Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord De Mauley]

I understand that. I will return to him in writing on that particular point.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am sorry to add to the cacophony of voices on this. It is not my topic but I am in charge of the Deregulation Bill on this side. I just point out to the noble Lord, and I am sure he is aware of this, that we will be on Report within a few days, so it is important for us to know whether we should be pursuing this issue. We would therefore be happy if the letter could come expeditiously.

[Lord De Mauley]

I take that point on board: expedition is the name of the game. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether full discussion on guidance would be taking place with a number of interest groups that he referred to. I can assure him that there is very active two-way communication with those groups. He asked about the adequacy of local authority resources. It is very clear from our discussions with both dog welfare organisations and local authorities that this is about saving them money. It is not going to involve them in more expense but will reduce the amount of time it will take to identify who the owner is, so I am pretty confident about that particular point.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, raised a number of important questions. First, I thank him for his support for the regulations and acknowledge his point that these measures, on their own, are not a silver bullet. Indeed, we never expected them to be that, but they will, over time, enable us to tackle some of the other issues that he and I are concerned about. He and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether there would be a single point of contact for the six databases. Regulation 6 requires that database operators must be able to redirect online inquiries to other databases if someone comes through to a database that does not hold the details linked to the microchip. All databases will have a system whereby, if an inquirer enters the microchip number on the wrong database, a pop-up—that may be the wrong technical expression, but I think he and I understand what I mean by that, although perhaps “window” might be a more appropriate word—will be automatically generated on the screen which, when clicked on, will redirect the person to the correct database.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised the important point of whether the first keeper will always be the breeder. There is also the issue of whether that is dealt with in guidance. Yes, the breeder, as defined by the regulations, is always considered the first keeper of a puppy. This is covered in the Explanatory Memorandum to the SI and will be included in the guidance.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked for clarity about who is responsible for change of ownership. I have touched on that already. Regulation 8 is clear that it is the responsibility of the new keeper to update the database where there is a change of keeper. He also suggested that there is some question over the use of the word “transponder”. This is essentially a technical issue but there is not a problem. The chip must conform with the FDX-B protocol set out in ISO standards, which is referred to in the regulations. The important point is that the chip must respond to a scanner at a given frequency.

The noble Lord also asked about the term “authorised person”. To clarify, the reference to authorised person is in respect of someone enforcing the regulations. Vets are not defined as authorised persons in the regulations; there is no provision limiting the provision of information to others to aid reunification of dogs and their keepers or to deal with other matters such as faulty microchips. These relationships will not be affected by the regulations and we would expect relevant consents from keepers to be in place already in relation to disclosing personal data. We would expect vets, re-homing centres and microchip manufacturers that already have a working relationship with database operators to have some secure identifier, if they do not have one already, from the database operators to ensure that they are bona fide inquirers for data protection purposes.

The noble Lord asked about a recommended site for implantation. This will be covered by the implantation training, so we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to legislate on this point. The training also advises implanters to check that the dog does not have a chip in a different implantation site and to check for any microchip migration.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether there were any conditions that database operators must meet and whether they applied to the UK only. Regulation 6 sets out the conditions to be met by the database operator. Databases do not have to be located in any particular country but the conditions apply to any database that holds itself out as being compliant with these regulations. He also asked what happens if a dog strays while it is overseas. I am afraid that that will depend on whether an analogous set of rules applies in that country.

I have done my best, although I suspect that when I go through Hansard, I may find questions that have been left unanswered. If I may, I will write on those. I think noble Lords all share with me the strong view that irresponsible dog ownership is a complex problem to which there is no single, simple solution. We have introduced a series of measures, of which these regulations are the latest. We believe they will help promote animal welfare and encourage responsible dog ownership. The draft regulations will help lost dogs to be reunited with their keepers more quickly, so reducing any suffering of the dogs and distress to their keepers. The increased traceability of dogs to keepers will ensure that keepers can be held to account better if their dogs are allowed to roam and cause a nuisance. They will also save local authorities and re-homing centres money, which can be better spent elsewhere to promote dog welfare and encourage responsible ownership.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment probes the changes to Section 10 of the Outer Space Act 1986, which requires people carrying out certain space activities to indemnify the UK Government against claims arising from their activities. The clause makes provision for limiting the amount of the liability, which until now has been unlimited. We accept that for British companies considering projects in outer space, unlimited liability is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Given the global nature of space work—no pun intended—this could result in work being lost to other countries. Indeed, one could say other universes but perhaps one should not.

We support the intention of Clause 13, which is to cap the liability at €60 million for the majority of space missions and to give the Secretary of State powers to vary this limit by secondary legislation. However, I have three questions for the Minister. Where precisely in the government accounts will the uncapped portion of the liability, which I assume is a contingent liability, be recorded? Under government accounting rules, does this not score against the deficit? If so, how much will that be in a typical year and will the individual amounts be recorded in the notes?

Secondly, the Explanatory Notes state that a minority of space missions will retain an uncapped liability. What criteria will be used to determine whether to cap or not? When the Minister responds, could he give me some more detail on that? If necessary, he may write to me if he does not have the detail to hand.

