“the Secretary of State should provide further compensation going beyond what is at present proposed”.

When the Government respond to the report they are, presumably, going to address the comment the Select Committee made in paragraph 196. In view of what has been said in the discussion about Park Village Studio, and the fact that the Select Committee included a paragraph on this issue, when the Government respond to the report will the Minister also be responding to what is in paragraph 197?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That was also a reflection of the issues raised by the report about residential properties that are impacted. As I said, if the noble Lord will bear with us, the Government’s response will be available in a week’s time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I add my support the views expressed. Frankly, it does not look as though we will go much further with this because my noble friend Lord Berkeley has indicated that he will object to the amendment and, as I understand it, if the question is put, a single voice against an amendment causes it to be negatived in proceedings in Grand Committee. My noble friend has made his position quite clear, and I must say that I support him and so many others who have spoken, significantly including members of the Select Committee, who are clearly less than impressed by what has happened. I do not think it is misrepresenting the position to say that the Select Committee faced a number of people who were less than impressed by the way that HS2 itself had conducted some of the consultation processes and sought to address some concerns.

The question has been asked why the amendment has come late. I am sure other Members of the Committee have also received the letter of today’s date which has been sent from HS2 by Mr Roger Hargreaves to the leader of Buckinghamshire County Council. He writes: “The need for these proposed amendments arose late in the Bill process, and I am sorry that this did not leave time for the level of engagement with the local highway authorities that we would have liked … Parliamentary convention is that government amendments should be moved at the Grand Committee stage, which unfortunately left little time”. Unfortunately, if the Committee does not like what is happening and one Member chooses to object, that negatives the item. I finish by saying that I sincerely hope that the Minister will take the fairly strong hints that have been given to him during this debate and agree to withdraw the amendment, hold the consultations that have been referred to—which, as I understand it, is what people are really seeking—and come back with it on Report or at Third Reading.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I have always been very respectful of views that are expressed in your Lordships’ House, and today is no different. The Government have outlined their position, which I articulated in my opening remarks, on their concerns about project delivery being held up unnecessarily by a TRO. However, I have listened very carefully to the views of my noble friend who served on the Select Committee in particular, and to those of other noble Lords, and without prolonging debate on this point, I will reflect on the comments that have been made. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (Penalty Points) (Amendment) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we support the order, largely for the reasons set out by the Minister. Before the introduction of mobile phones we managed to survive, as a nation of car drivers, without them. Presumably, we ought to be able to survive today without using them—a risk to ourselves and others in our cars—while driving. I will, though, ask a few questions about the change in penalty points and issues related to it. I would be grateful for a response either now or subsequently.

I start by pursuing the line the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others referred to, namely on disqualification. In the debate in the House of Commons on this order, the Commons Minister said:

“Driving ability is clearly impaired if someone is using a handheld mobile phone. Studies show that that potentially impairs driving more than being above the drink-drive limit”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 6/12/16; col. 4.]

If the Government accept the findings of these studies—the Minister in the Commons referred to them in support of his case for the order, as has the Minister here—why did the Government decide not to impose a period of immediate disqualification, as is the case with those found to be driving when above the drink-drive limit?

Alternatively, since a period of disqualification can be imposed by a court for a speeding offence, usually in cases where the offender has driven well in excess of the limit for the road in question, why did the Government not provide for a court to have the discretion to impose a period of disqualification where the circumstances in which the hand-held mobile phone was being used appeared even more potentially dangerous than normal? For using a hand-held mobile phone while driving, there is no question of a period of disqualification or its equivalent being imposed for a first offence for most drivers, despite the Minister stating that it potentially impairs driving more than being above the drink-drive limit and its being, according to the police, one of the “fatal four” causes of road accidents, alongside speeding and drink-driving—for which a period of disqualification can or must be imposed—and not wearing a seat belt.

Novice drivers who have passed their test in the previous two years face revocation of their licence if they commit a single mobile phone offence. So what difference in terms of the potential adverse impact on driving ability from using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is there between a driver who passed their test within the previous two years and one who passed their test 30 months ago?

Surely what this differentiation means is that, once individuals are more than two years past the date of their driving test, they are then allowed one free go at driving while using a hand-held mobile phone in the sense of not being taken off the road for a period of time. What message does that send out, since that fact might lead some to regard it as worth taking the risk of being caught for the first time using a hand-held mobile phone once they had got past two years since taking the test? Certainly, the figures on enforcement—to which my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton referred and which show a big drop of some 90% in the number of fixed penalty notices since 2011, at a time when the RAC reports a significant increase in the percentage of motorists saying that they use a hand-held mobile phone while driving—do not suggest that the likelihood of being apprehended is particularly great. Fear of being apprehended is surely the biggest deterrent to committing an offence. Reducing the number of front-line police officers, despite commitments being given that this would not happen, has very noticeable effects. We do not draw the same distinction when it comes to drink-driving between those who passed their test within the previous two years and those who passed their test more than two years ago, even though the Commons Minister is on the record as saying that studies show that using a hand-held mobile phone potentially impairs driving more than being above the drink-drive limit.

Does the provision for revocation of novice drivers’ licences apply also to HGV and PSV novice drivers who use a hand-held mobile phone while driving? As a matter of interest, is using a hand-held mobile phone while driving more prevalent in some parts of the country than in others, taking into account the number of people driving in different parts of the country?

Have there been other examples where increasing the penalty points for a traffic offence, as opposed to imposing penalty points for the first time, has reduced the incidence of such offences? I ask that because the impact assessment states on page 2:

“Higher penalties are expected to act as a deterrent to the use of mobile phones whilst driving”,

but then states:

“It has not been possible to predict with certainty the number of accidents that can be avoided each year as a result of the intervention and therefore this benefit has been assessed qualitatively”,

followed in paragraph 34 on page 7 by the statement that:

“There is a lack of robust evidence as to the effectiveness of increased penalties at deterring the use of mobile phones”.

There is a real danger that some who read the impact assessment and its apparent lack of hard evidence that the increased penalty points should reduce the incidence of hand-held mobile phone use while driving might come to the conclusion that this change following a consultation has more to do with the Government making policy by focus group than on the basis of a logically argued and substantiated case. Presumably the increasing sophistication and complexity of hand-held mobile phones, and the greater range of purposes for which they can now be used which necessitate looking away from the road ahead for longer than a split second, is a factor in their use while driving posing an increased hazard and danger that must quite rightly be addressed.

On a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the impact assessment states on the first page that,

“not offering the remedial course as an alternative to the”,

fixed penalty notice,

“and penalty points will act as a further deterrent, as first time offenders face the full FPN and fixed penalty points”.

As far as I can see, the impact assessment does not provide any information on how successful or otherwise the remedial course has been in ensuring that first offenders do not offend again. Could the Minister fill in this apparent gap in the information provided? I assume that the Government have some hard information showing that those who have been on the remedial course are just as likely to offend again as those who have not. However, that information should now be placed on the record in Hansard. If the Government do not have that hard information, what is the case for no longer offering the remedial course?

In the debate in this House last Thursday on hand-held mobile devices, the Minister said:

“We are considering the options for a model under which drivers committing this offence will receive a penalty in combination with education on the risks of using a hand-held mobile phone or other devices while driving”.—[Official Report, 15/12/16; cols. 1440-41.]

Does this mean that today the Government seek approval for an order, in respect of which the impact assessment refers to no longer offering the remedial course as an alternative to the fixed penalty notice and penalty points, at the same as they consider continuing with education on the risks of using a hand-held mobile phone alongside a penalty? If that is correct, it seems a rather odd way to proceed. Why not make some decisions now, before withdrawal of the remedial course, on the future of the education aspect?

Finally, could the Minister confirm the definition of “driving” as far as this offence is concerned? For example, if you are stationary in a traffic jam on the M25 and using a hand-held mobile phone, have you committed this offence if your engine is still running, or if your engine is switched off and your handbrake is on?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate this afternoon. I also acknowledge and thank all noble Lords for their broad support for the measures outlined by the Government, in particular the support from Her Majesty’s Opposition and from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.

The final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is a pertinent, technical one. I shall certainly refer to him. I suppose there would be an added technical issue as to whether the engine is running or not, but he raised an important point on traffic jams. When someone is stopped, the enforcing authority in such a case would normally be the police, who have the ability in assessing it to use what I would describe as a degree of common sense in the application of a particular penalty.

The noble Lord mentioned the issue of remedial courses. Certainly, whether those courses should be offered has been down to police discretion. It is the Government’s view that the application of a severe penalty rather than a remedial course will have the necessary effect of deterring a future offence in that regard. He suggested that there was a contradiction between applying the penalty points and education. The education that I referred to is the campaign we are running alongside the new provisions that we are proposing. The noble Lord asked several other detailed questions, some of which I will answer as I go through my responses to other noble Lords. Of course, as ever, if I do not respond to every single question arising out of his analysis of the order, I will write to him.

Southern Rail

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I agree with the noble Lord. That is exactly what my right honourable friend did: he wrote to both unions and asked them to meet with Southern at ACAS. That was supposed to take place yesterday. That meeting did not take place because the unions had not responded to the invitation from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. This is not about taking sides—I agree with the noble on that—but about getting this long-standing dispute resolved.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Under the terms of the franchise agreement, the Government receive the fare revenue from GTR, with GTR receiving a subsidy. The Government have accepted that poor performance by GTR has led to a loss of revenue and that, of the GTR estimate of £38 million lost this year from unofficial and official industrial action and poor performance, just £8.4 million has been lost to date due to official industrial action. How much will GTR have to pay back to the Government for fare revenue being less than expected due to its poor performance, which no doubt also reflects through to poor human relations performance?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord is aware that there are certain aspects of that contract which are confidential. There is a letter in that respect coming through to the noble Lord, which I signed off this morning. The Government have also committed to extensive compensation and Delay Repay 15 has been launched for long-suffering commuters. But let us be absolutely clear: this is a long-standing dispute and, yes, it involves challenges with the contract itself and with Network Rail, but it also involves challenges with the continued action by the unions. The Secretary of State has been very clear. He has written to the trade unions inviting them to meet with Southern at ACAS and they have not taken up that offer. We need to ensure that we can head off further disputes of this kind and further interruptions to the service because, frankly speaking, over half a million people are going to suffer from further strike action.

Railways: East Coast Main Line

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 8th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I have already outlined, there is funding, and ensuring the prioritisation of the funding was part of the Hendy review. As I am sure the noble Baroness is also aware, customer experience—she has rightly alluded to the importance of what customers feel about the line—will be enhanced through the introduction of new rolling stock across the routes. There is a big investment in IEPs, as I am sure she is aware, while the east coast route study, which will detail the longer-term investment options from 2019, is currently in development by Network Rail.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask for an assurance from the Minister that, in the light of what the Secretary of State had to say yesterday, investment will still take place on the east coast main line, even if there are some Labour mayors on the line of route. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the necessary industry capability is there to deliver investment in the east coast main line, given the dismal performance on the Great Western electrification?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As the noble Lord knows, this is a line that runs from London, through Leeds and York, all the way to Edinburgh. It is important that, irrespective of what political affiliation may be held by people along the line, we work in a collaborative way to ensure improved services. I can reassure him about the continued investment in this line. I shall run through some of the programmes: the Northallerton to Newcastle loops in 2019; the York north throat in 2020; and the Peterborough to Fletton Junction down slow extension in 2019. I also believe a new station is opening, or at least a new station platform, which will allow fast-running trains to run through more quickly on what is a heavily used line with many shared services.

Train Operating Companies

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question asked earlier in the other place.

At the moment, Network Rail has responsibility for the signalling of trains, including employment of the signallers. Will the signalling control of a reopened link from Oxford to Cambridge, including into Oxford station, come under the proposed new entity for the line rather than under Network Rail? Does this apparent intention to exclude Network Rail from a reopened Oxford to Cambridge line indicate that the Government have lost confidence in the ability of Sir Peter Hendy, whom they appointed as chairman just 18 months ago, to further improve the performance of Network Rail? What existing responsibilities do the Government intend to take away from Network Rail with their announcement today about “integrated operating teams” and joint ventures—between whom?—for some of the existing network? Alternatively, is this announcement of integrated working and operation largely a rehash of the now-abandoned closer working arrangements between South West Trains and Network Rail, and an extension of the current arrangements in that regard between ScotRail and Network Rail?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions. First, on Sir Peter Hendy, of course the Government continue to have full confidence in Sir Peter’s work. He has concluded some important work for Network Rail and will continue to work in that respect. The noble Lord raised the issue of the purpose behind today’s announcement, which is clearly to ensure a deeper alignment, better working and a better alliance between those who operate our tracks—in this case, Network Rail—and the train operating companies themselves. We have seen this working well in Wessex between Stagecoach South West Trains and Network Rail, and indeed between Abellio ScotRail and Network Rail. This does not take away from Network Rail but merely ensures that from an operational standpoint, engineering works, for example, can be aligned. This puts passengers at the heart of ensuring a better and more efficient rail service.

Southern Rail Services

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 5th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question that was asked earlier today in the other place. Southern’s poor service record stretches back to mid-2015, so it is not simply related to any current dispute with its staff. Yet passengers face government-sanctioned above-inflation fare increases in just a few weeks.

I have two questions. First, is it the Government’s view that the actions and decisions of both sides have contributed to the current dispute, or do the Government fully support Southern in everything it has done over the last 18 months on quality of service and industrial relations issues? Secondly, what is the total amount of financial support the Government have so far provided or announced that they will provide, as a consequence of the dispute, to GTR, Southern’s owner, either directly or indirectly? Alternatively, will the owner have to bear the full costs of any loss of its revenue, payment of compensation or penalties for any breaches of contract as a result of the impact of the dispute on the level of service being provided and the numbers of passengers travelling? I imagine that the House will take a dim view if the Minister prays in aid commercial confidentiality for not responding to my question about the extent or otherwise of financial support.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his questions. He asked whether the Government are supporting one side over the other. The Government support the need to get this service back on track to get it running for the benefit of those long-suffering passengers. Therefore the short answer is that of course actions and improvements are required from both sides on this dispute. The noble Lord also asked about issues relating to the compensation that has been paid. I will write to him with the specific details.

Disabled People: Employment

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness raises an important point. There are other departments besides the Department for Transport that would input into that, and once I have ascertained that information I will write to her.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Minister referred to the improvements that, frankly, we secured to the Bus Services Bill to make bus services more accessible to disabled people. Bearing in mind that he has cited that as an example of what he believes the Government are doing, even though they were heavily pushed from this side, why can they not do more in respect of other forms of transport to ensure likewise that they become more accessible to disabled people?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord is being less than magnanimous on the Government’s position during the passage of the Bus Services Bill, but I will let others be the judge of that on reading Hansard. With regard to other modes of transport, various consultations are under way and I have alluded to one or two of them. I suggest to the noble Lord that he participates fully in those.

Aviation: Sharm el-Sheikh

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Let me assure my noble friend, as I have already intimated, that we, more than any other country, have been working very closely with the Egyptians on the ground and we continue to do so. Indeed, we have a permanent presence in Egypt, not just in Sharm but in other airports, to ensure first and foremost the safety and security of our own citizens, but equally working closely with the Egyptian authorities to ensure we can have the resumption of flights as soon as possible.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The problem over Sharm el-Sheikh has been going on for some time. Can the issue over security now be resolved quickly to our satisfaction, or are the differences of view between ourselves and the relevant Egyptian authorities fundamental and seemingly irreconcilable in the near future?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It was on 31 October last year—so just a tad over a year ago—when 224 lives were lost. The Government were right to take the view to suspend flights in light of the incident that occurred, but it is also right that we should await the formal reports of the investigations. However, we are not just taking a step back. More than any other nation, we are working on the ground together with the Egyptian authorities to ensure that we improve security and can resume flights, as soon as we are assured of the sustainable nature of their security arrangements.

Aviation: International Trade

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am certain that the whole House welcomes the innovations in technology for commercial aircraft.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Now that the Government have decided “No ifs, no buts, it’s a third runway at Heathrow”, which differs at least marginally from their previous “no ifs, no buts” pledge, what plans do they have to increase the range of international direct flights from our international airports outside London and the south-east, and in so doing to provide the opportunity for an increase in air freight traffic, including exports, from at least some of those airports—in the north in particular—direct to other parts of the world?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises an important point about freight, and that was part and parcel of the decision that we took last week. He talks about international connections outside London and the south-east. I am delighted to tell him why I was in Manchester yesterday—because I was welcoming the first Singapore Airlines flight to Manchester, which, for the first time, was flying directly to Houston. That was a first for Manchester Airport, a first for Singapore Airlines and a first for the north-west, outside London and the south-east.

Road Safety: Eye Tests

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord speaks from great experience in this regard and I will certainly take his suggestion back. I found that my recent eye test was thorough in every respect, but the department and I will reflect on his point about those who are older.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Following the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Simon, how many fatal road accidents per year do the Government accept can be attributed in part or wholly to the eyesight of one or more of the parties involved in the accident being below the standard required to pass the driving test?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I shall write to the noble Lord on the specifics, but as I have said, our safety standards have led to one of the lowest comparative figures across Europe for such accidents, and the Government are looking at how they can work with the medical profession. The pilot in Birmingham that I referred to consists of 113 surgeries where people can talk to their general practitioners about the need for an eye test and nominate themselves to get their eyes tested. Indeed, GPs are also looking at how their duty of care can be extended where someone refuses or is unable to report their eyesight deficiency to the DVLA.