Thirdly, I note that the regulation of space activity is currently a reserved item, so it is not a matter for the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore, has this issue been offered to the Smith commission as a possible devolution item? I am sure there would be wide support for Scottish space missions being covered by the new financial powers now available to Scotland or those that are likely to be available in the near future. As a rather more technical question, are there any Barnett consequentials? I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment and his questions. The United Kingdom’s space sector contributes more than £11 billion a year to our economy, with an average annual growth rate of more than 7%. The sector directly employs more than 34,000 people. The Government are committed to the goal of raising the UK share of the projected £400 billion global space market to 10% by 2030, from approximately 6% currently. The proposed amendment to the Outer Space Act 1986 contained in the Bill is one of the measures designed to help us achieve this ambitious target.

The Outer Space Act 1986 is the legal basis for the regulation of activities in outer space carried out by organisations or individuals established in the United Kingdom, its Crown dependencies and certain Overseas Territories. The aim of the Outer Space Act and its licensing regime is to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under international treaties covering the use of outer space. One of these is the liability convention, under which the UK Government are ultimately liable for third-party costs for accidental damage arising from UK space activities. Section 10 of the Outer Space Act 1986 requires licensees to indemnify the Government against liabilities resulting from their space activities. This is an unlimited liability on licensees.

Since it is not possible to insure against unlimited liability, there is a requirement on licensees to obtain third-party liability insurance, usually to a minimum of €60 million for the duration of the licensed activity, with the UK Government a named beneficiary. If a claim were to exceed that amount, the Government could seek to recover the remainder under Section 10 of the Act.

As the noble Lord said, UK space operators have long argued that the unlimited liability placed on them is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Furthermore, they say that licence conditions relating to insurance place them at a significant disadvantage. Given the global nature of the space industry, this could result in work being lost to countries outside the UK, in particular to countries where operators may not be subject to unlimited liability, such as the USA or France.

The UK Space Agency has reviewed the Act and identified areas where there is room for improvement. In particular, the treatment of contingent liabilities under the Act is now out of date compared with other space-faring nations and other United Kingdom sectors that have comparable contingent liabilities. A public consultation was undertaken and the majority of respondents were positive about the benefits of capping the unlimited liability requirement to €60 million for the majority of missions. The Government therefore decided to undertake a two-part approach to address the industry’s concerns. In the first part, we reduced the insurance requirement from £100 million to €60 million. This was well received by the industry. Clause 13, which we are discussing today, is the second part. It amends the Outer Space Act to cap the unlimited liability. This will be managed through the Outer Space Act licensing regime, as the amendments to the Act provide for the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of a licensee’s liability under the indemnity in each licence.

Our initial intention is to set the cap at €60 million for the majority of missions. Clause 13 gives the Secretary of State the power to set or vary this liability limit on a licence-by-licence basis. This will provide the flexibility to ensure that UK space operators remain competitive internationally without the need to undertake further legislative reform. For example, companies are now developing ever-smaller satellites, such as CubeSats. These offer lower-cost, and possibly lower-risk, access to space, and potential growth opportunities for the UK. For non-standard, high-risk missions we would retain the flexibility to increase the liability cap.

The UK Space Agency is currently reviewing its approach to this emerging class of satellite and this amendment will allow the Government to react quickly if a lower liability cap is appropriate for a particular mission, thereby ensuring the UK industry remains competitive. An impact assessment has been completed and the benefit to business is estimated to be in the region of £13.5 million over 15 years. Clause 13 is designed to balance the risks to the Government arising from UK space activity against the need to enable UK industry to exploit the opportunities available to them.

The noble Lord asked how these liabilities would be represented in the national accounts. I think I shall have to write to him about that. The noble Lord also asked what criteria would be used to determine which missions will be within the cap. As I suggested in my answer, there will be a risk-based approach; we feel it is appropriate to retain the flexibility to set the amounts under the amendment on a case-by-case basis.

The noble Lord asked about the devolution position. We are not planning any change in that area. He kindly said that it was a probing amendment. I hope that that will satisfy him and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for a very full response and for answering two of the questions. The third one about devolution might bear further examination at some other stage, but I am sure that it is way above our respective pay grades, if there are any. On the other hand, I will look with interest at the letter that deals with the way in which these contingent liabilities—which I think the Minister confirmed they were—are going to be recorded in the accounts and whether they have any impact on the deficit. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this has been a very good and interesting debate. It proves that we were wrong to bank on knitting yarn deregulation to be the star of today’s show, although I suspect that we might get a little more of a buzz when we get to byways and highways, and the green and black ones and all the varieties we are going to come to in later amendments. It is probably good that we are dealing with a range of issues today, and of course no debate could possibly be topped if it was addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whose recollections and memories are all so important to us. We should bear them in mind as we think through this issue.

The amendment would change the Sunday Trading Act to allow an exemption for garden centres undefined. We oppose the amendment because we are concerned that there is significant scope for confusion in defining garden centres. A number of businesses could be included because they sell garden products. However, we also oppose it because we think that such a change would amount to an erosion of the law that has stood the test of time since 1994. That could cause confusion and undermine the legislation as a whole. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, the main thesis underlying the speech of the proposer of the amendment was the need to revisit and, if possible, deregulate the whole Sunday Trading Act. Repealing that without going through the process of discussion and debate which, as we have heard, was so much a part of the process of building the consensus around the 1994 Act is obviously something that we would have to think about very hard. This issue is about rights. It is about the rights of some people to keep Sunday special and of those who want to do more with their Sundays. We have, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to be careful about this and take our time to make sure that we get the balance right.

It is important that we get the definitions right. A garden centre can be anything from a very small operation selling plants raised locally to a large store within a much bigger department store. Most garden centres are now large operations that include, as we have heard, indoor and outdoor trading spaces, a wide variety of products, outdoor and indoor furniture, kitchenware, giftware, toys and games. It is hard to distinguish between these multifunctional garden centres and do-it-yourself stores that have large gardening departments, or even supermarkets that sell a wide range of plants and garden products in spring—or all year—sometimes in the car park surrounding the store. Without a definition, we do not know what we are talking about. An exemption for garden centres would therefore inevitably open up loopholes in the Sunday Trading Act and, as we have heard, large stores might seek to have themselves defined as garden centres, as some have already done.

As we have heard, the Sunday trading legislation is a compromise, but it is valued by retailers, employees and consumers. It gives people the opportunity to trade, work and shop on a Sunday but at the same time preserves a sense of Sunday being different from other days of the week. The Government have consulted on this issue three times in this Parliament and have found, as many other surveys have, that the laws have the support of the majority of the public—the latest report that I saw found that 77% supported the current laws—and the majority of the grocery retail community, which is a powerful alliance.

The amendment is premised on the view that if shops were to open for longer, it would be a good thing in terms of the so-called growth agenda, but longer opening hours do not mean that consumers have either the funds or the inclination to buy more goods. That was rather proved in the Olympic period when the Sunday trading hours extension, which was agreed by Parliament, coincided with a 0.4% decline in retail sales in that period. Sunday trading laws also currently provide an important advantage to small stores in a market that is heavily weighted in favour of big supermarkets. Indeed, the removal of Sunday trading legislation temporarily during the Olympics resulted, as we have heard, in a displacement of sales from small stores to large stores.

If the current laws were ever to change, they would need far more scrutiny and due process than is possible with this amendment. The existing Sunday trading laws were put in place after extensive consultation and several years of negotiation with interested parties to build the sort of consensus that has remained in place to date. Any wider change would need the same due process. It is clear that scrapping Sunday trading legislation is not pro-growth and will not deliver higher consumer spending. I hope that the Government will give this short shrift.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment would relax restrictions on garden centres by adding them to the list of retailers exempted from the Sunday trading regulations. At present, they can already open for six continuous hours between 10 am and 6 pm. When my wife told me that she wanted a wheelbarrow on Sunday, despite the burdens of office, I was able to acquire one at my local garden centre within that six-hour window and attend church on Sunday morning. This measure would mean that garden centres could open at any time on a Sunday and open on Easter Sunday, from which they are currently prohibited.

Having thought about this carefully, the Government believe, in line with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Trumpington, among others—although I could not have put it as eloquently as they did— that the current Sunday trading laws represent a reasonable balance between those who wish to see more opportunity to shop in and sell from large shops on a Sunday, and those who would like to see further restrictions.

Those advancing the case for further liberalisation of the Sunday trading laws claim that there will be worthwhile economic benefits, including an increase in revenue for garden centres. However, as a matter of interest, the evidence to date is not entirely compelling. The ONS’s assessment of the liberalisation during the Olympics found no significant growth associated with the longer opening hours during the event. Instead, sales tended to be spread out further over the additional opening hours. Likewise, with this proposed liberalisation, customers may not end up spending more but merely spreading their spending over a longer period.

As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale mentioned, the industry has talked of a potential £75 million increase in revenue but no details on the increased costs of extended opening have so far been forthcoming. As I have just mentioned, we do, however, have the useful example of the measures taken during the London Olympics. The Government suspended the Sunday trading laws during the Olympics in 2012 so that retailers could take advantage of the unique opportunity that the Games presented. The suspension of the law applied only to the specified period, from 22 July to 9 September 2012. There was an increase in footfall in London but this may merely have reflected increased visitor numbers to the country. An evaluation of the suspension of hours during the Olympics found that the overall sales increases seem to have been modest for large retailers, but that there was in fact a loss of business for the smaller retailers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for raising this issue. He makes a good case for this matter to be given more consideration. We are in debt to previous generations—he ended on this—for the substantial collection of public statues that there is in London. According to Westminster City Council’s guide to its process for obtaining permission for statues, they date from the Charles I statue of 1633. I had a look at that the other day and it is in very good nick. We are still seeing modern examples of material being put up and, as the noble Earl says, there are huge impacts on the way in which we view our city, on tourism and in other aspects, so it is important.

Behind the individual questions that the noble Earl has posed for the Government I think there is a real worry about their attempts to deregulate here. While the Government are clearly achieving something by taking responsibility away from the Secretary of State—although that is a deregulatory measure on a Minister and not on business—I am not sure whether they are taking the right step. As the noble Earl mentioned, there is a gap regarding who has responsibilities in this area. Given her previous experience, our Deputy Chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, might be in a better position to answer some of the questions about whether English Heritage has a role to play in this. I am sure that she will be too discreet to mention anything at this stage, and certainly not from the chair. However, I am sure that she will have some ideas about that. I am also sure that the Arts Council, in its wisdom and knowledge of these matters, will have things that might be brought to bear.