Airports: London

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I suspected this question might come up, so I have been thumbing through my thesaurus, which is quite well read. All I can say is that perhaps “shortly” will also mean “imminently”.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, what is the current status of the Conservative Party pledge in 2009: no ifs, no buts, no third runway at Heathrow?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As the noble Lord is aware, the previous Prime Minister made that statement when he was looking at a very different proposition. Since then, as the noble Lord is also aware, the commission has reported and presented three viable options. The Government will be looking to make a call on south-east capacity shortly.

Southern Rail

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, the noble Lord is right to point out the operational challenges posed to consumers and those visiting the UK. I assure him that the new Rail Minister is in constant dialogue with the operator and with Network Rail. In addition, it is important to note that while a reduced timetable has been in operation, I am pleased to say that 119 services which were originally suspended have today been reintroduced, which I hope will have a positive impact on the scheduling of services.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Unless the Government take the hardly objective view that no responsibility of any significance for the poor level of service provided by Southern Rail can be attributed to the performance, or lack of it, of the top management of the company and that industrial action is the only cause of that poor service, why is Southern Rail not in breach of the terms of its franchise contract? Why has the Government’s response been not to take any action against the company for that breach but, instead, to provide additional money to improve services when Southern Rail is part of a transport organisation which we now know would have no difficulty in finding that money itself. That additional money is coming from the taxes of the very passengers having to put up with poor service and cancellations over a lengthy period—a double whammy for Southern Rail passengers if ever there was one.

Airports: London

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 5th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Baroness that, knowing the new Prime Minister well, the right honourable lady will make all decisions, whether on airport expansion or on the economy and our position on the international stage, focusing on what is of benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole. The noble Baroness raises an important issue about regional airport capacity and regional connectivity. I assure her and the whole House again that the decision taken on expansion of south-east capacity will reflect the importance of the aviation industry and airport connectivity, in particular to our international positioning.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Are there any issues relating to additional runway capacity in the south-east and the Davies commission report that are now being considered by Theresa May’s Government that were not being considered, prior to his leaving office, by David Cameron’s Government?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Government’s position remains consistent. The Prime Minister may have changed but the Government’s position remains that the Davies commission was commissioned to look specifically at airport capacity in the south-east. As I said earlier, there are three options on the table and they are all being considered.

Rail Franchises

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, it does not surprise me that the noble Baroness has raised this issue, which has come up in this House recently and I have responded from the Dispatch Box. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness and other noble Lords: the current operation is unsatisfactory. As many noble Lords will know, the new timetable started operating this morning, reflecting a target of getting 85% of services running. As I said only last week, part of the issue is that the force majeure clause has been invoked, which does not mean that the franchise can be put on the premise that the noble Baroness suggests.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, last Wednesday, the Minister said that where Southern Rail,

“can provide evidence that cancellations are due to official or unofficial industrial action, it can claim force majeure”.

This is what it has done in respect of the current level of performance and the reduction in the number of services it operates. Does this definition of force majeure mean than long-suffering commuters can expect no compensation and the company can expect no penalties? The Minister also said last Wednesday that the Government were,

“in regular contact with the company”.—[Official Report, 6/7/16; col. 2011.]

How many times have the Government also met the organisations representing the employees, to find out what they have to say about the cause of the present poor service and cancellations, in order that the Government hear both sides of the story, at first hand, before coming to a conclusion on whether official or unofficial industrial action is the sole cause of the problem and whether responsibility for any such action rests solely at the door of one party?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I said previously, the Government’s position is very clear. We want both parties to come to the negotiating table and find a resolution for long-suffering commuters. It is very clear what has happened. I do not accept the noble Lord’s point about not meeting. We meet regularly with all people concerned, and we have implored them to take action to ensure that we get a more effective service. As to the way forward, I think it right that we allow the two parties to come together at the negotiating table. The Government will play their part in ensuring an effective service for Southern commuters who, as I have said, have suffered for far too long.

Southern Rail: Service Cuts

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, I agree with the noble Lord that the situation at Southern is totally unacceptable. The point was well made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. In addition to that, this new timetable seeks to provide the reliability which is acutely needed right now. I accept that there is a reduction in services, but this is what the provider is saying it can provide reliably. On the issue of withdrawing such a franchise, let us not forget that part of that franchise concerns the modernisation of rolling stock as part of the modernisation of that whole network. Information for passengers on this new timetable is being provided through websites and through other sources of information on platforms and trains.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Is Southern Rail in breach of any of the terms of its Government-approved franchise agreement, either through its current level of performance or through its decision to reduce the number of services that it will operate? Have the Government given any assurances or hints to Southern Rail that the current unsatisfactory level of performance and the forthcoming reduction in the number of train services it runs will not result in any action being taken against the company? If so, why were such assurances or hints given?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Let me assure the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House that the Government are in regular contact with the company to ensure that the current situation can be remedied, but I call upon both the company and the unions to resolve their dispute. The noble Lord asked specifically about the franchise agreement. Under the franchise agreement, where GTR can provide evidence that cancellations are due to official or unofficial industrial action it can claim force majeure, which it has done on this occasion.

Immigration Officers

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The advice is very clear. We remain members of the European Union and nothing changes. I know that this issue has come up in your Lordships’ House previously and I shall repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question on it later today. It is important to remember in the new world that we find ourselves in that Britain always has been, and will remain, a nation which is compassionate in welcoming people from around the world. Certainly, that will be the basis of any discussions with European partners and nations beyond Europe.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Is either the number of applications seeking leave to remain in the UK from non-EU citizens or the percentage of such applications that are accepted projected to increase or decrease between 2015 and 2020? If so, to what extent are they projected to increase or decrease?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am not going to speculate on what will happen over the next five years. The important thing to remember, when it comes to immigration and applications for leave to remain, is that we look at the best interests of our country, but also at the best interests in regard to what we are on the global stage. We are a welcoming nation to people from all around the globe, and long may that remain so, to ensure that Britain continues to prosper and grow on the global stage.

Terrorism: Terminology

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Taking the noble Lord’s second point, the Government are not conducting a survey with the Muslim communities only. That has been the media speculation, but it is not the case. On his first point about Northern Ireland, he mentioned Prevent, but other initiatives have been taken in Northern Ireland that deal with the quite unique circumstances on the ground there.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, has previously said that elements of the Government’s Prevent programme are,

“ineffective or being applied in an insensitive or discriminatory manner”,

and that the programme could benefit from an independent review. The programme’s intention is to address all forms of terrorism and non-violent extremism. However, the climate of the last few weeks has done nothing to ease the situation that Prevent is intended to address, and unfortunately there is all-too-clear evidence that that climate is continuing in the wake of the referendum result. Do the Government now intend to carry out a full review of the Prevent strategy in the light of David Anderson’s comments?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

This Government have focused, as previous Governments have, on the importance of Prevent, which has seen much success. As I said, 450,000 people have been trained. More importantly, what has it delivered? There have been more than 50,000 interventions, and 180,000 pieces of terrorism material have been removed from the internet. Of course, every strategy and policy needs to be reviewed, and the Government continue to do so. I share the noble Lord’s sentiments. In any environment, particularly the one in which we currently operate, no extremist and no person who seeks to use an opportunity should build on the fears of communities and society or target any community in Britain.

Drugs Policy

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 13th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I said, there is a specific procedure in place. Another cannabinoid substance, Nabilone, is authorised in the UK and used in the treatment of cancer patients—but it is a synthetic compound, not related directly to cannabis. There are specific measures in place, and the Government believe those measures to be appropriate. If other such medicines need to be authorised, there is a process to be followed.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, 26 June is International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1987. It is intended to serve as a reminder of the goals achieved by member states for creating an international society free of drug abuse. Can the Minister add any more to what he has already said, which frankly at the moment is not a great deal, about what new initiatives the Government are currently taking or about to take through the United Nations and on the international stage generally to help achieve that overall goal on drug abuse?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I have said already, and shall say again to the noble Lord, we led on the international response to new psychoactive substances. To highlight some of the other actions that we have taken together on the international stage, and through the UN, there is the formation of a UK-led International Action Group on New Psychoactive Substances; the establishment of a global early-warning system at the UN; the first two tranches of international controls on some of the most harmful new psychoactive substances; domestic control of more than 100 harmful substances by China; and five recent UN resolutions on new psychoactive substances. That has enhanced international co-operation, and Britain has led the way on these initiatives.

Orlando Terrorist Attack

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 13th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we endorse the words of condemnation that have just been expressed about the homophobic terrorist atrocity in Orlando, and we express our condolences to the families of those who have been murdered. Our thoughts are with those who have been injured and their loved ones, and with the people of Orlando, in particular, and of America as a whole.

We are not, as we know only too well, immune from such atrocities and hate crimes from those who want to divide, not unite our communities. We seek to create an environment where no sections of our community are demonised or feel threatened or discriminated against, since we recognise that if we can achieve that goal it will encourage and deliver the tolerance and understanding of each other which is the hallmark of a stable, safe and decent society. Bearing in mind his own responsibilities for community cohesion and addressing hatred and prejudice, will the Minister say what further steps the Government will now consider in this vital area in the light of the Orlando atrocity?

We in this country believe in the importance of severely restricting access to and the possession and ownership of guns as an essential prerequisite to our reducing the likelihood of such terrible events here. Do the Government now consider, in the light of the Orlando atrocity and other terrorist atrocities being committed elsewhere in the world, that further measures are needed to help to ensure the safety of those attending imminent forthcoming Pride celebrations, or are they satisfied with the present security arrangements in place?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am sure his sentiments and his unequivocal condemnation of this heinous crime resonate across the House. On the issue of community cohesion, we celebrate Britain for its diversity and the strength of its people of all backgrounds, races and faiths and of different sexual orientations, who come together and who celebrate and define what Britain is today. The Government are totally committed to ensuring that we continue to protect that so we can continue to celebrate what Britain stands for in the modern world today.

On the question of firearms, as noble Lords will be aware, the UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and we are determined to keep it that way. The Policing and Crime Bill will introduce changes to firearms legislation, including a new offence of unlawfully converting imitation firearms into firearms, and tightening definitions on, for example, antique firearms. The UK is also co-operating with Europe to prevent the movement of people and weapons linked to terrorism.

On the noble Lord’s final point about the LGBT community and issues relating to Gay Pride, as I said in the Statement, UK police forces will be further reviewing plans for large-scale and other public events over the coming days and weeks. While that remains an operational matter for the police, they are not advising any organisers to cancel or even postpone any LGBT-related events.

Railways: Open Access Applications

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I agree with the noble Lord, because open access has raised this very valid issue of the inequity of application of track fees and the associated costs. Notwithstanding the reports that have been done by, for example, the CMA, which highlighted the importance of competition, the Government’s position remains that we of course support competition but need to ensure equality of access, both for those operating the franchise and for those who come in through open access.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

This Question refers to taking into account the interests of passengers and the Office of Rail and Road. At the end of last year, the consumer group Which? lodged a “super complaint” to the Office of Rail and Road, calling for major improvements to make it easier for passengers to claim refunds for delays and cancellations. The Office of Rail and Road called for an improvement in passenger compensation arrangements by this October, under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However, this has now been delayed by the Government via a statutory instrument until October 2017. Can the Minister explain how delaying improved passenger compensation arrangements is an example of taking into account the interests of passengers?

Airport Expansion: Road and Rail Upgrades

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It is for the Mayor of London to review both those issues. But I say to my noble friend that with any salary paid to any public servant serving in any government—central, devolved or local—public scrutiny is important and needs to be reflected.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

A newspaper report today said that the Government’s decision on airport expansion in the south-east could be pushed back to September at the earliest, and possibly later, because of a government decision-making log-jam caused by the EU referendum. Do the Government stand by their position that a decision will be announced in the summer, and, if so, can the Minister say on what date the Government consider that this coming summer will end?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I say to the noble Lord, who has wide experience, that you should not always believe what you read in the papers. The Government’s position, as I have said, is that we intend to conclude the additional work around the issues and the concerns rightly raised about the environment and noise pollution in the summer. He asked for a specific date but, as I have said, I cannot give that at this time.

Border Force Budget 2016-17

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in response to an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons. The Answer now confirms that the revenue budget for the Border Force for 2016-17 is some 10% less than it was in 2012-13, which no doubt explains in part why the Government are not in control of our borders. If they still maintain that they are in control of our borders, can the noble Lord say whether 100% checks are made on every lorry entering this country? I await to see whether he can give a more direct answer to that question than his right honourable friend the Home Secretary managed in the Commons earlier today.

Finally, in a letter published in the Daily Telegraph today from, to use the words of that newspaper, the country’s most senior security experts—who include two Members of this House—there is a reference to the need better to secure this country’s borders followed by a call for the Government to review security at our borders. Will the Government now agree to undertake the review called for in the letter?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as I have already alluded to, border security has been enhanced and Border Force continues to perform 100% checks on scheduled passengers. As for lorries, we perform rigorous border checks on scheduled arrivals. The noble Lord mentioned specifically a letter that has been written today and the steps that the Government have taken. I am sure that if he reflects on the changes that have been made—apart from the creation of, as I said, a more flexible Border Force, which has allowed us to address the challenges and needs across the country as a whole—we have seen various programmes which have delivered incremental improvements to e-Borders vision, such as the Schengen information system, the warnings index on migration and improved exit checks. We continue to work very closely with our European partners across the board to ensure that we protect not only our borders but borders across the European Union from threats based around security and terrorism.

Airports: London

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 18th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That might be the basis for a novel, and I suggest that my noble friend share it with our noble friend Lord Dobbs.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, asked a similar Question last month, the Minister said that the Government would conclude their further consideration of the environmental impacts of expanding airport capacity in the south-east by the summer, which the Minister later said was often defined as the time when noble Lords enjoy their Recess. Bearing in mind that the Government are in full control of the timetable for making and announcing their decision on this major, contentious issue, does the Minister agree that it would be an act of political cowardice for the Government to announce their decision on airport capacity when Parliament is not sitting or on the day Parliament rises for a recess?

Buses: Concessionary Fares

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Government’s own figures show that since 2010 the number of transport authorities providing a concessionary youth scheme has fallen from 29 to 22—a reflection, no doubt, of the financial hammering taken by local authorities under the coalition Government and continuing under this Government. In the light of the question asked by my noble friend Lady Corston, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the differing provision, including non-provision, of concessionary fares for young people between transport authority areas, including the impact on their opportunities in further education and employment?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am not aware of a specific overall review that has been done, but the noble Lord is right to point out that the number of young persons’ schemes have dropped over the last few years. As I have said, we are looking through the various other changes that we are making in local government financing, including the recent announcements on issues such as business rates, to empower local authorities to prioritise what they believe are the correct schemes.

Railways: New Lines

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 29th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

History is history and this Government are looking to the future and that is why we are committed to the investment we are making in the railways.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I want to pursue the points made by my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Faulkner of Worcester. The Minister keeps referring to surveys on value and efficiency but in looking at low-cost community rail opportunities, what work have the Government actually done on reopening closed lines on the basis of them being light rail systems, rather than their reopening being costed on an assumption that there will be a much heavier axle load and a complete rebuild of substructure and bridges, which in a great many cases immediately drives up the cost to unaffordable levels? If such work has been done on operating new or reopened community rail partnership lines more like a light rail system than a railway as we normally know it, by how much has it shown that the cost of reopening and operating closed lines or building new lines serving local communities can be reduced?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I have already indicated, when it comes to any railways, the new franchises will ensure that community rail is part and parcel of them. The noble Lord talked about surveys but they are not surveys. I have referred to a report and to Sir Peter Hendy. As the noble Lord is fully aware, Sir Peter is carrying out a quite stringent review of all aspects of Network Rail spending to ensure best value for money and best value for the taxpayer.

Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, these draft regulations are being made in order to update the existing domestic legislative and enforcement regime to comply with EU Regulation 165/2014 on tachographs. As noble Lords will be aware, tachographs monitor and record the amount of time that a commercial driver has spent driving. They are used in heavy goods vehicles, passenger service vehicles, and some light goods vehicles. Tachographs allow the enforcement of drivers’ hours rules, thereby creating a level playing field for vehicle operators. Tachographs also play a crucial role in keeping our roads safe by ensuring that professional drivers’ working hours are not excessive, and that the risk of accidents as a result of fatigue is reduced.

The directly applicable EU regulation makes small technical amendments in order to strengthen the standards that workshops must meet in order to install, check, inspect and repair tachographs. The EU regulation also paves the way for the introduction of new smart tachographs, which will periodically record a vehicle’s location via satellite technology. These will be more resistant to tampering and allow for easier enforcement. They will also make life easier for drivers by no longer requiring them to manually record their location.