Whatever those ideas are, it is wrong for any individual politician to take responsibility for this area. That point was well made. I am not entirely clear whether substituting the GLA for the City of Westminster would solve that problem, because we are still talking about political control, but it raises the question: “Why just Westminster?”. Why would we not have wider consideration about where statues might be placed in London as a whole? My feeling is that statues are too important to be deregulated simply by the measure proposed by the Bill. I am not sure what the right solution is but I wonder whether the Minister might think about having a little more discussion about this.

The reflection I have, which I think is shared by the noble Earl whose amendment this is, is that there will be a bit of a gap here. It is not just a planning issue. The issues around putting up any memorialising form, whether it is a physical representation of somebody or an object whose presence is intangible, require aesthetic and other considerations rather than simply being about planning. I am not sure whether the planning system is quite the right place for this to be left. If there is therefore a gap, how would we find a way around it? It may be by having a statutory committee of some kind or simply by inviting some other body to take on a responsibility, which might be advisory. Whatever it is, I share the noble Earl’s concern about this issue.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the purpose of Clause 28 is to remove the current requirement on persons seeking to erect statues in public places in Greater London, excluding the City of London and the Inner and Middle Temples, to obtain consent from the Secretary of State before doing do. Controls to prevent the unsightly proliferation of statues in Greater London are already provided for by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This requires that planning permission be obtained from the relevant local planning authority prior to the erection of a statue in a public place in Greater London or the remainder of the country. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, but I am sure we can have a useful discussion about it. Given that the aim of this change in Clause 28 is to streamline the current double-handling of applications to erect statues, I cannot really see a benefit in removing the requirement to seek the consent of the Secretary of State only to replace it with a requirement to seek the consent of the Mayor of London.

The mayor plays a key role in the planning for London’s continued success. His London Plan provides the economic, environmental, transport and social framework for development in the region to 2031. He ensures that local plans fit with the London Plan, works with boroughs to develop planning frameworks for major areas of brownfield land and considers planning proposals of strategic importance. In this way, he already has input to the preparation of policies relating to public statues, such as those produced by the City of Westminster. The noble Earl asked why keep the 1854 Act at all? It is worth saying that it provides a power for the Secretary of State to repair and restore, for example, any public statue. I might be so bold as to suggest we would all find that an important power to retain. He also asked whether there are archives. I do not believe there are such archives—I am happy to have a rootle around but I am pretty sure there are no centrally held archives. I have little more to add. I hope I have said enough to persuade him to withdraw his amendment.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 18th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, Amendment 104B, as my noble friend Lord Flight has explained, would require the FCA to work with the Department for Education to secure the teaching of financial literacy in primary and secondary schools. I am sure, as the voices around the House have confirmed, that we all agree on the importance of financial education for young people and indeed for adults. The Government share this view.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, finance education is currently taught as part of non-statutory personal, social, health and economic education. I think that was how the previous Government set it up. The Department for Education is reviewing PSHE education, including whether any aspects of it should become statutory as part of the basic curriculum, and will be carefully considering the position of finance education. The Money Advice Service is feeding into this review.

However, the FCA is being set up as a focused conduct of business regulator. The Money Advice Service is the appropriate body to work with the Department for Education at an operational level on matters of financial literacy. MAS was established by the FSA, and its objectives are set out in new Section 3R of FiSMA, as inserted by Clause 5 of the Bill currently before your Lordships. They include an objective,

“to enhance—

(a) the understanding and knowledge of members of the public of financial matters”.

I cannot see how MAS could discharge this function without working closely with the Department for Education.

MAS was established by the FSA as an independent body with similar oversight arrangements to the FOS and FSCS. It has a statutory function to enhance the understanding and knowledge of members of the public of financial matters and their ability to manage their own financial affairs. The FSA must take such steps as are necessary to ensure that MAS is, at all times, capable of exercising its consumer financial education function.

The FCA will take on the FSA’s responsibility for consumer protection and conduct regulation, and will oversee MAS in the same way as the FSA does now. MAS will continue to have operational independence. To give the FCA responsibilities in the area of financial education would not only risk diluting its focus but would duplicate the role of MAS. So, in short, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. I ask my noble friend to withdraw it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I wonder whether the Minister can answer my point about the Private Member’s Bill which is going through the other place. It seems to me to offer a way forward on this issue. If he cannot give me a reply today because he has not been briefed on this matter, perhaps he could write to me.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I think I addressed it, although I did not express it in those terms. I said that the department is reviewing PSHE education, including whether any aspect of it should become statutory. That was intended to be my response. The noble Lord knows the Government’s approach to Private Member’s Bills.

Legislative Reform (Epping Forest) Order 2011

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord De Mauley]

I thank all noble Lords for their comments and questions today. I shall do my best to address them. First, I thank my noble friend Lady Doocey for her helpful comments on the need for a distinction between consultation and public information; on the complexity of the buildings required, with which I entirely agree; and for her other helpful comments.

My noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville made some helpful comments, expanding upon mine, on the consultation process and on reinstatement. My noble friend Lord Moynihan commented on the importance of security. This order applies to both Games. He asked how long the restoration process will take and what it will cost. It will take several months for the site to return to its original state, and I say in all seriousness that it will depend to some extent on the weather because the grass will grow better if it rains. The cost is not yet known and will not be known until the centre has been removed and the state of the site is known. The £170,000 is above the cost of returning the site. I thank my noble friend Lord Teverson for his support.

Turning to the comments and questions from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, I hope that I have addressed most of the issues that he raised, but I am delighted to return to some of them. He particularly commented on the deficiency of the police consultation. I reiterate that the police leafleted local properties and held five public meetings in the area, so they did everything they could to consult local people. I have apologised. We recognise the mistakes. We will certainly do our best to prevent them happening again, and I apologise again.

The noble Lord asked about traffic. I can confirm that traffic issues were considered as part of the planning process and that Transport for London is satisfied that this is manageable, not least because it is during the school summer holidays.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The point I wanted to make about traffic was not so much on the planning application, as that would be about the site-specific activity, but more about the impact that it would have on patterns to and from the Olympic Games themselves and on those who are commuting, so it is wider than planning.

[Lord De Mauley]

I am satisfied that that has been taken into account in the process. The noble Lord is right that it will be critical. After all, how will the police react to an incident? However, it has been part of a very comprehensive planning process. I think that the noble Lord asked whether this could have been done through by-laws. I confirm that we could not have achieved the result by amending the by-laws. I think that he also asked about the sufficiency of the £170,000 figure, which I hope I have already addressed adequately.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their supportive comments today. I appreciate that, despite those comments, what is proposed raises strong feelings in the immediate locality. I remind your Lordships that what is being proposed affects only 2 per cent of the total area of the Wanstead Flats and is entirely temporary in nature. After 90 days next summer, the full provisions and protections of the Epping Forest Act 1878 remain in force. I take note of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made about the consultation exercise; and I reiterate that whatever deficiencies there were, I do not believe that those who have strong views about this matter, particularly those opposed to the proposal, felt inhibited or unable to make their views known. We are satisfied that what is being proposed is proportionate and necessary to ensure the safety of the world's greatest sporting event and I commend the order to your Lordships.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2011

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I too would like to thank the Minister for the detailed introduction he gave to the regulations. It was interesting to hear the full explanation, particularly regarding juxtaposed controls—touching places I had never heard of, but that I am sure will feature in future discussions now that we know about them.

I understand why this order is necessary, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has covered some of the ground on this. However, I also have some questions about the way in which this was actually brought into being and some of the points raised within the document. I found the document very difficult to read and the definitions a little confusing and elastic—they seem to slip around a little. For example, the Explanatory Memorandum talks about 20,000 people being involved when in fact the impact assessment gives a range of 20,000 to 25,000, with a median point of 22,500. If we are talking about 25,000 people all the proportions and timings will be changed substantially.

The first point I was confused about—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also raised this—is that in paragraph 4.2 of the memorandum there is a statement that persons “would usually” have,

“to apply for a visa”.

However, it does not explain why the GFM personnel get ID cards. Did I hear the Minister say that they would also have Home Office involvement at that stage, in terms of taking some of the demographic details which are being talked about? What exactly is the meaning of “usually” in that circumstance? Are there situations when visas would not be so required or, indeed, when the visa would be required but the biometrics would not be taken? “Usually” has no definitional point attached to it and it is not clear who exactly is being talked about there. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also asked about charges and it is also not at all clear whether charges are being made in any or all of these circumstances. I would be grateful if the Minister could give some more information about that.

My next point is also on paragraph 4.2. The wording in the documentation suggests that Her Majesty’s Government signed an agreement so that,

“in specified circumstances there would be no requirement for certain holders of,

ID cards,

“to apply for a visa before travelling to the UK”.

That seemed a very straightforward statement. Yet we now understand that it is a bit of a catch because although anybody with a GFM does not need to apply for a visa before travelling to the UK, that does not mean that they will not be required to provide the usual demographic data that are being talked about—the fingerprints and the photographic information. What are these specified circumstances that Her Majesty’s Government are using for this? It seems that we have signed one thing but are doing another. I would be interested to hear comments on that.

The process under which the regulations were consulted upon also seems rather odd. The statement we have been given is that it was thought necessary only to consult LOCOG. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, it has not objected provided that everybody involved in this knows about it. It seems extraordinary to introduce such a wide-ranging requirement on what might be 25,000 people without having some sense of whether they are going to object to it. Also, although LOCOG obviously has a key part to play in this, it is not the only body involved. There might have been some attempt made by the Home Office to consult more widely, particularly with the Olympic organisations in the various countries concerned.

Another point I want to make is, again, about the process. The documentation that we have been given suggests that the choices before Ministers when they decided to go ahead on this was either to do nothing— in a sense, to rely on such processes as are currently in place for awarding the GFM and not to do anything for those who had been promised by Her Majesty’s Government that there would be no requirement for ID card holders to apply for a visa before travelling to the UK—or to amend the legislation. That rather stark choice does not seem to involve the many other possibilities that could have been taken into account at that stage, including working more closely with LOCOG in making sure that these things are done more properly.