By updating our domestic legislation in the light of this new European measure, these domestic regulations will ensure that the enforcement of EU drivers’ hours and tachograph rules can continue. If we do not make these changes, the UK enforcement agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police—risk no longer being able to enforce against tachograph offences. That would not be acceptable. It would compromise road safety and driver welfare.

To ensure the effective implementation of the EU regulation, my department, the Department for Transport, undertook a formal consultation in March 2015. There were two areas of flexibility in the legislation that we have opted to take up, following support from the industry. First, we are amending the legislation to continue to take up certain national derogations to drivers’ hours rules, thereby potentially reducing the administrative burden on industry. Secondly, we are allowing the DVSA to authorise field tests of non-type approved tachographs. There was broad support for these proposals across industry and I do not believe that this could be seen in any way as gold-plating. The consultation supported the view that the impact of the regulation on drivers and operators will be negligible. Drivers’ responsibilities will remain the same and the regulation extends certain exemptions. We remain confident that these changes are also low-cost, an assessment that the Regulatory Policy Committee has confirmed, and that they are likely to result in zero net costs to industry and the Government as a result of the changes to the domestic framework.

In conclusion, these draft regulations are important for the continued enforcement of important road safety rules, and for the future of the commercial driving sector by anticipating the introduction of a new generation of tachograph. They have support in the industry, which we should remember is a sector that underpins much of the UK economy. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and effect of the SI, which updates existing provisions in primary and secondary legislation to comply with EU Regulation 165/2014 on tachographs, which comes into effect from the beginning of next month. The EU regulation increases the requirements on member states for the audit and quality control processes for tachograph calibration centres. In light of the existing quality control processes that are already in place in the UK, the regulation would appear to require very little practical change in that regard.

We welcome the fact that operators who have made significant investment in establishing their own tachograph centres will not be barred under this regulation from testing their own vehicles. However, in that regard it appears—I am sure that the Minister will put me right if I am wrong—that the Department for Transport’s recent Motoring Services Strategy, which suggested examining possibilities for the delivery of the HGV annual test, including examination of the test by individuals in the private sector, appeared to contemplate this kind of constraint, which has been avoided in these regulations. Can the Minister give an assurance that discussions regarding the delivery of the HGV annual test in the future will be full and open, with nothing ruled out at this early stage?

Walking and Cycling

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As a resident of Wimbledon, I see many examples of shared facilities, and they are a good thing. I assure the House that I am very familiar with the shared use of tracks for bicycles, walking and, indeed, horses. However, my noble friend makes an important point and I will take it back for consideration.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Government have said that they will reduce the number of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities each year. What is the Government’s minimum target figure for the reduction of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities each year, and how much are they planning to spend each year on cycling safety as opposed to general road safety?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Any responsible government will have the aim of ultimately reducing the deaths of cyclists to zero. Any cyclist’s death is one too many. The number of deaths currently stands at 113; the number of serious injuries, however, is far higher. The noble Lord makes an important point about the education of cyclists, and therefore—as I have already said—the Government support schemes such as Bikeability very strongly.

Airports: Expansion

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 4th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On the subject of specific surveys, I will write to the noble Baroness about those two areas. However, as she is no doubt aware, Manchester, for example, will also benefit from £1 billion of investment over the next 10 years—and there are other regional airports. Indeed, I was looking forward to a question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton—but I may pre-empt that if I add that Luton, too, has benefited. Further to the noble Lord’s previous question, I am glad to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently visited Luton and saw the excellent facilities there.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government clarify the questions that they are now asking about extra runway capacity, and the options that they do not believe were fully addressed or answered in the Airports Commission report? Which bodies and organisations are they now asking to provide views and information on the questions that they are still asking?

Railways: South East Flexible Ticketing Scheme

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

We are seeing increased co-operation across train operators and we are working closely with the industry to ensure just that. As I have already indicated, there is 73% coverage with the existing operators. In one case, for season ticket holders we already have 22% of the market covered through smart ticketing.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Rail Delivery Group has recently had discussions with the Rail Minister, Claire Perry. She was going to send a formal letter to the group setting out the Government’s expectations on ticketing. In order to clear up any doubts about the current situation and the position with the South East Flexible Ticketing smartcard scheme, and indeed with other schemes, can I ask whether that letter has been sent? If so, will the Minister place a copy in the Library?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I have just enjoyed a sandwich lunch with my honourable friend the Rail Minister, and I asked her that question. That letter will be sent shortly, and as soon as it is issued I will ensure that a copy is put in the Library. The noble Lord pointed to wider arrangements. Through the Smart Cities Partnership, nine additional regions are looking at smart ticketing.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness’s question goes wider than busking, but I can tell her that of course the Government have taken action; they have undertaken the biggest housebuilding programme that we have seen for decades. It is important that we work with local authorities to identify where the housing challenges are, face up to that crisis and address the housing issue. As I have already said, the issue of housing is a challenge not just for us in central government but across the country for local government as well.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I remind the Minister that the Question refers to homeless people—it is not exclusive to busking—and therefore the question from my noble friend was entirely legitimate. The reality is that the number of households accepted as homeless has risen by over a third since 2010, while the number of people who sleep rough has increased by over 50%. The Minister seeks to tell us about all the measures the Government are going to take, but could he tell us why they allowed this situation—the increase since 2010 in the number of homeless people and the number of people sleeping rough—to arise in the first place?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord should also look at the record prior to 2010 and what his own party did. We have taken forward the biggest housebuilding project that we have seen for decades. There is an acute problem as regards the housing crisis and people sleeping rough on our streets; we are seeking to address it, but we must work hand in glove with local authorities.

Railways: South-West Network

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 28th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I said in my original response, the Government have made commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about Dawlish, and we have completed the task there. He also referenced the new GRIP study and the issues around governance and finding funding for that. The department is looking at that.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Let me just be clear on what the Minister is saying. He said that my noble friend Lord Berkeley was factually incorrect. It is not factually incorrect that the Department for Transport and Network Rail have confirmed to the Peninsula Rail Task Force that there will be no further funding for development in the south-west prior to 2019 and no funding for the two key Network Rail studies on journey time reduction and electrification, which are integral to a Peninsula Rail Task Force report commissioned by the Department for Transport and the Prime Minister and due for publication this summer. The issue was raised in the Commons yesterday with the Prime Minister, who was unable to give a commitment over the funding. Can the Minister say whether the government climb-down on this issue will come this week or next week?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

This is about investment in the future of our railways. I recognise the Peninsula Rail Task Force’s concern to push forward on the detailed studies on the opportunities for line enhancements. I, too, want to see this work happen, and the Government want to see it happen, in a way that is appropriate to the changes that will, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, come from the Bowe review. We will also work with Network Rail to ensure that whatever future development is required for the next rail investment period, CP6, it is made. The strategy is planned for publication in July 2017.

Bus Services: Local Government Funding

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I did not see the programme. Part of my Sundays are taken up with my own “countryfile” responsibilities of helping my children build their country projects—in this case, however, it was a chocolate cake.

To get back to the question, the noble Lord is quite right to point out that there are challenges in funding. However, this is not about apportioning blame to one over the other; it is about ensuring that essential services are sustained, and the Government are moving forward on this. Indeed, yesterday, during the debate on the devolution Bill, I talked about the creation of STBs, which I intend will ensure that local decisions on transport are made by the people who know best.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, given the drop in fuel prices, what action have the Government taken to ensure that there is now a reduction in bus fares to reflect the reduced cost arising from that?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As the noble Lord will be aware, one of the legislative proposals coming forward is the buses Bill, which will ensure again that local authorities are empowered—through the purposes of franchising, for example—to ensure better, sustainable fares and the sustaining of essential bus services. That will form part and parcel of the Bill.

Railways: Suicides

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 21st December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

We work very closely across the board with the British Transport Police on this issue. The noble Baroness may well be aware that initiatives are being taken—right here in the capital, for example—to increase police patrolling to ensure that we minimise not just suicide prevention, as she points out, but also hate crime that takes place on our networks. We seek to minimise that and we work together with the police on ensuring this.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Minister has already made reference to dividers on platforms. If he is talking about the same thing that I am, he will know that on the Jubilee line extension from Westminster eastwards at stations below ground level there are barriers at the edge of the platforms that also have the effect of preventing people from jumping in front of an incoming train. Are the Government pressing for such barriers to be extended to more stations on the London Underground in a bid to reduce the number of suicide attempts?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord is right to point out that those have proven to be successful prevention barriers. The prevention barriers that I was referring to, those within Network Rail stations, physically divide the platforms and manage commuter traffic. We are looking at ensuring that prevention measures can be accommodated where possible in existing stations to prevent suicides. As I said, one suicide is one too many.

Counterterrorism: Muslim Communities

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 21st December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I totally agree with the noble Lord, and perhaps I may put this into context. It is why our Prime Minister said recently when referring to Daesh that it is neither Islamic nor is it a state. That underlines how we deal with those who seek to hijack the noble faith in this country.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, in November the Muslim Council of Britain took out an advert in the national press to underscore the united condemnation by Muslims of terrorism, especially after the Paris attacks. On 9 December thousands of Muslims took to the streets of London to participate in a peace rally, which received limited media coverage, presumably because such a story does not sell papers. Does the Minister think that all who are in a position to do so, whether they are individuals or organisations, have a responsibility to reflect in what they say and write the real abhorrence and rejection of terrorist activities by all key sections of our diverse nation?

Airport Security

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 17th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which airports used by flights to and from the United Kingdom have been the subject of a security review leading to enhanced security arrangements since the end of October.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, since the tragic loss of the Metrojet aircraft we have been urgently reviewing security at a number of airports with flights to the UK and we are working closely with the countries concerned to address any shortcomings that we identify. Noble Lords will of course understand that we do not comment in detail on security arrangements.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, and obviously I accept what he said about not revealing details of security arrangements. However, can he say whether these reviews that are carried out are related simply to whether required procedures and processes are in place or do they also look at whether in reality those procedures and processes are being thoroughly adhered to and properly carried out? Obviously, the effectiveness of security arrangements at airports is also dependent on the attitude and approach of the people responsible for applying and implementing them. Secondly, are these reviews of security arrangements at airports around the world, which the Government have said are conducted in conjunction with the sovereign authorities, done on a pre-announced basis as far as the airport is concerned or on an unannounced basis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness is, I believe, referring to the recent reports of the provisional investigation by the Egyptian authorities. Certainly we are clear that the Russian authorities have retained their view that it was an explosive device, and our actions were based on our own assessment and the intelligence reports we had, to ensure that we took effective action to ensure the safety and security of UK citizens. We continue to monitor the situation and we will not restore flights until we are satisfied that new arrangements are in place.

[Lord Rosser]

I inquired whether the reviews of security arrangement at airports around the world, done in conjunction with the sovereign authorities, were done on a pre-announced basis as far as the airport itself is concerned or on an unannounced basis. I do not think that the Minister responded to that point.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

What I was alluding to is that we are dealing with sovereign authorities. Of course we will work in conjunction with how they see fit to monitor their airports. It would be inappropriate for a UK agency to demand access based on unannounced procedures that the sovereign authority had not agreed to.

Airport Capacity in London

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It would be only right to return the seasonal greetings to my noble friend.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I also wish everybody a happy Christmas. In the House of Commons on Monday, the Secretary of State said that the Government were still assessing all three airport extra capacity options identified by the Davies commission. He said:

“I hope very much that, by the summer, we will be able to tell the House which one carries the most favour with the Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/12/15; col. 1311.]

Subsequently, he said:

“I hope to come back to the House in the summer”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/12/15; col. 1317.]

However, in answer to another question, the Secretary of State said that,

“there will be a decision by summer next year”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/12/15; col. 1313.]

Which of those statements by the Secretary of State is correct? Is it the ones that said the Government “hope” to make a decision by next summer or the one that said the Government “will” make a decision by next summer?

Transport for London

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, my noble friend raises an important area of concern to many commuters across London. There are no current plans at TfL to introduce such a ban but there is a current policy, under the guise of Travel Better London, which helps Londoners to think about travel etiquette and seeks to address passenger behaviours that can lead to improvements in services. I will of course put on the agenda of our next meeting with the commissioner, which will happen shortly, the specific issue which my noble friend raises.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, there is an advertisement from Transport for London and the Mayor of London on Westminster station which states that Transport for London does not make a profit because,

“we reinvest all our income to run and improve your services”.

Since Transport for London is directly responsible, through a subsidiary, for running the London Underground, would the Government, at their next meeting with its representatives, like to express their support for Transport for London and the Mayor of London for this approach that, as a train operator, TfL should reinvest all its income in running and improving the services that it operates?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

We have wide-ranging discussions with Transport for London across a variety of issues. I will be pleased to discuss any matters that noble Lords wish to raise, put them on the agenda and report back. However, I would add that a great deal of investment goes into transport in London and that over the last 10 years, we have certainly seen great improvements.

Northern Powerhouse: Airports

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Government have repeatedly given their assurance not just about connectivity, as I said, on rail in the south-east, but also that the investment that we are making across railways throughout the country, including the new investment in HS2, will ensure greater connectivity between all parts of the country. I will look into the specific route that he has mentioned and write to him.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has referred to the decision on the recommendation of the Davies commission report in respect of a third runway at Heathrow being made by Christmas. Can he confirm that that will be a final decision and not simply an interim one?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I think the noble Lord is clutching at straws. I have made clear the Government’s position. A decision will be made on the Airports Commission’s findings, and I ask him to wait until that is made.

Drones: Risks to Passenger Aircraft

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 19th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I do not share the view already expressed that the Minister’s response was positive. The Civil Aviation Authority is warning that drones being flown as high as 2,000 feet are putting passenger aircraft in danger. It has now issued safety guidelines known as the drone code to discourage hobbyists from using their equipment in areas where large aircraft are present. Frankly that seems a pretty tepid response if it reflects the Government’s approach. First, the potential dangers of drones to passenger aircraft have been known for a few years and, secondly, six incidents involving drones at or close to airports were reported between May 2014 and March this year. Do we have to wait for a major incident to occur before meaningful action is taken? How can the potential risk to passenger aircraft be said to have been addressed when there appears to be so little effective control over who can acquire and fly a drone, and where?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I look forward to the day when the noble Lord says I have made a positive remark from this Dispatch Box. That remains a personal ambition. I am sure that that is not the case, I say to the Opposition Chief Whip. The noble Lord is fully aware, I am sure, that the Air Navigation Order 2009 lays out specific measures for operators, covering issues of safety and security. Equally, as I have already said, it is right that we look at this evolving area, particularly over the fact that drones available for leisure activity are more widespread. The noble Lord talked about the negative response. The CAA has launched a particular campaign for small operators, which is entitled You Have Control: Be Safe, Be Legal, which the Government support. I have already alluded to the public dialogue and the consultation that I am sure will yield positive results.

Airport Security

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I think I have already answered the question. The British Government have been, continue to be and will in future be engaged with countries and airports across the world to ensure that we address safety concerns. The noble Baroness asked about the situation on the ground in Sharm el-Sheikh, but I am sure she has also been following the fact that the British Government, working together with airlines—I commend their actions in this respect—has already resulted in more than 7,700 UK citizens returning to the UK over the last few days. We continue to work with the Egyptian authorities on the ground and with the airlines, so that all other remaining passengers who wish to return are returned to the UK as soon as possible.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Government said last Thursday in this House:

“We have continuing arrangements with authorities across the world to review aviation security arrangements in airports regularly to ensure that they are meeting required standards”.—[Official Report, 5/11/2015; col. 1805.]

In the light of the last question, when was the last review of the airport at Sharm el-Sheikh, and did it reveal that the security arrangements met the required standards? If it did so, what confidence can we have in these reviews, in the light of the recent apparent outrage and the Government’s no doubt justified decision to suspend UK-operated flights to and from Sharm el-Sheikh? Finally, will future reviews of airports across the world simply look at trying to ensure that existing security arrangements work properly, or will they look at introducing new features to enhance security?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, I shall not go into specific details of security arrangements, but the Government, as I am sure that the noble Lord is aware— and as the whole House is aware—continue to work on the ground with the respective sovereign authorities and airlines to ensure that we not only minimise but eradicate the risk and ensure the safety and security of all passengers. We will continue to do so.

Islam

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 5th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The right reverend Prelate raises a very important issue about education. I think that education is the cornerstone of all progressive societies. The Near Neighbours scheme, for example, run by the Church of England, is a great scheme which brings communities together, irrespective of faith and denomination, to ensure that good and sensible values—the prevailing values; we often talk about British values but ultimately they are the human values we all share—prevail in a modern, progressive Britain.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Minister made reference to a comment by the Prime Minister. Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister made a comment about sections of the Muslim community quietly condoning extremism, and that that risks causing division and fuelling resentment which will be counterproductive to the Government’s recently published counter-extremism strategy, which quite rightly focuses on building cohesive communities?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am sure the noble Lord has read the strategy; its foreword is by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the one leading on this strategy of countering extremism. It is about bringing together people of all communities, of all faiths and none, to ensure that we can tackle extremism in all its ugly guises—whether it is those who seek to hijack a noble religion, as we currently find in the religion of Islam, or those who use race and religion to divide society. We must unite against all such extremism.

Refugee Crisis

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I say from the outset that it is preposterous to suggest that the drowning of migrants is somehow attributable to the Government here—it is attributable to those criminal gangs who actually pick on vulnerable people. Every one of us was moved by the pictures we saw of those drowning children, but that drowning child was just one example of what we have seen with those criminal gangs. The Government are at the forefront of working with EU partners to ensure that we tackle those criminal gangs. The noble Lord asked about government policy. Let us be clear: it is comprehensive. As I said in my original Answer, £1 billion has been sent to those countries which are supporting the people—the real refugees—across the Syrian crisis in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan—as I saw myself in the Zaatari camp. The Prime Minister has announced an additional 20,000 on top of the 5,000 places that we have guaranteed here to those people under the vulnerable people scheme. These are practical steps of a comprehensive policy in dealing with a situation which is impacting not just the region or Europe but globally. It needs a global solution and the UK is playing its part.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Government said yesterday that the full cost of supporting Syrian refugees in the UK for the first year would be met through the international aid budget, easing the burden on local authorities. Is it the Government’s intention that local authorities, rather than the Government, will pay some or all of the cost of supporting the up to 20,000 Syrian refugees after the first year, and over the rest of this Parliament, or are the Government prepared to give a commitment now that they will continue to pay the full cost after the first year?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Government have made a commitment in supporting an additional 20,000—it is an evolving situation and the Government will continue to review the situation in terms of numbers. The noble Lord raised the issue of finance. Again, my right honourable friend the Chancellor has announced that the Government will be looking at the increase we are seeing in the international development budget because of the growth in GDP and how local authorities —which have a crucial role in resettlement—can also be supported. The Government will continue to review the situation and monitor it closely to ensure that we get assistance to those people most in need. That is our history and the legacy of this nation. This Government will proudly continue with that legacy.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 2) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 7th September 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the order was laid before Parliament on 25 June. As noble Lords will be aware, temporary control legislation is a vehicle which enables us to act relatively swiftly to protect the public. It also provides time for the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to gather evidence and prepare full advice on the permanent control of such drugs.

The order specifies seven methylphenidate-based new psychoactive substances, including their simple derivatives, as drugs subject to temporary control under Section 2A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Government are grateful for the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’s continued support in informing the Government’s response to emerging new psychoactive substances sold as so-called legal highs. The advisory council’s advice informed the order that we are considering today.

On 31 March, the then Minister for Crime Prevention received a recommendation from the advisory council under the temporary control provisions of the 1971 Act. The ACMD advised that five new psychoactive substances, related to the Class B drug methylphenidate, were being misused and that their misuse was having sufficiently harmful effects to warrant temporary control. This advice was accepted and a temporary order for the five substances came into force on 10 April 2015.

Following the coming into force of that order, the Government are aware that online retailers immediately withdrew those substances from sale and replaced them with a further two closely related substances. This came to light through the advisory council’s considerations in preparation of advice for permanent control. On 16 June, the advisory council provided further advice on the two related substances and recommended that they should be included in this new temporary order. The ACMD continues to gather evidence to support a full report on these compounds.

The previous temporary order made on 10 April lapsed on 27 June, as there was insufficient time for both Houses to approve the order. The new temporary order that we are considering today came into force on 27 June to replace that order. This order specifies all seven methylphenidate-based new psychoactive substances, including their simple derivatives, as drugs subject to temporary control.

The methylphenidate-based substances are highly potent stimulants. One of these substances, ethylphenidate, was marketed online as an alternative to cocaine. Their harms are reported to include anxiety, paranoia, visual disturbance, chest pain and a strong urge to re-dose. Other reported harms include bizarre and violent behaviour, loss of fine motor control and high risk of bacterial infection and local tissue damage from injecting.

One branded formulation, Burst, was reported as causing particular problems in the Edinburgh area, including among injecting drug users, who report reinjecting repeatedly. There has also recently been a report of an outbreak of infections in that area associated with the injecting of new psychoactive substances, believed to involve ethylphenidate.

The National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths reported five cases in 2013-14 where ethylphenidate was found in post-mortem toxicology, and another two cases where ethylphenidate was implicated in the cause of death during 2013-14. The advisory council recommended that urgent action should be taken due to the extremely potent nature of these compounds. For these reasons, the Minister for Policing, Crime, Criminal Justice and Victims accepted the advisory council’s advice. The order, which is already in force, applies UK-wide to protect the public. It enables enforcement action against suppliers and traffickers while the advisory council prepares full advice on these compounds.

Under the order, front-line officers have additional powers to disrupt the sale of the substances online and in local head shops by targeting retailers who they suspect of selling temporary class drugs—if not other controlled drugs—including seizing their stock for analysis.

The activity is supported by the Home Office forensic early-warning system, which continues to provide added forensic capability to police forces. The order also sends out a clear message to the public, especially to young and vulnerable people, that these compounds are harmful drugs. The Government and the advisory council continue to monitor, through UK and EU drugs early-warning systems, these and other emerging compounds marketed as legal alternatives to controlled drugs.

Of course, until the Government receive the full report on these drugs they will continue to update public health messages to inform the public on drug harms, using the latest evidence gathered from early-warning systems. We know that the law change, on its own, cannot deter all those inclined to use or experiment with these drugs. However, we expect the order to have a notable impact on the availability and, in turn, demand for these drugs, as we saw with other substances.

Noble Lords will remember that methoxetamine was subject to temporary control and subsequently controlled permanently under the 1971 Act. We are aware that, on introduction of the temporary order, online sellers of these compounds immediately removed them from sale. Anecdotal reports from Edinburgh, where these compounds were first reported as being injected, also suggest a reduction in the number of people seeking treatment as a result of harms suffered from injecting them.

In conclusion, Parliament’s approval of the order will ensure that it remains in force to reduce the threat to the public posed by these temporary class drugs for up to 12 months, while the advisory council prepares full advice on harms in relation to permanent control. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and reasons for this order, which we support. As he said, the order is a temporary class drug order that can be made if the substance or, in this case, substances are not class A, B or C drugs, and if the Secretary of State has either consulted the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs or received a recommendation from the ACMD that a temporary class drug order should be made. The drug also has to be one that is being, or is likely to be, misused, and that misuse is having or is capable of having harmful effects.

The Explanatory Memorandum sets out the evidence in support of the necessary requirements that have to be met to make this order—which, as the Minister said, came into force towards the end of June and can remain in force for a maximum of 12 months. Having been made, the order requires a resolution of both Houses within 40 sitting days if it is to remain in force.

It would be helpful if the Minister could say why it was not possible for the Government to find time for this order to be discussed in this House between 25 June, when it was laid before Parliament, and 22 July, nearly a month later, when the House rose for the Summer Recess, particularly bearing in mind that the order came into force on 27 June. It is now nearly some two and a half months after it came into force that we are able to consider the order. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s response on that point.

One of the purposes of such a temporary order is that it enables a new psychoactive substance or substances to be brought under the temporary control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, while, as the Minister said, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs can make a full assessment of its harms for consideration for permanent control as a drug under that Act. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the provisions of this order and its consequences will be communicated to key stakeholders and the wider public, especially young people. Presumably this has now been done.

Who are deemed to be the key stakeholders and do they differ from those listed as being consulted in paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, headed “Consultation Outcome”? Are, for example, the businesses selling these substances in the legal-highs market, referred to in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, regarded as key stakeholders and thus advised of the terms of this order?

Although the Minister addressed the point in his opening comments, since the order has been in force for nearly two and a half months, is there any information on the impact that it has had on the level of use and availability of the two further related substances now subject to this order that were not included in the previous order? Might implementation and enforcement of the order be resulting, in respect of those two further substances, in the risks set out in paragraph 6.1 of the impact assessment materialising? Those risks are of course in respect of chemical derivatives or alternative new psychoactive substances imitating their effects being introduced in an attempt to circumvent the temporary drug control.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support on this matter. This issue impacts society as a whole and when we are considering such matters it is important not only to discuss them but, where possible, that agreement is reached. We are looking at this particular issue and the challenges that psychoactive substances pose generally as a major challenge for society as a whole.

The noble Lord raised the issue of scheduling and timetabling. While I do not have a detailed assessment, based on my own previous roles in government, including as a government Whip, I can say that this is scheduled according to other parliamentary business and is discussed through the usual channels. The important point to bear in mind is that we proceed with this order now, as the noble Lord acknowledged, and do so in a timely fashion.

Turning to the noble Lord’s question about communication—again, a very important point—included within “key stakeholders” are the ACMD, the Department of Health, BIS, industry and the MHRA. It is important that all key stakeholders that were part of the initial consultation are included in the communications that have taken place. The noble Lord also asked about the additional two substances or derivative products that were subsequently included. I will write to him about specific issues or evidence that have been raised.

I also stress that tackling the legal high market continues to be an important priority for this Government and the advisory council’s work programme. Noble Lords will be aware of the Government’s action to ban the supply of psychoactive substances for human consumption for their psychoactive effect through the Psychoactive Substances Bill. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill completed its passage through this House before the Summer Recess and has now been introduced in the House of Commons. When in force, the Bill will give powers to the police and other enforcement agencies to enable them to disrupt the supply of these dangerous and harmful compounds, including tackling their availability on the internet.

The legislative action is supportive of the long-term strategic objectives—many of which I know noble Lords share—set out in the Government’s action plan: to reduce demand by raising awareness of the harms of psychoactive substances; to make it difficult to obtain and supply those that pose risks to health; and to ensure that statutory services are able to effectively provide treatment and support recovery. Our balanced approach to tackling psychoactive substance misuse includes the development of toolkits on prevention, and programmes on treatment such as NEPTUNE. We have also taken action in response to the New Psychoactive Substances Review Expert Panel’s recommendations to help local areas prevent and respond to the use of new psychoactive substances, including guidance on taking action against the head shops I mentioned earlier. We have acted swiftly on the advisory council’s advice to make the temporary class drug order presented today to protect the public from the potential harms of these substances.

We are committed to a drugs policy that is informed by evidence of harm and the advisory council’s expert advice. Our duty as a Government is to consider this advice in light of all the information made available by drugs early warning systems to ensure that our response is proportionate to the threat posed by emerging drugs. As I am sure noble Lords will acknowledge, the UK continues to lead international action to tackle the emergence of new psychoactive substances. Our efforts, supported by key partners, led to the international control of mephedrone by the UN in March this year. We continue to share best practice on a balanced approach, including recently sharing our world-leading treatment guidance with our international partners. We also continue to work with our key partners on a list of new compounds that are causing concern, with a view to the UN subjecting these compounds to international control in due course. I hope that noble Lords will find that this legislative measure is conducive to ensuring that ultimately the public are protected from the harms of these new psychoactive substances, and I therefore again commend the order to noble Lords.

[Lord Rosser]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I come back to my question about who the key stakeholders are? Paragraph 8 refers to who is consulted. Paragraph 9 states:

“The provisions of this Order and its consequences will be communicated to key stakeholders and the wider public, especially young people”.

Paragraph 10 makes reference to,

“those businesses selling these substances in the ‘legal highs’ market”.

Does the reference to the key stakeholders—that is, those who will be advised of the provisions of this order and its consequences—include, for example, those businesses selling these substances in the legal highs market, referred to in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum?

Merchant Shipping (Alcohol) (Prescribed Limits Amendment) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 7th September 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations will bring in new alcohol limits for professional mariners in UK waters or serving on board UK-flagged ships wherever they are in the world. These limits, more restrictive than those in place today, are aligned with those agreed at the International Maritime Organization to apply to all shipping around the globe, with the intention of improving maritime safety.

Noble Lords will be aware of the vital contribution made by the maritime industry to the well-being of this country. In this London International Shipping Week we are celebrating the fact that 95% of our imports and exports are carried by ship, and that the maritime sector contributes up to £13.8 billion of direct gross value added to the UK economy each year. It is therefore crucial that we seek to ensure the safe operation of this industry, working with shipping and port operators and with other maritime nations around the world. One source of risk that we can tackle together is that posed by alcohol consumption, which can impair the ability of mariners to fulfil safety-critical duties.

On the roads, a driver with 100 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood is seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal motor vehicle crash than is a driver who has not consumed alcohol. If the amount of alcohol is 150 milligrams or more, it is roundly 25 times more likely. The same underlying principle applies on a ship; excessive alcohol consumption increases the risk of error and accident. The current alcohol limits for professional mariners were introduced by the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and are the same as those applied to motorists in England and Wales—in the case of breath, 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres; in the case of blood, 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres; and, in the case of urine, 107 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

At that time, there was no internationally agreed alcohol limit for mariners. This situation changed in 2010, when the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention of the International Maritime Organization was amended. For the first time, mandatory alcohol limits for mariners globally were agreed—in the case of breath, 25 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and, in the case of blood, 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres. These regulations will bring UK legislation into line with the alcohol limits agreed internationally, with the addition of a limit in the case of urine of 67 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres. In doing so, we will reinforce the importance of these limits in securing the safety of ships, and all those who travel on them.

Furthermore, having common international limits helps to ensure that mariners know what is expected of them wherever they are, and enforcement when people are found to have exceeded those limits, national borders not being visibly marked at sea. The regulations also require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the amendments they make and publish a report of the review’s conclusions. This provision seeks to ensure the continued effectiveness of the alcohol limits set for professional mariners for the long term. Her Majesty’s Government are committed to maintaining safe navigation around these shores and, indeed, wherever ships registered in the UK may sail. These new limits on mariners’ consumption of alcohol are an example of how we are doing this in co-operation with our international partners. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Once again, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and objectives of this order, which again we support. Before the introduction of the International Convention for the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers in 1978, the training standards for seafarers were established by individual Governments, which almost inevitably meant widely differing standards between different countries. Since it came into force in 1984, the STCW convention has been subject to a number of revisions and this country has supported and implemented all of the previous amendments. The amendments agreed at the STCW Manila conference in 2010 further updated the convention and the code, and included, for the first time, putting mandatory limits on alcohol consumption, instead of an advisory one, for those on watch-keeping duty. These amendments came into force on 1 January 2012, with a five-year transitional period ending on 1 January 2017.

The STCW convention is incorporated into European law, and the new alcohol limits which are the subject of the order we are discussing are covered by a 2012 EU directive. This order changes the UK’s existing alcohol limits for professional mariners to match those now set by the STCW’s watch-keeping standards for fitness for duty by amending Section 81 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. As the Minister said, the levels are being changed to 25 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath and 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood as required by the STCW and EU directive, and to the commensurate figure of 67 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine for consistency.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the consultation exercise on the Manila amendments, including the ones covered by this order, and indicates that all the bodies consulted agreed that the alcohol limits for professional mariners should be amended to match those set by the Manila amendments. Why does it appear to have taken over 10 months to seek the approval of this House to an order with which, apparently, all those consulted agreed? The transposition note in respect of this order also states, in respect of Article 2 on transposition, that compliance with the EU directive was required by 4 July 2014. I am assuming that was not the deadline date for approving this order, but perhaps the Minister could say what it was we were required to do by 4 July 2014, and whether we met that date.

The Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 4.2 that the limits for alcohol prescribed in Section 81 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 apply to professional mariners only,

“as the provisions relating to non-professional mariners in Section 80 have not been commenced”.

Would the Minister confirm that the STCW convention and code, and the EU directive, apply only to professional mariners and not to non-professional mariners as well? Assuming that to be the case, why have the provisions relating to UK non-professional mariners in Section 80 of the 2003 Act not been commenced for a lengthy number of years? What are the current alcohol limits for non-professional mariners?

The regulations, which, I repeat, we support, deal with a safety issue. Indeed, some shipping companies take a much firmer view on what is an acceptable alcohol limit than those provided for in current or proposed legislation. I am not personally aware of how serious is the problem of breached alcohol limits by professional mariners in UK waters. If the Minister cannot say so immediately, I hope that he might provide some information on how many instances there have been over an appropriate 12-month period of UK professional mariners in UK waters or on UK-registered ships being in breach of the current statutory limits, and how many instances there have been of non-UK professional mariners being in breach of those limits in UK waters.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support of the Government’s proposals and the regulations before us. He is right that this was decided upon by the 2010 Manila conference. For the first time it is being looked at from an international basis, which is very much the right way forward in ensuring that standards are maintained.

The noble Lord raised the issue of this taking 10 months. This was part of the wider effort to ensure we transposed all the Manila amendments. That has taken some time, even though this part was agreed to by the consultees, as the noble Lord mentioned.

On the 4 July deadline, all other parts of the Manila amendments were transposed by March 2015 in advance of the 4 July deadline. The passing of the regulations will ensure compliance in that respect.

The noble Lord raised the issue of non-professional mariners. Indeed, I raised that question myself in looking at the regulations. At the moment, it applies specifically to professional mariners. It is my understanding that the question of whether these rules should apply to non-professional mariners has been consulted upon. Part of the challenge posed during the consultation in the 2000s—I believe during the time that the noble Lord’s party were in government—was how this would be monitored and, more importantly, applied effectively. Nevertheless, as he rightly pointed out, it is an issue that has not been commenced. As far as the Government are concerned, it is an issue that we will continue to look at as we move forward with the new regulations on professional mariners. Nevertheless, he is right to raise that issue.