My final point on this issue is that there is mention in the documentation about a possible review but no specification seems to be given about whether a review will in fact be taken. Given that we have the Commonwealth Games coming up very shortly, there would be lessons to be learnt about this process and it might be sensible for the Home Office to carry out a review. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain what is involved in that. In concluding, I thank the Minister very much for his initial comments and look forward to hearing his response. We will of course be back in the autumn to discuss this again, when we do the Channel Tunnel orders.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank both my noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for their questions, which I will now do my best to respond to. First, my noble friend asked whether Games family members will be able to bring members of their families. Certain Games family members will be eligible to bring an accompanying guest as a result of their accreditation, and that guest can be a family relative. The guest will receive his or her own accreditation card and will need to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules in order to enter the country.

My noble friend asked how accreditation applications will be assessed. Proposals for the policy and process to decide accreditation applications for both Games have been signed off by the Home Secretary. A detailed refusals policy, including criminality thresholds, has been agreed by the Olympic accreditation decision board following consultation with the police, security and intelligence agencies, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government Olympic Executive. Each application will be determined on its own merits. Particularly complex or sensitive cases will be reviewed at the Olympic accreditation decision board. Police, immigration and counterterrorism databases will be checked.

My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about only certain Games family members being able to use their accreditation card in lieu of a visa, and who will and who will not. Each Games family member will be accredited under a specific accreditation category code. The International Olympic Committee advises for each Games on which of these codes the host-city country must confer visa-free access to and on which it is not so obliged. The UKBA is keeping under review the codes that do not confer visa-free access. The types of persons to whom the UK Border Agency is not obliged to grant visa-free access include: additional security personnel, such as fire, police and ambulance services; additional members of the entourages and alternate or reservist athletes; and individuals invited by LOCOG, such as domestic dignitaries or national partners. These people will be told by LOCOG that they need to get a visa before they travel to the United Kingdom.

My noble friend asked about delays at the border, which certainly is a valid concern. We are mitigating the risk of delays by reducing the amount of fingerprints and facial images we need to collect at the UK border by offering a special Olympic visit visa to Games family members, which is currently available, and by seeking to collect visa national Games family members’ fingerprints and facial images on a voluntary basis overseas and in the UK prior to the Games. We are also considering the issue he raised about the visa being issued for free.

My noble friend asked what happens if a GFM refuses to give his fingerprints and facial image. If a visa national GFM refuses to provide fingerprints and a facial image we will make every effort to satisfy ourselves about their identity. If, despite these efforts, we are unable to satisfy ourselves about their identities, we will have to refuse their application for leave to enter the UK. Clearly, if it is a very well-known athlete the process will be made a lot easier. My noble friend also asked what criteria we will use to judge each case on its merits, and the answer is whether we are satisfied of the identity. That is the critical thing. If an individual refuses to provide fingerprints or a facial image it gives rise to the question: what are they trying to hide? I think that my earlier answer goes to that point as well.

My noble friend also asked why we are not dealing with the Channel Tunnel orders now alongside the statutory instruments. We are in the process of consultation with the relevant Belgian authorities about collection at Brussels-Gare du Midi and wish to amend both Channel Tunnel orders via a single amendment order as opposed to two orders to reduce the amount of legislation, and to save preparatory work and parliamentary time. The 2011 regulations are being taken forward now because we need to have secured the legal power to collect the fingerprints and facial images in the UK before procuring the collection equipment and to allow sufficient time to test that equipment.

My noble friend asked about in-country collection circumstances. Visa national GFMs will be advised to use one of the UK’s major ports to enter the UK so that their fingerprints and facial images can be collected when they first arrive here. A visa national GFM who has not already provided fingerprints and a facial image to the UK Border Agency may arrive at a small airfield. If the UKBA is unable to deploy to meet the arriving person, officers will grant the GFM 48 hours’ leave to enter and inform them that they are required to apply for leave to remain within 48 hours at a specific UKBA office.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 16th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we on this side of the Committee support the amendment in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Findlay. They have given us a very graphic set of reasons why it would fit well with the intentions of the Bill. We have also heard some very scary statistics. In essence, the amendment would close a loophole. The Government may, on reflection, agree that that is the case. We understand that proxy purchasing is now regarded by the off trade, the on trade and the trading standards groups as the biggest challenge facing alcohol sales. The amendment would also bring the fine into line with the current level imposed for persistently selling alcohol to children, which is why I think that it is a good way of closing the loophole.

However, we are advised that retailers are often frustrated with the lack of action being taken against those who deliberately buy alcohol to be consumed by those who are under age. Therefore, although we support the amendment and hope that the Government will consider it favourably, there needs to be a commitment to place greater emphasis on identifying these people and seeing through the legislative consequences of the amendment, which is that action must be taken. As we have heard from the previous speaker, that is an important aspect of what we are about. However, the amendment justifies itself in its own terms.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we are legislating in Clause 119 to double the maximum fine available to punish the persistent sale of alcohol to persons under 18 from £10,000 to £20,000. The amendment seeks to go further in doubling the maximum fines available for two other offences in the Licensing Act 2003, from their current level of £5,000 to £10,000. The offences relate to where a person buys or attempts to buy alcohol on behalf of a person under 18, or where a person buys or attempts to buy alcohol for consumption on licensed premises by a person under the age of 18.

At a first glance, we can see merit in the proposed new clause. My noble friend and I are absolutely with the noble Baroness in her strong feelings about the proxy purchase of alcohol for minors, and we take this very seriously. I hope that the noble Baroness will recall how we have responded to related amendments in earlier discussions in Committee. However, it is important to maintain consistency in the sentencing framework.

In addition to the two offences that I mentioned, a number of other offences currently exist for offences in the sale of alcohol to those under 18 or the consumption by those under 18 on licensed premises. They include knowingly allowing consumption of alcohol on licensed premises by an individual under 18. For all these other offences, the penalty is a maximum sentence of £5,000—level 5 on the standard scale in the sentencing framework.

In our view, however, the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children is distinct and distinguishable from the other offences in the Licensing Act and merits separate treatment in the Bill. It is far the more serious offence, not simply a one-off sale to or involving a person under the age of 18. This is reflected in the higher fine that the courts can impose for it. The offence of persistent sales to a person under 18 was created specifically to target irresponsible businesses rather than individual offenders. Indeed, there is an alternative to criminal prosecution for such premises—a punitive period of closure.

The fine for the offence of persistent sales, which stands at £10,000, was always intended to be set above the level 5 fine in the sentencing framework. The fine was high to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to reflect the intention of targeting irresponsible businesses.

In the Government’s view, increasing the maximum fine for the offence of the proxy purchase of alcohol for children, but not for others where individual adults have been responsible for providing or attempting to provide alcohol to children, could blur the existing distinctions in fines under the sentencing framework between offences targeting individuals rather than premises. In summary, we believe that the existing penalty for the proxy purchase of alcohol—a fine not exceeding £5,000—is sufficiently punitive for an offence by an individual. Yes, it is a serious offence, but not one that should be singled out for the provision of a greater fine than those for similar offences in the Licensing Act 2003 relating to the provision of alcohol to minors.

For these reasons, and having thought about it carefully, we believe that the offence of persistent sales of alcohol to children is sufficiently separate and easy to distinguish from the range of other alcohol-related offences in the Licensing Act. We want to send a clear message to irresponsible businesses that the persistent sale of alcohol to children is totally unacceptable. This is why we want to double the fine. All that I have said, however, should not be taken to mean that we will not look at the other alcohol-related criminal offences and consider whether further changes should be made in cases such as those that noble Lords have raised. Indeed, the Government are committed to a full examination of sentencing policy across the board. I can also say that we will look at the points raised by noble Lords in the context of the alcohol strategy that will be published later this year. For the reasons that I have outlined, we ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 9th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the answer to the noble Baroness’s question but I assure her that I will write to her with it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his comments in what has been a very interesting debate. It did indeed verge on the confessional, but I quite like that—I was a bit sad that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, did not share with us what happened when his grandmother took the Dubonnet. Was it only one? No, he says. That was a great success, but probably not in the spirit of the debate that we have just been having.

I also would like to take exception—although not in a serious way—with my noble friend Lord Soley. As the Minister has said, I detect in the younger generation a change in the way in which alcohol is consumed. It is not so much the volume they are drinking, which is probably constrained by physical reasons; it is that they are not drinking the wines and beers of older years. They are drinking spirits—drinking before they go out, when they go out and when they come back. They may indeed be mixing it with other stuff although I do not know about that. However, I think that the change in consumption pattern is something that we have to be very careful about. Of course, if you drink alcohol at a more concentrated level, you are going to have double or triple the effect on every other part of your body. I am very concerned about that. We need to take it into account as we look at the relevant policies.

Nevertheless, what the other side has said is good in that the public health interests are being taken into account. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. We look forward to hearing more about price, which is an interesting component of the overall policy, and perhaps in later debates we can get more detail on that. The idea that licensing authorities, or more of them, could be made responsible authorities so that the cumulative effects can be taken into account is a very important step forward again down this way. Taken together, if we genuinely believe that steps must be taken to try to address where we are in terms of alcohol abuse, then the discussions that we have had today will have been an important step along the road. We should work together, if we can, to take this forward. On that basis, I will withdraw Amendment 237A.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

This is an interesting debate which seems to be narrowing down to how one defines what the objectives are. Speakers in the debate seem to be relatively united on one point, which is that we want to see a connection between an objection to a licence and a reason for that objection. If that reason is to be geographic, it ought to be linked in some way to the physical presence of the person who is making the objection and the premise and should not be subject to the vicissitudes of random boundaries. That is the sense in which the amendment has been tabled. Whether the wording is right or not perhaps needs further investigation. However, we certainly do not want people who live in Scotland, say, objecting to licences applied for in the Edgware Road, because that clearly would be ridiculous. As the Bill is drafted, however, that might be possible. I will be grateful if the Minister will make it clear what the vicinity test really means.

There are other reasons for wanting to object to a licence. The reference to live music and the like puts that into focus. We use our premises in many ways, not just for social recreation but also to enjoy other things. Objections must be appropriate and relevant to the process of licensing that encompasses them. Simple dislike of what goes on in a place should not be sufficient to allow a representation to be made. We would be concerned if the Bill in any way opened that door.