The noble Lord also spoke on the evidence of accidents relating to alcohol consumption. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch has identified 19 accidents where alcohol consumption played a significant part since 2009. One led to a fatality and two led to the complete loss of a ship. Many of the others presented a significant risk to human life and the marine environment, where it was fortunate that a worse outcome was avoided.

With those responses, and once again thanking the noble Lord for his support, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I said in my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, this is an area which I myself raised, and I shall certainly take back his comments. As the noble Lord acknowledged, the challenge posed was that of enforcement. However, he is also right to point out that, whether one is a professional mariner or not, the damage that can be caused by alcohol consumption is very much the same as the impact that alcohol consumption can have on our roads. I note the noble Lord’s concerns in that respect.

[Lord Rosser]

I fully take the Minister’s point that the issue of non-professional mariners has been going on for some years, but do the STCW convention and the code apply only to professional mariners or do they apply to both?

Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for tabling this debate. At this late hour, I have indulged in a quite unique experience of opening my fast at Ramadan at the Dispatch Box, so every day certainly brings a new challenge and a new experience. I also thank all other noble Lords for their contributions on this subject.

I say from the outset, in response to various points made by noble Lords, that the Government—the Home Secretary, all Home Office Ministers and I, as a Minister for countering extremism—recognise the important role that the police service plays across a variety of important areas, none perhaps more pertinent than some of the challenges we currently confront. Along with other Ministers and the Home Secretary, I was with the chief constables only yesterday at a conference where we looked at general policing issues and, more specifically, at some of the issues we face in countering extremism.

Turning to the issue under discussion this evening, the Government’s view is that it is vital that the Police Federation can command the trust of its members and the public. Sir David Normington’s independent review found that the federation had lost trust and it was clear that the organisation required fundamental reform, a point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, alluded. I take this opportunity to explain how the amending regulations assist with addressing this issue. In line with the Government’s statutory obligations, these changes were subject to a period of consultation with the federation last year. The Home Secretary was clear in her speech to the federation’s annual conference in May 2014 that the Government welcomed its commitment to implementing the Normington reforms. At the same time, she outlined her intention to make a number of additional regulatory changes to support greater transparency and accountability for the federation.

Since 1919, when the federation was established, all officers automatically become members on joining the police, as has already been mentioned. Every officer from the ranks of constable to chief inspector was compelled to join the federation. They had no choice. The statutory instrument, which came into force on 2 April, ensures that new officers now actively choose whether and when to join the Police Federation at any point in their service. It is therefore their choice. Officers previously had the right to opt out of paying federation subscriptions, and so forgoing certain member benefits or services, but this was not necessarily consistent or clear to officers. The recent changes mean that officers will in future actively choose whether to pay subscriptions and receive the services and benefits to which they entitle them. This in part addresses a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. It is also vital that the federation earn the right to represent its members. These changes, which are integral to federation reform, will help ensure a future where that will be the case.

The unique status of police officers, and their importance to the public, means they cannot join a trade union. The federation was created by statute as the recognised mechanism for representing the interests of officers. However, this should not mean that it can complacently rely on all officers being members. That is why the changes made ensure that the federation cannot discriminate in respect of certain core services it provides to its members based on the date they choose to join and pay subscriptions.

I understand that the federation has objected to this change, comparing it to,

“a driver using an uninsured motor vehicle, having an accident, and then contacting the insurance company for cover after the event”.

This point was raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. However, there is a key flaw in this analogy. A motorist who is dissatisfied with their insurance company has the option of taking their business elsewhere. This is simply not the case for the thousands of rank and file officers up and down the country who continue to show professionalism, dedication and sacrifice in the line of duty. These changes are about putting power in these individual officers’ hands to influence their federation.

It cannot be right for a federation that fails to command the confidence and trust of its members to be able to hold them to ransom. The ultimate conclusion of the federation’s position is that all officers should become members as a form of insurance, rather than be convinced of the merits of federation membership. That is the opposite of what we are seeking to achieve, which is giving officers the power to decide whether the federation has set out a compelling case for membership. The federation effectively holds a monopoly when it comes to providing support and representation to police officers. It should not be able to use that position to threaten to withhold assistance from any officer who chooses to join later in their service.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, also asserted that this will lead to an unreasonable financial burden for the federation—a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—in representing new members who have not “paid their dues” earlier in their career. We would dispute that. Although all subscribing officers should have access to the same support, a member who chooses not to pay subscriptions will continue to have only limited entitlements.

[Lord Rosser]

Does the Minister intend to go on to tell us what those limited entitlements are? Are they the same limited entitlements that I understand such officers are allowed now, and is it provided for in the regulations that they have some limited entitlements? I would be grateful if the Minister could spell out what they are. Are they actually set out in these regulations or are they in the regulations which I think the SI before us seeks to amend?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I will come to some of the specific points the noble Lord has raised. On the exact entitlements, it will be more appropriate for me to write to the noble Lord and other Members. I say to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, that one of the issues raised was concern about the financial capacity of the federation to deal with changes that are being made. A review of the federation’s accounts last year found that it currently holds reserves of over £54 million. Indeed, the Normington review also recommended that the federation should reduce annual member subscriptions by 25% per cent, from an average of £258.96 to £194.22, given the level of federation reserves. In the very unlikely event that the federation finds itself in financial difficulty as a result of subscription income reducing, that would surely suggest that it had failed to convince rank and file officers of the merits of membership. That said, with the level of reserves currently held, that is highly unlikely.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also talked about a disproportionate response from the Government. In the interests of upholding openness and transparency, the instrument also clarifies the Home Secretary’s powers to scrutinise details of all funds held for federation purposes. Normington was also clear that the federation must convince its members and the public of the good value for money of the work that the federation undertakes.

Finally, at the request of the federation, the instrument also makes provision for it to reimburse police forces for the payment of salaries of members of the national federation’s joint central committee and for the central co-ordination of federation funds. This supports the Normington recommendation that there should be greater national oversight and transparency of federation finances.

If I do not cover all the questions that I have been asked this evening, I shall certainly review the contributions and write appropriately. On what the instrument does, the regulations laid on 12 March covered areas of membership, removing compulsory membership of the federation and applying a duty on the federation to inform new officers that they may opt in. Secondly, officers will pay subscriptions only if they actively choose to, and the instrument applies a duty on the federation to inform new officers that they may opt to pay subscriptions. On the accounts—this is a point that I have already made—it clarifies the Home Secretary’s powers to call in and scrutinise all the accounts held by the federation at national or local branch level, for all moneys held by the federation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

How will the federation know who all the new officers are? Will it be told by chief constables, or what? Is it left to the federation to find out who the new recruits are? Will there be an onus on the federation, or on the police forces to tell the federation whom has recently been recruited and whom it should give this information to?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The onus is on the federation. As I said earlier, it is for the federation to make the case for new police officers to say that they need to join the federation and tell them that it offers the services that it does. This is something that the federation will need to do to ensure that officers realise the benefits of being part of the body. Any representative body would have to make that case.

[Lord Rosser]

What the Minister is saying—and I am just trying to get this clear—is that the federation will have to advise any new officer who is recruited into a police force of the fact that they can join the federation but they do not have to and that, if they join, they do not have to pay any subscriptions: it is up to them. The Minister is saying that it is for the local branch of the federation to find out who the management of the local police force has recruited into the force. Surely, there must be some obligation on those who run the police force to tell the local branch federation whom they have recruited and whom the federation then has—as I understand it—a statutory responsibility to advise that they can join the federation but they do not have to. Indeed, if the federation does not do that, it is liable to a penalty. Yet the Minister is saying that it is up to the local federation to find out who the management has recruited into the local police force. Surely that cannot be right; it must be for the management or the local chief constable to tell the federation who the new recruits are.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I think that the noble Lord is putting words into my mouth. I did not say that—I said that it was for the federation to make the case for its membership. So I think that he should reflect on what I have said from the Dispatch Box. In his usual style, he has asked a raft of questions and, as I said earlier, on specific areas I shall reflect on contributions made and respond accordingly.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Perhaps I can make my point; I have listened to the points that he has made. Every police force locally and every local branch has a relationship. As it works currently, they will be informed of new recruits joining, and it is for the federation to make the case for new recruits to join. No doubt they will outline the membership benefits at that time. The important thing with these regulations is that they put the choice in the hands of the individual police officer. In any representative body, no matter what profession you are talking about, that is how it works.

[Lord Rosser]

I think that the noble Lord has answered the question. If he had answered it before and I had not heard him, I apologise. What the noble Lord has just said is that the federation will be advised of the new people who have joined the force, and that was simply the question that I was asking: will it be advised by the police force who the new recruits are, rather than the federation itself having to find out? As far as I understand, the Minister has now made it clear that the local branch of the federation will be advised who the new people are and therefore the people that the federation have to advise. That has answered the question I asked.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Perhaps the reason why there was some confusion on my part is that that is how it works now. There is no change. The noble Lord is perhaps pursuing a line that is actually currently the way it works. Perhaps I can move on, given the lateness of the hour, and answer some of the other questions. I assure him once again that if there is anything I have missed, I will seek to write to cover those points.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked whether an officer could still receive benefit if they choose not to pay a subscription, and whether it was in the gift of the federation to decide whether it supports non-paying members. Prior to this arrangement, it was possible for an officer to withhold payment of their subscription, and as a result they were entitled only to a limited number of benefits, dictated entirely by the federation. It is entirely in the gift of the federation to determine what benefits it would provide to members who opt out of paying subscriptions.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said that the PFEW is unique, in that members can access services as soon as they opt in. Yes, the PFEW is unique and police officers cannot join a union. As I said in my main contribution, the PFEW is the only organisation they can join in the rank and file and it is absolutely right that police officers, who do a unique job, have arrangements that give them access to strong representation.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what the reference to “each new member” meant in new Regulation 4A(b). The reference is to a new member of the police force, not to a new member of the PFEW. The noble Lord asked other questions and I will seek to review the comments that have been made.

The Government of course value the incredible contribution that police officers up and down the country make and the vital role they fulfil. The relationship between the Home Office and the police remains very strong. It is a constructive relationship, and as I have said on several occasions this evening, it is the Government’s view that it is important for the Police Federation to earn the confidence of officers in order to make the best use of members’ subscriptions and represent them with transparency and integrity. The changes made by the Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations 2015 will assist in that.

The noble Lord Mackenzie asked about the recent PFEW survey and evidence that government policy is leading to low morale among officers. I assure him and all noble Lords that the Government are determined to ensure that policing remains a rewarding, professional and respected career, and our reforms are certainly seeking to achieve just that. Part of that is ensuring that the Police Federation represents its members with both integrity and transparency. I have already spoken about the Government’s strong support for our police forces.

We believe that the changes made by the Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations 2015 will assist the federation in ultimately regaining the trust of its members and indeed the public.

London Airport: New Runway

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In 2009, as we know, the Prime Minister said that he would not support a third runway and did so with a certain degree of finality, since he said “no ifs, no buts”. Can the Minister confirm that that still represents the Prime Minister’s and thus the Government’s policy on a third runway at Heathrow? If it does not, could he draw our attention to any statement by the Prime Minister retracting his very clear policy statement that he would not support a third runway at Heathrow?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I suggest to the noble Lord that he might be minded to read the response of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the acting leader of his party during Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, where he gave a commitment that the Government would make a decision by the end of the year. On the noble Lord’s reference to “no ifs, no buts”, as I am sure he is well aware, the Prime Minister ruled out a very different proposition in 2010.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

The amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, which he says are probing amendments, seek to extend the powers available for designation to PCSOs. We debated the issue of the powers of PCSOs in Committee in the light of a government amendment extending their powers. It is hardly a surprise that we now have an amendment which, on the face of it, wants to go further.

In his response to the debate in Committee on 11 December, the Minister said that it was,

“right that the chief officers should have the freedom to take account of local circumstances and priorities when determining how their PCSOs are deployed”.—[Official Report, 11/12/13; col. 822.]

He also referred to a police and crime commissioner who had indicated a desire to see PCSOs tackling traffic offences. If the Minister accepts that my noble friend’s amendments on PCSOs’ powers go beyond those proposed in the Government’s amendments, agreed on 11 December 2013, but is not going to accept my noble friend’s amendments, can he say why, before Christmas, on 11 December 2013, he felt it right that the chief officers should have the freedom to take account of local circumstances and priorities when determining how their PCSOs are deployed but on 20 January, after Christmas, he does not?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his amendments. I suppose there was a general answer when he was talking about dotted lines and straight lines. I was told from a very young age that whenever you crossed the line, it was not the right thing to do. That is something all should keep in perspective when looking at these issues. The noble Lord spoke to the subject in his amendments with a great deal of expertise and insight. I fully acknowledge his work as president of the Road Danger Reduction Forum and as vice-president of the Cycling Touring Club.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 94D would mandate that all PCSOs must undergo a cycle training course before a chief constable designates cycle-related powers. We recognise that, as a result of these changes, additional training will be required to ensure PCSOs have the right knowledge, skills and expertise to exercise these powers. We do not agree that this should be mandated specifically by Whitehall, but we are confident that the police and the College of Policing are best placed to deliver this. I will bring this to their attention. The noble Lord was speaking with insight and I am quite happy to facilitate a meeting with the Roads Minister to see how we could talk about these subjects in terms of their wider application. I think he would agree, from his personal experience as a cyclist—and an avid cyclist at that—that across Britain and in our cities as well we are going through an evolutionary change on cycling. There is a ready acceptance now that cycling is something that is to be encouraged as part of the transport mix. When you go to cities such as Cambridge, for example, you actually see how it operates more effectively than in other parts of Britain. We need to share good practice across the country.

I now turn to Amendment 94C regarding the updating of regulations. The Department for Transport has consulted on the simplification of the current regulations with groups including the police. Revising these will form part of their ongoing work on the red tape challenge. Granting PCSOs the power to enforce regulations on cycling without lights will have a real impact on improving the visibility of cyclists and will help prevent road traffic accidents. The noble Lord acknowledged this himself in speaking to his amendments. That is why we believe that delaying the introduction of this power until after the regulations are updated would not achieve our objective of improving the safety of cyclists and other road users as quickly as we want to. His point about the pedals on cycles is well made. I remember years ago passing the cycling proficiency test and there were certain things which were “dos” and “don’ts”. He is correct in saying that many cycles now in Britain do not have reflectors and there is a need for those regulations to be updated. His point of raising these issues with manufacturers is also well made and noted.

Amendments 94A and 94B seek to grant PCSOs the power to issue motorists with a fixed-penalty notice for failing to comply with traffic directions and for failing to comply with advance stop sign regulations. We recognise that PCSOs have a key part to play in tackling issues around road safety and have consulted with the police and other key stakeholders on this matter as part of our ongoing work to explore the development of the role and powers of PCSOs. I am grateful to the noble Lord for suggesting these further enhancements to PCSO powers and I will certainly take his suggestions away to consider them as part of the wider work on reviewing PCSO powers that is already taking place. However, we want to understand fully the implications for PCSOs, the police and the public and until we have completed that further work I think it would be premature to make these changes at this time. I am aware that there is some concern that our proposals will result in cyclists being picked on by PCSOs. Let me assure the noble Lord that that is clearly not our intention. The powers in the Bill are not new, as a police officer can already exercise them. Just as police officers use their discretion, we expect that PCSOs will also do so.

Perhaps I may pick up on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Of course, the extension of these new powers is very much in the hands of the chief constable. PCSOs have 20 standard powers and another 22 discretionary powers. These changes bring a further 19 discretionary powers. It is really down to the chief constable to make the decision from an operational perspective as to what powers should be extended to PCSOs. We believe that is the right thing to do. We know that the public really value the role PCSOs play in tackling low-level crime and anti-social behaviour and we believe that this package of measures will ensure that they can continue to play a key part in providing the best service to the communities they serve. Given these reasons and, I hope, the assurances I have given to the noble Lord that we will continue to consider the points he has raised and the powers available to PCSOs, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I remind the House that we are on Report and that, after the Minister has spoken, unless it is a point of clarification or elucidation, normal convention is that there are no further interventions.

[Lord Rosser]

I note what the Minister has said about the situation in Scotland. I do not know whether that means he has had further information since we discussed it in Committee, but the Government said then:

“The Scottish Government, who we have talked to about this issue, say they do not currently hold any information about the numbers of convictions or, as yet, any evaluation of the effectiveness of the new offences”.—[Official Report, 4/12/13; col. 279.]

It appears from what the Minister has just said that, since 4 December, the Scottish Government have now said to the Westminster Government that the provision is not working. I do not know whether the Minister has had that information since we discussed it in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

A Freudian slip there perhaps. Maybe I was honest in my first assessment. Nevertheless, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, when he talked about victims. In my own life serving the public in local government, quite often I came across a victim of crime—we are not talking about someone who serves the public, but any victim of crime. The noble Lord painted a scenario about that person having to return to their place of work. If someone has been assaulted in their own house, on the way to work, catching a train, at a bus stop or a station, there is equally a sense of great trepidation when the person has to return. It is important when we look at these issues that we put them into context. Ask any victim of crime, particularly serious crime, and the trepidation and fear that they feel in overcoming those challenges are intense.