The difficulties faced by small premises such as bars and places where live music is performed are very great; the economic circumstances they face are very severe and we should not do anything to diminish the chance they have of making good and proper use of their premises and making sure that people enjoy what they offer.

While we are speaking about objections, I have received representations—as many other noble Lords may have—saying that many licensing authorities approach licensing in a way that encourages objections, rather than by receiving general representations on the licensed premises concerned. In other words, if you go to a website it tells you how to object but not how to represent support for what is going on in those premises. I wonder if the Minister, in responding, could touch on that point as well.

[Lord De Mauley]

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

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

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

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

Postal Services Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I again say that I am grateful to noble Lords on the opposition Front Bench who agree with us on the establishment of an employee share scheme. I think that we all agree that this is a key feature of the Bill and will help improve employee engagement and the culture of the company.

However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the overriding purpose of the Bill is to safeguard the universal service and secure the future of Royal Mail. A key means of doing that is enabling the introduction of private capital. In a previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, stated that the Government should strike the right balance between employee shares and attracting private capital. He also said that we should learn lessons from previous privatisations. Yet, through their Amendments 16 and 17, noble Lords seem to suggest that we have not gone far enough.

So let me put in context the commitment we are already making through Clause 3. The minimum 10 per cent share requirement in this Bill is the largest statutory employee share scheme of any major privatisation. There is no doubt that it is a meaningful share, but one which, in our judgment, will not harm our ability to attract private capital. As I have said previously, most major privatisations did not even refer to employee shares in their respective Bills. Furthermore, the eventual share schemes in those past privatisations offered generally smaller stakes—5 per cent in the case of BT and British Gas and less than that for the other utilities of electricity and water. Only Rolls-Royce and BA came close, at 10 per cent and 9.5 per cent respectively, but I reiterate that we are committed to at least 10 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to the bus companies. We of course looked at them, but they were generally very much smaller companies. We consider that a stake of at least 10 per cent already strikes the right balance between a meaningful stake and attracting private capital.

Amendment 16 would also require that the shares be allocated to employees on a pro-rated basis in line with the reduction of the Government’s shareholding. The Bill already allows for that and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned, the Government have committed to place shares into the scheme simultaneously with the first sale of its shares.

In Amendment 18, noble Lords have sought to specify the design of the scheme such that it is structured as a share trust. As I said during our debate in Committee on a similar amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean—ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, in her absence—an employee share trust certainly has its attractions, particularly its ability to deliver the Government’s objective to ensure a long-standing employee stake in Royal Mail. The Minister for Postal Services, too, has been clear that he sees many attractions to establishing such a trust. However, it is important to keep options open on the design of the scheme at this stage. Individual share ownership also has its merits, giving employees a very real sense of ownership through their share certificates.

The design of the scheme will in part depend on the type of sale we undertake. For example, individual share ownership could be appropriate if Royal Mail were floated on a stock market. There are circumstances where it could also make sense to have some combination of a trust and individually held shares. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, suggested in our debates in Committee that perhaps some shares could be used for training or bursaries. Again, there could be merits in such ideas. However, until we have reached a firm decision on the form of a transaction, it would be unwise to set in stone the form of the employee share scheme. However, I remind your Lordships that government Amendment 6, which we debated a little while ago and your Lordships accepted, requiring us to give details of the scheme when we put shares into it for the first time, will provide the House with further assurance about its proposed design at the appropriate time.

Finally, Amendment 18 returns to the issue of having an employee representative on the board. As my noble friend said when responding to Amendment 10, while the idea may well have some merits, it is for Royal Mail and its shareholders to determine whether the board should include an employee representative. Thanks to this Bill, Royal Mail’s shareholders will of course include its employees in the future.

The future ownership of Royal Mail, by both private investors and its employees, inextricably links them. Within the important boundaries set by Clause 3, the exact size and form of the scheme should therefore be informed by the type of transaction and the circumstances at the time of sale. I ask noble Lords to accept that it is imperative that we keep our options open. I therefore ask them not to press their respective amendments.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for his support for the amendment, and my noble friend Lord Brooke for sharing again his experience of working in this operation. We can laugh about it even if we cannot always agree on the absolute detail of what the figures mean. My noble friend Lord Brooke said that this was an opportunity for the Government to show themselves to be progressive in these matters, a theme which has run through most of our debate today. I am grateful to have had confirmation that the Government feel that the employee share scheme should be pushed forward and supported. We are pleased to have had confirmation that shares will be available from the first tranche.

The Minister said that the Government were minded to go for a trust but were not quite sure. There will be a point where they have to come down on one side of the fence or the other. We can see the argument for keeping options open—we are not so daft as not to—but what the purchaser is going to get needs to be clear. I would have thought that any purchaser who wanted to put a very large stake into Royal Mail would want to know that it is a well run and productive corporation and will do the job in which they are investing. That must require them to have good employee relationships, and we have argued—I think that the Minister agrees—that there is a case for ensuring that the employees’ involvement is proper, appropriate and at the level which will mean that we will get a well run and productive firm.

We have argued for greater than 10 per cent—I got a sense of some support from the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, on that. I do not think that the Minister is minded to go that way and he produced a long list of previous privatisations. But it is the future. Why not boldly go where others have not gone and take it up to 15 per cent, and then reflect on that? However, I shall withdraw the amendment.