Of course I acknowledge what the noble Lord is saying. When we face public life where does it stretch? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, contributed with his experience of the judiciary. Often, the judiciary are in the front line when they have to sentence people. There is an issue to be tackled there. Here, we sit in the Lords and many have served in representative office. Politicians put themselves in the front line when they face the public and indeed there have been instances where they have been assaulted in their own offices.

We argue that the degree of seriousness depends on the particular facts of the case. Why should it be worse, for example, or more traumatic for someone to be assaulted at work rather than on the bus going to work, or for that matter when locking the front door when leaving for work, or as a result of an intrusion into the home? The simple truth is that every case is unique and may have aggravating and mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account. That is where the judiciary comes in. We rely on the judiciary, guided by sentencing guidelines, to do just that.

Specific issues and questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others on issues vis-à-vis the police. First, assaults against people whose work brings them into contact with the public should receive the same sentence as an assault on a constable. That is already the case. With regard to the offence of an assault on a constable, we accept, as my noble friend Lord Taylor said previously, that the police do occupy an important role in society and a slightly different one by virtue of the role that they have to perform. But that does not mean that an assault on someone else, while being a distinct offence, carries a different maximum penalty. Both offences, be it on the police constable or anyone else, carry a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale currently set at £5,000.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, also raised the issue of young women. Again, I would say, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said about the Asian community, that there are particular circumstances that have to be looked at. We maintain that the current law provides protection. He mentioned the case of Kim and I listened very carefully. It is a great concern that there are harrowing experiences of victims of assault and noble Lords have shared those with the House today and in Committee. As I have already said, there are lasting consequences from these attacks. It is down to the individual and how they deal with it. It is the role of government, community and society to provide the support and protection they need. It concerns me greatly that individuals are not reporting serious crimes because they believe that nothing will be done. But we believe that having a new offence will not make a difference to that issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed to the experience in Scotland. I take the point on board about the higher number of people being charged. It may well be that offences are currently being prosecuted under the legislation protecting emergency workers as an alternative to common assault. But I will certainly take their comments back, make inquiries with the Scottish Government and write to them in that regard if I may.

In closing, I assure the House that the Government are committed to improving things for victims of crime. Since 2011, the Ministry of Justice has provided—and continues to provide—more than £50 million in funding per year to diverse victims’ organisations, including a £38 million per year grant-in-aid agreement with Victim Support. My noble friend is not in her place, but I remind noble Lords of the appointment of my noble friend, Lady Newlove, as Victims’ Commissioner. As noble Lords know, she has personal experience that she brings to bear to protect and help others and ensure that we can tackle these issues with people who have tragic experience in this regard. I pay tribute to her work.

The new victims’ code recently came into force. It explains what victims should expect from the criminal justice system, who to request help from and how and where it should be provided. The code also holds those in the criminal justice system to account, makes victims their priority and gives victims a clearer means of redress if they are not given the support they deserve. We all believe that victims need to know that the criminal justice system will work as hard as possible to deliver justice for them and help them recover and move on with their lives. As I said, ask any victim of crime; that is exactly what they want to do. Indeed, often we hear that they do not want to be known as victims of crime: they want to know that they are survivors of crime because they have moved forward with their lives.

The noble Lord is a man whose contributions I am sometimes amused by and often entertained by. They often add to the spirit, detail and diversity of debate and discussion. Moreover, they add to the quality of debate we have in this House. I hope that, with the reassurances and explanations I have given, he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister sought to argue when I said that staff working with the public and facing assault were to some extent different from others. He sought to say that that was not the case. Does that mean that it is the Government’s view that in offences committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public that should not even be an aggravating factor?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord is being somewhat disingenuous with the comments I made. The parallel I was drawing was with victims of crime. Of course, there are aggravating circumstances and the Government take them into account. But I was trying to highlight to the noble Lord and to the House that if you ask any victim of crime they will tell you that in the circumstances that he was painting about somebody having to go back to their place of work that the same is true of someone who has been assaulted in the street or at the bus stop. It is our belief that people should be treated according to the law in a fair and just system. I believe that the current law does just that.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, in developing our anti-social behaviour reforms, the Government have, both formally and informally, sought the views of the front-line professionals who will use the new powers. We have listened to them and, where appropriate, have accepted constructive proposals to improve the measures in the Bill. The amendments in this group exemplify this approach.

Under Clause 1(8), applications for injunctions against over-18s to prevent nuisance and annoyance will be heard in the county court and applications against under-18s will be heard in the youth court. However, some cases of anti-social behaviour involve mixed groups of under and over-18s. To allow for such cases, Amendment 19 would enable rules of court to be made which would, in turn, enable the organisation applying for an injunction to seek permission from the youth court for the application against the adult—or, indeed, applications if there is more than one adult—to be heard in the youth court alongside the applications in respect of one or more under-18s. The youth court may grant the application if it is “in the interests of justice”. If not, the application will be denied and the application in respect of the adults will be heard in the county court in the normal way.

If the case is heard in the youth court and an IPNA is granted, Amendments 8, 9, 10 and 11 provide that any subsequent proceedings in relation to the adults will be heard in the county court—for example, if there are proceedings for a breach. Only the initial application for the grant of an injunction will be heard in the youth court.

Amendments 6, 7 and 21 are consequential on Amendment 19. These amendments help put victims first. In most cases, it will prevent them having to attend court and give evidence twice. The amendments will also reduce costs and save court time. By linking these hearings in the youth court, we will retain the experience and expertise of its judges in protecting the best interests of respondents under 18. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We understand the reasons for these amendments and for wanting to try to ensure that cases involving those under 18 and those who are adult, where they relate to the same issue, can be tried or dealt with in the same court. Therefore, I certainly have no wish to argue against the principle of what the Government are seeking to achieve. However, in the letter that the Minister sent to us on 18 December, in which he outlined these amendments that were being tabled, he said in respect of this issue:

“We believe that it is in the best interests of respondents aged under 18 for linked cases involving adults to be transferred to the youth court rather than vice versa”.

Can he confirm that that means that a case could not be held in the adult court if somebody aged 18 was involved? Perhaps for the sake of argument I may take as an example—perhaps it is very exceptional—a case where there are, say, four or five adults and one person under 18 who happens to be 17 and a half. Under these amendments, is it the Government’s position that it would not be possible, if the parties wanted it, for the matter to be dealt with in the adult court? Are they saying that if the cases are going to be dealt with together, that can happen only in the youth court? I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.

I stress that we are not opposed to what the Government are seeking to achieve, but I pose the question in the light of the sentence in the letter that was sent to us where reference was made to believing it to be,

“in the best interests of respondents aged under 18 for linked cases involving adults to be transferred to the youth court rather than vice versa”.

Does that mean that they could never be held in the adult court, even if for example there were four or five adults and one under 18? I think that I know the answer to this, but could the Minister say why the Government believe that it is in the best interests of respondents aged under 18 for linked cases to be in the youth court rather than vice versa?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I will clarify that. As was put down in the letter of my noble friend on the final point, there is an understanding and appreciation that with youths under 18, youth courts have certain specialist knowledge in dealing with these cases. The point, which has been raised over and again, is that one of the key things, especially when it comes to such matters, is reforming and addressing particular issues, and ensuring that we prevent reoffending. We feel that the youth courts, particularly in the cases of under-18s, are best placed to deal with these issues. I can confirm that a case involving a person under 18 cannot be transferred to the country court in any circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, this amendment follows up the debate in Committee initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about Clause 13. This clause preserves an existing power available to social landlords to apply for tenancy injunctions to prohibit anti-social behaviour which relates to or affects their management of their housing stock.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, sought to challenge Clause 13 on the grounds that its provisions were not tenure-neutral. As I have indicated, Clause 13 simply preserves an existing power available to social landlords under Section 153D of the Housing Act 1996. That section, which, I might add, was inserted into the Housing Act by the previous Administration in 2003, responded to calls from social landlords that they needed to be able to hold their tenant responsible for the behaviour of visitors. However, strictly speaking, Clause 13 is not necessary, as an injunction under Clause 1 can be used to achieve the same end of holding the respondent responsible for the anti-social behaviour of the visitors to their property, regardless of tenure.

We included Clause 13 in the Bill because social landlords were familiar with tenancy injunctions. However, given the points raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and after further consultation with social landlords, we have decided to remove the clause to ensure that the injunction is completely tenure-neutral. This will fit in with our wider approach of simplifying anti-social behaviour powers through the Bill, while ensuring that social landlords, like the police and other agencies, will have access to the tools they need. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the government amendment. Any move towards increasing tenancy neutrality in the Bill is to be welcomed. I will raise one issue with the Minister, which arises from the letter that he sent to us setting out the reasons for the changes that were being made. The paragraph in question states:

“However, as the IPNA can do everything a tenancy injunction can do, we are satisfied that there is no compelling case for retaining this bespoke provision for those living in social housing”.

Earlier in the letter, the Minister had said:

“The provisions in respect of the IPNA are tenancy neutral”—

I am not sure whether that is regarded as different from tenure-neutral—

“save for the provisions in clause 13”.

From that, one would assume that if Clause 13 is disappearing from the scene, then the provisions in respect of the IPNA are indeed neutral. With the comment in the letter that,

“the IPNA can do everything a tenancy injunction can do”,

that was why the Government felt that they could withdraw Clause 13. Of course, not only does Clause 13 cover what is said in Clause 12(1), that an injunction,

“may have the effect of excluding the respondent from the place where he or she normally lives”,

it also states:

“The court may include in the tenancy injunction a provision prohibiting the person against whom it is granted from entering or being in … any premises specified in the injunction (including the premises where the person normally lives)”,

and,

“any area specified in the injunction”.

In the light of the statement in the letter that the IPNA can do everything a tenancy injunction can do, are we to assume that that part of Clause 13(3) would or could apply to any tenure and not simply to those tenures previously covered by the tenancy injunction? As I understand it, the Government appear to have moved on that point and the provisions in respect of the IPNA are now neutral. Bearing in mind what Clause 13(3) said, which went beyond merely,

“excluding the respondent from the place where he or she normally lives”,

which covered,

“any premises specified in the injunction”,

and,

“any area specified in the injunction”,

is that something that is still to be reserved for social housing tenants or is it something that, if it was deemed necessary or desirable, could now be applied to anybody in any form of tenure?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, to clarify, as I said earlier in moving the amendment, an IPNA could impose the prohibitions that were specifically referred to in Clause 13 as well. For example, an IPNA could be used to deal with visitors to a property. As such, the provisions are covered in an IPNA. Therefore we have tabled the amendment in light of the comments made by the noble Lord in Committee.

[Lord Rosser]

That would be irrespective of tenure? It would not apply purely to social housing?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I stated earlier, the purpose behind the IPNA is that it would be tenure-neutral.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As has been said, the Home Office has already published draft guidance for front-line professionals. The purpose of these amendments is to refer to it in the Bill, with the conferring of powers on the Secretary of State to issue it. In one of the letters sent to us, the Minister also said that:

“We also undertook in response to yet other amendments to revisit the terms of the draft guidance for frontline professionals”.

That letter set out a list of the areas where they would review the draft guidance.

Is the outcome of that review known or is it still taking place? If it is still taking place, is the intention that we will see the outcome of the review of the draft guidance and know what it is before we get to Third Reading? We have at least had the advantage in the discussions we have had so far of knowing what was in the already published draft guidance and, if it is being looked at again, we ought to have sight of any revisions being made to it before we conclude our discussions on the Bill. That would be extremely helpful. Is it now the Government’s intention to review the draft guidance in the light of the carrying of the amendment earlier today, which must presumably have some impact on the draft guidance that has been issued?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for his amendment and his comments. I have scribbled down here that I would convey his thanks to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. I have so conveyed them and he has obviously heard them, so there we are.

Turning to Amendment 57, I can assure my noble friend that any guidance produced under the new clause proposed in Amendment 56 will automatically apply to any person or body designated under the new clause proposed in Amendment 53. We will come on to that amendment later in our proceedings but suffice it to say that, by virtue of subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, any designated person or body would be treated as a local authority for the purposes of Chapter 2 of Part 4 as a whole. As such, the guidance produced for local authorities under the terms of Amendment 56 will be applicable to persons or bodies designated in accordance with the provisions in Amendment 53. I hope that reassures my noble friend in relation to his amendment.

On the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and taking the second question first on revisions to guidelines in the light of the vote, obviously the vote has happened and we shall look at the outcome. The guidelines will be finalised once the Bill has reached its final stages in Parliament.

As to where we are on the guidance, we are currently working with councils, the police and others. Over the coming months we will discuss the effects of the guidance but any results and further alterations will, unfortunately, not be available before Third Reading. However, the final draft of the guidance will reflect the terms of the Bill as enacted.

With those reassurances to my noble friend, I hope that he will be minded not to move his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I will just raise one or two questions on these amendments. Again, I look particularly at what was said in the letter we received from the Minister. On these particular government amendments, that letter ended by saying that any public spaces protection order,

“made by a designated body under the provisions of the new clause would take precedence over a PSPO made by the local authority in whose area the land is situated”.

As I understand it, that means that a PSPO made by the City of London Corporation—if it was so designated—would take precedence over a PSPO made by the local authority covering the area of Epping Forrest, Ashtead Common, Hampstead Heath or any other areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is the case. It is what the last sentence of his letter dealing with these government amendments says, as I just read out.

On the face of it, that would appear to be rather odd because Clause 55, which deals with public spaces protection orders, says that two conditions must be met, the first that,

“activities carried on in a public place within the authority’s area have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality”.

If the City of London Corporation has responsibility for managing an open space, presumably most of those who will be deemed to be affected on the basis of the,

“quality of life of those in the locality”,

are unlikely to actually live in the open space and likely to live in the areas surrounding it, which are presumably within the area of the local authority.

I am not seeking to raise some frivolous point, and my intention is not to oppose this amendment. What I am getting at is whether there are potential areas of conflict now between what the City of London Corporation may deem to be necessary or desirable in a public spaces protection order and the views of the local authority, bearing in mind that it is surely only the local authority that can make the judgment on whether activities were being carried on which had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality. I would be grateful if the Minister could clear that up. Perhaps I have misunderstood it. If I have, I am sure the Minister will explain that when he responds.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks and I reiterate the Government’s thanks for raising these issues. On the noble Lord’s point on clarification of the letter, it is my understanding—and we are just double-checking—that the letter got the position the wrong way round, so we apologise for that. I trust that clarifies the point.

[Lord Rosser]

If I may confirm what the letter should have said, it is that the PSPO made by the local authority has precedence over that made by the City of London or a designated body. That clears it up. I thank the Minister very much.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, perhaps I may say first that when those PCSOs arrived at the door of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I am glad that they did not take him away. We would have been without his expertise and input in this Bill, so we are grateful for that. Equally, he made an important point in mentioning it. I come back to a point I made earlier: PCSOs are distinct from police officers, and I think I made that clear in my comments. What they do in terms of reassurance is something that the police themselves do. Again, speaking from my experience of working with neighbourhood teams when I was a local councillor, the police also did similar reassurance exercises.

I turn now to the specific questions that have been put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why we are proposing this now. Of course, we are responding in line with the scrutiny of the Bill in the Commons. My honourable friend Stephen Barclay raised the issue, but it did go wider and beyond the specifics of his amendments. This is not something that the Government have only just thought about. I referred in my earlier comments to a Labour police and crime commissioner, Paddy Tipping, who wants us to go further. We have consulted on this and we have looked at the position with relevant experts in the field to understand the implications of the change. We have included discussions with the police at both the operational and the strategic level, the College of Policing, the partnership agencies and, indeed, national police leaders. As I said in my earlier remarks, this is about enhancing the powers of PCSOs and not about taking away from their engagement. We believe it is right that the engagement role performed by PCSOs is vital in making police accessible to all, and we do not want to overburden them with enforcement powers that would detract from that. That is why we have taken a considered position on these new packages.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked whether we will consider more powers. These changes will mean a significant increase in the number of powers available for designation to PCSOs. That is an important distinction: this is not something that is carte blanche; it is right that the chief officers should have the freedom to take account of local circumstances and priorities when determining how their PCSOs are deployed. That will be the case in these additional powers that are being proposed. That is why we have taken the time to consider and, while we will be exploring a wider role for PCSOs, the Government believe that their particular role is being enhanced.

I hope that I have covered the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

[Lord Rosser]

Were local authorities consulted?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

There was not a general consultation with all local authorities but, in our consideration, as I have said, we talked to partnership agencies and national police leagues; that, of course, in some respects includes local authorities’ opinions. This is not trying to take away from local authorities: anyone who has worked at local government level knows that local authorities, the police et cetera all work in partnership in ensuring that we get the maximum level of reassurance.

I turn briefly to the points raised by my noble friend, who speaks with great expertise in this area. I would not in any sense seek to challenge that. I believe that the vital distinction remains between police officers and PCSOs. We are merely seeking to enhance the functions of PCSOs to allow them to engage more effectively in the community and to address the very issues he has raised about their effectiveness when they arrive at a particular point. Our proposals are a proportionate response to what is needed. It will help in community engagement and effective enforcement in respect of some of the lower-level issues that are raised. Neighbourhood policing will be in a better place for that. I beg to move.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am sure my noble friend saw me nodding. That is quite correct.

[Lord Rosser]

We certainly support these amendments as they address gaps in the legislation and will enable more effective and comprehensive monitoring of firearms licensing. It is interesting to note that the Government’s intention to close loopholes in firearms licensing seems to stop at those on suspended sentences and at tightening regulations on antiquities. Although we agree they are important areas, the Government’s legislation, as we said on the previous amendment, does not extend to other rather more serious areas of activity or to preventing people obtaining a firearms licence. The Government seem to be keen on addressing loopholes in certain aspects of granting firearms licences but not, apparently, in others.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I believe my noble friend Lord Taylor has already dealt with that issue.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, child sexual exploitation is an abhorrent crime and we are determined to stamp it out. In the past, all too often these crimes were largely hidden, but now child sexual exploitation is rightly centre stage as an issue that we must tackle. We are strengthening the system of civil orders used to manage the risk of sexual offences through Part 9 of the Bill, which noble Lords have already considered in Committee. The provisions in this group of government amendments provide an additional power to tackle the problem from a different angle. They will make it harder for child sex offenders to be able to use the anonymity of hotels and similar venues to commit offences against young people and children. A number of recent high-profile cases, such as in those in Oxford and Keighley, have shown that offenders have used the cover of hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation to commit sexual offences against children. By introducing these new powers, we will help the police to tackle child sexual exploitation where there are reasonable suspicions that offending has taken place or will take place.

Already, police forces are actively tackling this issue, as evidenced by the increasing number of cases that the police are bringing before the courts and the significant sentences being handed down to perpetrators. In addition, on a national level, we have strengthened the response to this issue through the inclusion of child sexual exploitation within our strategy to combat organised crime. The newly established National Crime Agency is strengthening the UK’s capability to combat child abuse online with some 4,000 specialist officers. We have also set up a Home Office-led national group through which agencies are working together to better identify those at risk and create a more victim-focused culture within the police, health and children’s services. Whether exploitation is happening now or has happened in the past, we will continue to ensure that victims are not left to suffer in silence and that those who exploit them are rightly brought to justice.

The Government want to support the police in their efforts to vigorously pursue perpetrators of this despicable crime. Targeted new powers of the kind that we are proposing will provide additional help to law enforcement agencies by allowing the police to obtain information about guests staying at hotels, guest houses and B&Bs where they suspect sexual exploitation could be taking place. If there is a reasonable suspicion that premises are being used for child exploitation, a police officer of at least inspector rank may issue a notice to the owner, operator or manager. That person would then be required to provide the police with information over a specified period of up to six months about guests who check in on and after the date on which the notice takes effect. This could include information such as the name, age, address and relationship of guests, which would be used for vital intelligence and evidence-gathering. Where there is information that a child is potentially at risk, police would use existing powers to protect the child and pursue offenders in the normal investigative process.

It is essential that this new power is taken seriously and can be enforced. That is why it will be an offence for a person served with a notice to fail to comply, and they will be subject to a maximum penalty of a level 4 fine, currently £2,500. However, clearly there should be safeguards. An offence will not have been committed if the person has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply or if reasonable steps were taken to obtain or verify the required information, and an appeal against the notice can be made in a magistrates’ court. The intention of the new power is to create a proportionate and targeted tool that will be used in an intelligence-led way to help prevent abuse, and I commend these amendments to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, as we know, hotels do not require a specific licence to operate unless they are licensed to sell alcohol, and they certainly have no specific duties to report suspected child abuse. Clearly we are at one in wanting to eliminate child sexual exploitation as far as is possible, which is the objective of these amendments. However, I will raise one or two questions.

In the information that the Minister sent us, he said that it is not expected that this targeted power will be used more than 10 times a year, and that,

“as such, the impact on business is expected to be minimal”.

I do not ask him to tell me why he thinks that the figure is 10 rather than nine or 11, but it would be helpful if he could give some indication as to roughly where that figure of 10 came from.

Amendment 56YA defines “hotel” as,

“any guest house or other establishment of a similar kind at which accommodation is provided for a charge”.

I imagine that it must be possible to find some accommodation that is provided which is similar to a guest house but with no charge—something might conceivably be run by a charity. I want to confirm—and this is not particularly a criticism—that the wording would mean that that kind of establishment was excluded from the provisions of that clause.

The view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is that it considers that regulations specifying additional categories of information should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I understand that the Government do not envisage that. If I am correct in making that assertion, perhaps the Minister could say why. If I am wrong, and it will require the affirmative procedure, I will be very pleased indeed.

On this requirement under the clauses we are discussing, to provide information, for example in relation to addresses of guests at the hotel, is it the Government’s intention—I assume that it is but just want to clarify it—that it will apply only in relation to this particular kind of offence? One can think of situations in which a hotel was used by individuals to perpetrate other forms of quite serious crimes. Child sexual exploitation is obviously very much at the top end, but a hotel could be used to enact or plan other forms of crime. Do the Government intend that this provision will apply over a wider field than child sexual exploitation, which obviously we all accept is a very serious crime?

On the information about guests that might be gleaned, if that information does not result in a charge or a successful prosecution, for how long can it be retained by the police? Can it be retained in perpetuity or will it have to be given up or destroyed after a certain period of time? Since I do not think that that is indicated in the Bill—I am sure that if I am wrong, I will be corrected—for what purposes may the police use any information obtained about guests, and are there any restrictions on possible use of information provided to the police under these clauses?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I will turn to some of the issues—if not all, I will certainly write to the noble Lord in that respect. On the issue of the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendation that the order-making power in Amendment 56YA should be subject to the affirmative procedure, that report has come today, we are considering it and we will respond to the committee’s report in advance of Report stage.

The noble Lord raised the issue of the application of these particular proposals just for child sexual exploitation. It is their primary aim to target that particular heinous crime. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that this is something that needs to be tackled head-on.

As for the figure that the noble Lord asked about in the briefing, that was a matter that I raised, too. This figure is indicative; one would hope that it was zero. That is the sentiment that I would express from the Government, but it is an indicative number only.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about accommodation provided for a charge. The provision is aimed at hotels and bed-and-breakfasts; it would not cover accommodation provided for free, such as accommodation run by a charity. I trust that that has answered most, if not all, of his questions, but if there is anything pending I shall write to him.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, one of the issues that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede raised is the apparent extent to which Clause 94 could be used to keep cases that would justify court proceedings under the terms of the Bill out of the courts, where an individual has admitted to engaging in anti-social behaviour or committing an offence to a constable, investigating officer or a person authorised to issue additional cautions. Even where such a person thinks that the evidence is enough to seek an injunction under Section 1 or to take other court proceedings, they can still make a decision not to seek an injunction, not to take court proceedings, not to give a caution and not to give a fixed penalty notice. Instead, they can tell the offender to carry out any action listed in the community remedy document, including making a payment to the victim.

Since the Secretary of State is to issue guidance to local policing bodies on how they should discharge their functions in preparing or revising the community remedy document, can the Minister say what will be the maximum penalties that can be provided for in that document, including the maximum payment that can be ordered to be made to the victim? If an offence has been admitted, can the offender insist on being taken to court or receiving a caution or fixed penalty, rather than carrying out an action listed in the community remedy document?

Will a constable or investigating officer be able to act under Clause 94(3) if the offender has previously committed offences, or will it be only if the offender is not previously known? Will a record be kept and, if so, by whom, of any actions under Clause 94(3) that an individual who has committed anti-social behaviour or an offence has been told to take? Since the community remedy document is to apply not only to anti-social behaviour but to an individual who has committed an offence, what kind of offences will be deemed suitable to be dealt with under Clause 94?

My noble friend Lord Ponsonby spoke about the issue of scrutiny and the apparent inadequacy of the scrutiny that is likely to take place. Certainly, there do not seem to be watertight provisions in the Bill to ensure that such scrutiny takes place of the use of the powers under Clause 94.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for tabling his amendment. As he explained, it is probing in nature and seeks to establish a local panel to scrutinise the strategy and use of cautions and out of court disposals in particular. I listened carefully to the reasoning given for the reduction in crime; there were some interesting comments.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to the out of court disposals review that is currently taking place, in partnership between the Ministry of Justice and the police, and in conjunction with the Home Office, the Attorney General’s Office and the Crown Prosecution Service. The review will look at all out of court disposals currently used against adults and consider how they might be reformed. The aim is to ensure that out of court disposals are as effective, simple and transparent as possible. The review includes conditional cautions and community resolutions, both of which will be subject to the community remedy. This public consultation was launched on 14 November to seek the views and experiences of professionals, victims’ organisations and the public. The consultation will conclude on 9 January and the review as a whole will conclude later in the spring.

Two key themes of the review—picking up on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—are transparency and accountability. The consultation asks the public to consider whether they think there is more information about out of court disposals that should be shared; whether they are able to hold the police to account for the way that out of court disposals are used; and how they think that the Government can make the out of court disposal system more accountable.

In particular, the consultation asks for views on what sort of offences out of court disposals are appropriate for. I agree that the use of cautions for serious offences and repeat offenders requires careful consideration in each specific case. The Review of Simple Cautions, to which the noble Lord referred, has already been completed. The review made it clear that cautions should no longer be used for indictable only offences, and certain serious either-way offences, unless there are exceptional circumstances, and that those who persist in criminal activity should no longer expect to receive a caution. Those changes have been made to the guidance on simple cautions.

The out of court disposals review is also looking at this issue. Currently, the guidance for all out of court disposals indicates that they are available for all offenders, but are primarily intended to address first-time offending. The latest data, for 2012-13, show that 60% of those getting a caution—that is, either a simple or a conditional caution—have not received a previous caution.

On the issue of senior officer oversight, the simple cautions review recommended that there should be greater local accountability and scrutiny of decision-making. The review further recommended that each force should have a senior officer identified as responsible who would provide local leadership and accountability and who would make use of local scrutiny panels. We are considering that recommendation carefully as part of the wider out of court disposals review. There are clearly links between the matters considered in the simple cautions review and the out of court disposals review, and we will consider these alongside each other. Further, I assure the noble Lord that the issues he and others raised in this debate will be fed into the out of court disposals review.

The draft guidance on the community remedy signposts existing CPS guidance on the use of conditional cautions. The community remedy will work with any changes to conditional cautions or community resolutions that take place as a result of the review, but we need to be careful not to impose anything in the Bill or the guidance that will contradict or restrict any changes to those systems.

I will pick up a few points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He asked about the crimes for which the remedy might be used. They are low-level criminal damage, low-value theft, minor assault without injury and anti-social behaviour, and are currently set out on page 15 of the draft guidance. In addition, the noble Lord asked whether the offender could insist on prosecution. The answer is no. He asked whether the community remedy only applied to first-time offenders; I have already covered that particular issue. I was asked what records are kept. The police will keep records in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and will retain them if there is a specific police purpose. As I said, a much more detailed review will end in January of next year.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, indicated that this was a probing amendment. I hope by what I have said that that I have conveyed that there are broader issues to consider as well. We will undoubtedly return to this issue once the current review results are out. In the interim, I hope that the noble Lord is reassured both by my explanations and my commitment that the content of this debate will be included in that review, and that he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we have tabled amendments 21E and 21F to seek to clarify the effect of changes made to Clause 12 on Report in the House of Commons. As I understand it, the effect of those changes is that the ability to exclude a person who is the subject of an injunction under Clause 1 from the place where he or she normally lives in cases of violence or risk of harm can now apply across all tenures, including owner-occupiers, and not just the social housing sector, as I think was originally proposed. Will the Minister confirm whether that is now the case?

If Clause 12 now applies across all tenures equally, what powers are now given under Clause 13 that apply only to someone with a tenancy agreement but do not apply to someone normally living in owner-occupied property who is also the subject of an injunction under Clause 1? One would have assumed that all tenures were now being treated equally but I take it that Clause 13, by its very wording, does not apply to a person in owner -occupied property. If there is still a difference in the powers available under Clauses 12 and 13, depending on the form of tenure, will the Minster say what those differences are and why they are necessary? Will he also say whether Clause 13 applies to the private rented housing sector or to just the social housing sector? Presumably the private rented housing sector is now covered by the changes made to Clause 12, so if a private sector housing tenant is not covered by Clause 13, in which ways does it mean that someone in social housing accommodation is being treated differently from someone who is a private sector housing tenant and who is also the subject of an injunction under Clause 1?

Amendment 21F would give local authorities extra flexibility in tackling anti-social behaviour in the private rented housing sector when private landlords refuse or are unwilling to act. It would be helpful to have the Minister’s comments.

Finally, under Clause 12, the injunction may exclude the respondent from the place where he or she normally lives. Under Clause 13, the tenancy injunction may include a provision prohibiting the person against whom it is granted from entering or being in any premises or any area specified in the injunction. What is the reason for the difference in wording apparently based on form of tenure?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I totally understand the noble Lord’s concern that anti-social behaviour powers in this Bill should be, as far as possible, tenure-neutral. He is quite correct that this came up during the debate in the other place and Clause 12, which provides for exclusion, is now tenure-neutral following amendments made on Report in the Commons. Of course, it is of no consequence to the victims of such behaviour that the perpetrator is a tenant of social housing, in the private rented sector, or is indeed an owner-occupier. What matters is that action can be taken.

Clause 13 makes special provision for tenancy injunctions so as to preserve the powers in housing legislation. For the most part, the housing injunction can be used in the same way as an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance. However, it makes the express provision for a tenancy injunction to be made in some circumstances where the tenant allows, incites or encourages anti-social behaviour by another person and this constitutes a breach of the tenancy agreement. Such behaviour could be committed by a visitor or lodger, for example. Front-line professionals have demonstrated through discussions held that they value this power and that is why we have retained it.

I assure the noble Lord that we are satisfied that Part 1 already enables the police, a housing provider or a local authority to apply for an IPNA to prevent a person allowing, inciting or encouraging someone else to engage in anti-social behaviour. It can be used in this way not only against tenants in the social and private rental sectors, which are the sectors that these amendments are concerned with, but against owner-occupiers. Given that, we do not need to extend the tenancy injunction provisions to cover a wider category of persons, as these amendments seek to do.

I also assure the noble Lord that Clause 13 applies to anyone who has a tenancy agreement with a local authority or a social landlord, so it does not cover the private rental sector.

Based on the assurances that I have given in terms of the extension and the provisions that were discussed in the other place, I hope that the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I am still not entirely clear what the position is in the light of what the noble Lord has said. As I understood it, he seemed to be at some pains to say that the content of Clause 13 is also covered by Clause 12 because the police, or somebody making the application, would have the powers to make that application in respect of somebody in the private rented sector, or presumably even an owner-occupier, who was,

“allowing, inciting or encouraging any other person to engage or threaten to engage in anti-social behaviour”.

I think that that is what the noble Lord was seeking to tell me. That wording appears in Clause 13 in relation to tenancy injunctions but it does not appear in Clause 12, although the Minister is seeking to say that that is what Clause 12 actually means. Therefore, if owner-occupiers and the private rented sector are covered by Clause 12, why do we need Clause 13 to put in different wording for a tenancy injunction when the noble Lord is apparently seeking to say that that is already covered in Clause 12?

In my contribution, I drew attention to Clause 13(3), which says:

“The court may include in the tenancy injunction a provision prohibiting the person against whom it is granted from entering or being in … any premises specified in the injunction (including the premises where the person normally lives)”,

so it clearly covers premises other than where the person normally lives, but the subsection goes on to say that it could also apply to,

“any area specified in the injunction”.

Do the terms of Clause 13(3) apply also to owner-occupiers and the private rented housing sector or are we treating differently people in the social housing sector who may have one of these injunctions and who it is proposed should be excluded? Are the people concerned in the three different types of tenure all being treated equally or is there something different in this for the tenant of social housing accommodation? If there is no difference and it is all covered by Clause 12, why do we need a separate Clause 13?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I repeat that as far as the first clause is concerned, the intention is to be tenure-neutral. As I said, we have considered the discussions that took place on Report in the House of Commons and have made appropriate amendments. I also repeat that the specific purpose of a tenancy injunction is to capture behaviour where a tenant has breached, or it is anticipated that they will breach, their tenancy agreement by engaging, or threatening to engage, in anti-social behaviour. We have tried to cover all elements in both clauses. As I have said before, it does not matter to the victim whether the perpetrator is a tenant of social housing or in the private rented sector. What matters is that action can be taken, and Clause 12 covers that.

[Lord Rosser]

With great respect to the Minister, I do not think that he has explained why Clause 13 is necessary. He keeps saying that Clause 12 is tenure neutral. If it is tenure-neutral, it covers social housing tenants as well as those in the private rented sector and owner-occupiers. Therefore, why do we need Clause 13? He refers to Clause 13 relating to anti-social behaviour, but Clause 12(1)(b)(i) also refers to anti-social behaviour. It also refers, in subsection (1)(b)(ii), to,

“a significant risk of harm to other persons from the respondent”.

The Minister has not addressed another question that I asked. Clause 12 refers to,

“excluding the respondent from the place where he or she normally lives”,

but in Clause 13, which covers tenancy injunctions, a prohibition can apply to,

“any premises specified in the injunction (including the premises where the person normally lives)”.

I therefore repeat that the provision envisages that the scope can extend beyond the premises where the person lives. There is also a phrase about preventing a person,

“from entering or being in … any area specified in the injunction”.

Is the Minister saying that the terms of Clause 13(3) are also included in Clause 12? He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that Clause 12 covers all forms of tenure and then say that he still needs Clause 13.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I can only repeat what I have already said: Clause 13 makes special provision for tenancy injunctions so as to preserve specific powers in housing legislation. In this case, it also makes an express provision for a tenancy injunction to be made in some circumstances where the tenant allows, incites or encourages anti-social behaviour by another person. This constitutes a breach of their tenancy agreement. As I said earlier, such behaviour could be committed by a visitor or a lodger. The reason for Clause 13 is that front-line professionals value this power. That is why we seek to retain it.

[Lord Rosser]

Why is it not equally important that the provision about,

“inciting or encouraging any other person to engage or threaten to engage in anti-social behaviour”

should apply to the private rented housing sector, and to owner-occupiers? Is the Minister saying that only somebody in social housing might incite or encourage others to engage or threaten to engage in anti-social behaviour, and that that would not apply to the private rented sector or to owner-occupiers? Of course it applies there, too. This is not tenure neutral. If it were, Clause 13 would not be needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, either I am failing to comprehend totally what the noble Lord is saying, or vice versa. I am listening very carefully to what he is saying, but, rather than repeating myself, I think it would be in the best interests of making progress if I wrote to him about this. I hope that he has been reassured by some of what I have said, and by the commitments and assurances given by the Government. On that basis, I again ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

Obviously, I accept that the Minister will, without any commitment, have another look at this and write to me—which presumably will require him to reflect on everything that has been said before his reply is signed and sent. On that basis I will withdraw the amendment. However, I put to him again this simple question: if he is arguing that Clause 12 is tenure neutral, why does he need Clause 13? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

In direct response to that, I can say that representatives from the LGA and other organisations have attended meetings with my noble friend with regard to this Bill. I again reassure her that, as the guidelines are reviewed, I am sure that the LGA will be making representations and will be part of that process.

[Lord Rosser]

I certainly will withdraw my amendment but can the Minister respond to two of the questions I asked? Can the youth offending team oppose an application for an injunction under Section 1 for someone aged under 18 and can it oppose it in court? Will the court hearing an application for an injunction under Section 1 have to be told the outcome of the consultation with the youth offending team and the view of the youth offending team?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The youth offending team cannot actually veto an application. If it objects to a particular application, we expect further dialogue to take place on what it has submitted, but that does not mean that the process should be dragged out unnecessarily.

[Lord Rosser]

I accept that the team cannot veto it, but my question was: if it does not agree with it, can it oppose it in court? When the thing goes to court, will it be necessary for the court to be told of the outcome of the consultation of the youth offending team and the view of the youth offending team?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

This is a specific issue. As I said, I would expect that the court would consider all consultations that had taken place and advice that had been received in considering this element. Certainly, the intention in providing for these orders would be that the youth offending team had a central role. It would also be represented in court. If there were an occasion where the team felt strongly enough, yes, the short answer is that it would be represented at the court hearing if it thought that its issues were not being considered in the right way.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his response to the question and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I am very interested to hear the Minister’s response on all the issues that have been raised, particularly about the duration of a criminal behaviour order. This has already been stated. For those who reach the age of 18 there is a,

“fixed period of not less than 2 years, or … an indefinite period”—

then it says in brackets—

“(so that the order has effect until further order)”.

I am not quite sure what that means. What is the further order that is envisaged? It does not say, “until further notice” but “until further order”. Perhaps the Minister will clarify what that actually means.

As far as the order being allowed to go on for an indefinite period, the Minister has been quite eloquent during the passage of the Bill, telling us all about some of the existing provisions, how they are not working and how they are not having any effect. Bearing in mind that it says in the draft guidance that the criminal behaviour order,

“is aimed at tackling the most serious and persistent offenders where their behaviour has brought them before a criminal court”,

then I suggest that if such an order has been in effect for five years but has not had any impact and has not managed to tackle the most serious and persistent offenders, it is unlikely that it will do so beyond five years.

On how long the order period should last, if the Minister is determined that the facility should be there for it to continue for longer than, say, a period of five years and to go on indefinitely, does he not think it appropriate that there is a proper review to justify the need for it to continue on the basis that one would have thought five years a reasonable time to show the effectiveness, or otherwise, of an order?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her explanation of these amendments and for sharing her thoughts about a group yet to come. It gave those of us on the Front Bench advance notice of what she might be saying, so I thank her profusely for that.

Amendment 22E seeks to require a court to consider the proportionality, as my noble friend said, of positive requirements for including them in a criminal behaviour order. Positive requirements are of course an important element of both the criminal behaviour order and the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance. As currently drafted, the Bill states that the court must receive evidence about the suitability and enforceability from the person or organisation that will be supervising compliance with the requirement. Proportionality will therefore routinely be considered by a court as part of this decision.

The Bill sets out clear limitations on courts when determining whether to agree any positive requirement proposed in the application. The court must not impose any requirement that conflicts with, for example, an individual’s religious beliefs, or interferes with their work or education. Ultimately the court will have regard to an individual’s human rights—for example, Article 8 rights—when deciding to include positive elements. Such qualified rights can only be infringed where to do so is necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate aim. Proportionality, therefore, is a relevant legal consideration for the courts.

Amendment 22G, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, focused on as well, would remove the ability of the court to grant a criminal behaviour order that lasted longer than five years. Of course, I understand the reasoning behind this. However, where the courts are dealing with the most anti-social individuals, they should have the option of imposing an order for a longer period. The courts, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree, will always consider the reasonableness and proportionality of a longer order before granting it. They will have access to relevant information about a particular case. We believe they are best placed to make a judgment about the appropriate length of an order. What is more, the offender has the ability under Clause 26 to apply to the court to vary or discharge the order at any time.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, sought clarification about the words “further order”. This refers to a further order of the court, not a further CBO.

Finally, I understand that Amendments 22H, 22J and 22K are designed to ensure that all orders are reviewed annually. As your Lordships are aware, we have ensured that this is the case for under-18s. We recognise the importance of frequent monitoring as a young person matures during the duration of an order. However, in respect of adults we have left the decision open to the relevant police force as to whether there should be such a review. In such cases where an individual is behaving in a way that is seriously anti-social, it may not be appropriate to review the case after 12 months, as this would be too soon and would simply result in an unnecessary burden on the police and courts. Again, we wish to make sure that such decisions are made by those on the front line who are best placed to assess each individual case.

New Psychoactive Substances: EUC Report

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I extend our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and his committee for their report. It contains a clear recommendation that there should be a reasoned opinion concluding that the proposed regulation and directive do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

As has been said, psychoactive substances are natural or synthetic substances that affect the central nervous system, and induce a stimulating or depressing effect in the same way that illicit drugs such as cocaine or ecstasy do. They are often marketed as legal alternatives to illicit drugs, which is why they are called “legal highs”. Like illicit drugs they can cause considerable harm to those who use them, including severe physical or psychological harm, or even death.

Many new psychoactive substances have or could have other uses in, for example, the medical, chemical or high-tech industries. Around a fifth of the substances notified through the EU-level mechanism of exchange of information have some other legitimate uses. New psychoactive substances are not, however, subjected to control measures under the UN conventions on drugs and are not therefore covered by a Council framework decision of 2004 on the approach to the fight against illicit drug trafficking.

However, the number of new psychoactive substances emerging and spreading increasingly quickly in the European Union is rising fast, and more than 300 new substances have been detected in Europe since 1997, with the number of substances identified between 2009 and 2012 tripling from 24 to 73 a year. The rise in the availability of such substances has led to an increase in consumption across the EU, and 80% of new psychoactive substances are reported in more than one member state.

As we have heard, the European Commission considers that the current EU instrument of 2005 on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances is unable to provide an adequate response to this growing challenge, because it does not enable harmful substances to be withdrawn from the market quickly enough, or provide a response proportionate to the level of risk involved. The Commission’s new proposals that are the subject of this report seek to establish rules for restrictions to the free movement of new psychoactive substances, and are also intended to enable quicker and more proportionate measures to be taken on such substances.

The measures proposed would be introduced within weeks in case of an immediate risk and would restrict the sale of new psychoactive substances to consumers across the EU for one year. Alternatively, they could be introduced within 10 months and would restrict the sale of a substance to consumers across the EU and, in cases of severe risk, even their use in industry. They would be directly applicable in the member states and would not need to be transposed into national law. According to the Commission, under the current system the entry into force of restriction measures takes up to 24 months.

The Commission proposal also seeks to provide for the most harmful new psychoactive substances to be covered by the same criminal law provisions as substances controlled by the UN conventions. The proposed regulation is also intended to improve the functioning of the internal market in respect of legal uses of new psychoactive substances by reducing obstacles to trade and increasing legal certainty to economic operators.

Under the Commission’s proposals the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction—the EMCDDA—would be advising the Commission to take no further action in respect of a substance assessed as low risk. We would have concerns about this, because it is not clear by which means or form of testing the EMCDDA would come to this conclusion, and how it would assess long-term and psychological harms. We do not agree with ceding to the EU powers to classify drugs, but we certainly agree with EU-wide co-operation on a laboratory with power to give advice and information, as has been pressed for by the United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission and others.

The Commission considers that its proposal is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, because member states alone cannot reduce the problems caused to the internal market due to their divergent responses to the new psychoactive substances, and because EU-level action is necessary to ensure that potentially harmful new substances can be identified, assessed and, if necessary, withdrawn quickly from the market across all member states. The EU committee report disagrees with the Commission’s assessment that its proposal satisfies the principle of subsidiarity, which provides that in policy areas that do not fall within the exclusive competence of the EU, but where competence is shared with the member states, the European Union can act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states.

The EU committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has set out, has given its reasons for believing that it is actually the member states that are best placed to decide how to respond to the proliferation of these substances in a manner that best fits the circumstances in their jurisdictions, and that it is of the utmost importance that member states retain their ability to decide what action should be taken in their jurisdictions regarding new psychoactive substances. On improving the functioning of the internal market in respect of their legal trade, the EU committee says, as once again the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has said, that the UK Government’s evidence indicates that the legal trade in such substances is not sufficiently extensive to warrant the Commission’s proposed action that the committee thus regards as a disproportionate response.

We share the committee’s view, in respect of new psychoactive substances, that the case has not been made to justify transferring member states’ decision-making power to the Commission, and that the proposed regulation and directive do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. But I have a couple of points to raise with the Minister.

The United Kingdom appears to have Europe’s largest legal highs market. At present it is not that far short of 100 new psychoactive substances arriving on the UK market per year. Yet the Government’s temporary banning order has been used just some three or four times. There appear to be two reasons. The first stage of the process is, I believe, a letter from a Minister to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—the ACMD—but with the letter seeming to take some time to be sent. The second reason is the resource capability of the ACMD that apparently can assess only two or three new substances a year. Perhaps the Minister could comment on this situation and give us his view of the reasons for it.

The EMCDDA produces lists of new psychoactive substances. Despite requests, no explanation has been offered to date as to why there are substances on its list that have not made it on to any Home Office list. Perhaps the Minister could provide this explanation. As things stand, it seems that we will never be able to keep up with the number of new such drugs on the market, despite the apparent universal concern, including from the EU committee, about the risk of harm to the health and safety of citizens across Europe posed by the creation, availability and use of these new psychoactive substances.

In conclusion, I reiterate that we support the recommendation in the EU committee’s report.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for tabling this debate and through him, as chairman, thank the other members of the committee. The EU proposals published on 17 September on new psychoactive substances raise many issues around the principle of subsidiarity, and I think that warrants the attention of this House.

My noble friend pointed out that the Minister for Crime Prevention, Mr Norman Baker, gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee on 16 October. The reason for the debate today is to consider how the House wishes to respond and whether it wishes to issue a reasoned opinion to the EU institutions.

The European Commission’s draft regulation and directive aim to strengthen the European Union’s ability to respond to new psychoactive substances. The new regulation will replace the existing EU instrument, council decision 2005/387/JHA. The directive is a consequential instrument for member states to enforce the regulation through appropriate criminal penalties for new psychoactive substances categorised as severe risk.

In recent years, new psychoactive substances—NPS or, as already referred to in this debate, legal highs—have rapidly changed the nature of the global drugs market. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made this point very well. Substances that are not under international control but mimic the effects of controlled substances are now widely available. They have the potential to pose serious risks to public health and safety. My noble friend Lord Sharkey highlighted recent cases and the tragic responses. The speed at which the market has developed, the wide availability and accessibility of NPS legal highs and the concern about their increasing use makes this a significant issue that is not just national or European but global in nature and requires collective action at all levels. We have a comprehensive and well recognised response to new psychoactive substances that covers early warning, legislation, demand reduction and treatment, as well as galvanising international co-operation and activity. I will come to that in a moment.

In our legislative approach, we have deployed generic definitions whereby entire families of drugs are brought under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This approach has continued to place the UK in a much stronger and more durable position. Temporary class drug orders enable us to ban NPS in weeks rather than months where there is an immediate concern. Through these mechanisms, we have controlled the majority of NPS seen in the EU since 2005. Since 2010, we have controlled in excess of 200 new psychoactive substances including 15 currently under temporary control. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

While the EU-wide NPS identification and monitoring component has been very useful to us in complementing our own drug early warnings systems, it is harder to see the benefit of the risk assessment and banning process. To date, the requirement for member states to ban certain NPS has had little impact for the UK. Just 13 risk assessments have been conducted, and only nine NPS have been subject to this requirement, of which eight had already been controlled in the UK, including mephedrone.

As my noble friend Lord Bridgeman pointed out, the principle of subsidiarity is that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the citizen. As such, the EU should act only where it would add value. The Government are concerned that, as drafted, Article 4 of the regulation would fetter our discretion to respond flexibly to national issues with NPS as they arise. All noble Lords have made this point. The proposals are currently drafted under the Article 114 legal base, which is about internal markets and makes this a harmonisation measure, rather than setting out minimum standards under Title V.

Given that only 13 risk assessments have been conducted under the existing NPS instrument since 2005, it is difficult to see how, without significant additional resources in the early warning and risk assessment processes, the proposals will impact in any notable way on the NPS market. With many member states over the past four or so years bringing in extensive domestic measures to control such substances, the value of the potential control measures under the new proposals is unclear.

Beyond the concept that there is a legitimate trade in NPS that needs to be accepted and, indeed, protected, the fact that the UK has placed restrictions on the majority of NPS seen in the EU undermines the suggestion that the proposals would add value to the UK’s current approach. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed this out.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 10th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, briefly, we await with interest the Government’s response. Certainly, the amendment would appear to fill in a gap in this part of the Bill, since one’s understanding of restorative justice was that it was at least as important, if not more important, for the victim as it was for the offender. Yet while the relevant clause provides for participating,

“in an activity … where the participants consist of … the offender and one or more of the victims”,

it then goes on to say,

“which aims to maximise the offender’s awareness of the impact of the offending concerned on the victims”.

It would appear as though the view in this part of the Bill is that the offender’s needs and awareness are regarded as rather more important than those of the victim or victims. I conclude by saying that my understanding of restorative justice is that it is there for the benefit of the victims at least as much as, if not more than, that of offenders.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I welcome the enthusiasm and support for restorative justice from across the House. Indeed, at the recommital stage of the Bill my noble friend Lady Linklater moved an amendment in relation to pre-sentence restorative justice. That amendment added an explicit reference to restorative justice meeting the needs of the victim.

Her Majesty’s Government entirely agree that RJ, when used appropriately, can be an extremely positive experience for victims. For example, our own research has shown that 85% of victims participating in direct RJ conferencing with their offenders were satisfied. We therefore gave an undertaking to consider the amendment in advance of Report. I assure the House that we are fully supportive of the intention behind the amendment. We consider that the phrase,

“meet the needs of the victim”,

needs more explicitly to reflect the benefits provided by restorative justice. Victims may have many needs as a result of a crime, and we should be clear about which of them RJ may meet.

I am sure that noble Lords will agree that one of the most important benefits of RJ is to give victims a voice in the criminal justice system. The amendment therefore seeks to reflect this. It puts an equal emphasis on victims and offenders in defining RJ requirements by focusing on victims’ need to have their voice heard. It also seeks to cover the different ways in which victims might want to express themselves. The phrase, “talk about” seems to us a direct and simple way of describing what might happen in the majority of cases—victims talking at a face-to-face meeting or mediation about the impact of the offending. The words,

“or by other means express experience of”,

is intended to cover other ways of sharing experience, thoughts and feelings.

In short, we appreciate that some victims may be too traumatised, or otherwise unable or unwilling, to talk about their experience. Instead, they may want to express their feelings in writing or drawing, or through other means. We therefore believe that the amendment will strengthen the role of victims in the restorative justice process. In the light of this, the Government propose to accept the amendment.