Immigration

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

We have had an interesting debate this evening, with the Minister and the shadow Minister using their opening remarks to set the measured tone with which we should always conduct debates on immigration. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know that immigration frequently crops up when we talk to constituents. I not only represent a port city, but I have a university in my constituency with many overseas students. I also live in an area that has many seasonal workers who come for the agricultural work that needs to be done.

There is a general consensus around the Chamber that we need to control immigration. We acknowledge, of course, the benefit of immigration to this country over many years. We also acknowledge the genuine asylum seekers, whom we want to assist and provide a safe haven for in this country. However, I am sure we all agree that we also need tough enforcement for illegal immigrants—those who should not be here, those who are overstayers. We need to tackle that problem.

On the whole, we have had a considered and sensible debate. However, I was a little disappointed that the Minister could not be more generous in his opening remarks about some of the positive steps that were taken through the points-based system. I understand and acknowledge that the Government are adapting and changing it, but the system in place now was introduced by the last, Labour Government. I also dispute the notion that when the coalition Government came to power in 2010 the system was in chaos. That is not correct. Instead, the coalition is building on many of the positive steps and measures introduced by the previous Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made some thoughtful comments in his opening contribution. He identified some of the difficult issues surrounding immigration, including those to do with marriage and family reunion and the debate on economic independence and when it is appropriate to set the level of financial support necessary for someone to bring a husband or wife into the country. My hon. Friend also talked about gay asylum issues, which I believe we should have a long, hard think about. All hon. Members know how important is the NHS and how it has benefited in the past from immigration and the dedication of nurses, doctors and health service workers. I hope that when the Minister concludes, he will answer the points that my hon. Friend raised and deal with domestic workers and trafficking, too, as many hon. Members are concerned about them.

I would like to highlight some of the local issues raised by individual Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) talked about students who had been left high and dry by bogus colleges. I hope that the Immigration Minister will revisit that point, as I know my hon. Friend is still concerned that the students who legitimately applied for their status have been left in a difficult position. Legacy cases are important, too, and the Home Office needs to accept that it has not always responded as quickly or as effectively as it should to them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) mentioned the port of Stranraer, as he has on many occasions, in the context of southern Ireland and the ability to travel to the mainland from there. I am sure that the Minister will want to pursue that further with my hon. Friend.

The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) talked about the projections for the UK population, mentioning the figure of 70 million that has been bandied around. He highlighted issues relating to students, workers and marriage. I was struck by the fact that that other hon. Members spoke about the tone of the debate about students. We know that higher and further education are key economic growth areas for the country, and we do not want to put off good students from coming to our good institutions because of the perception that the system is stacked against them.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) made some remarks about overcrowding, which I found a little odd, considering that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda mentioned in an intervention, huge areas of this country are not well populated. I represent the city of Hull in East Yorkshire, where there is a quite a lot of space in some areas. The hon. Gentleman made the important point that immigrants pay more tax than they often receive in benefits. I believe we should reflect further on that.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) represents an area I know a little, and I am familiar with issues to do with agricultural workers and the seasonal character of the population. He made a strong and passionate case about resources for his area, but I would refer him to the migration impact fund, which was introduced by the last Government to support areas that were seeing a certain level of immigration into their local communities.

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was very brave to make comments about the number of Labour Members in the Chamber after the non-appearance of his leader today in the most important statement the House has had for quite some time, but I will move on. I found his comments about his manifesto promise interesting. It was a promise to stop holding children in detention, but of course that promise changed once the Liberal Democrats were in government.

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) focused on the Opposition’s policies on immigration rather than on his own party’s proposals. I suggest that he look at the figures showing that net migration of 245,000 for the year ending March 2011 compares with net migration of 222,000 in March 2010. That is something to reflect on, particularly in respect of whether his Government’s policies are working.

The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) said that the Government had struck the right balance. We must pay special attention to the statistics, and ensure that they have been authorised. The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) spoke about what was happening in his constituency. Obviously that is important, but let me gently remind him that—as I recall—the first BNP councillor was elected in 1993 in Tower Hamlets, when we had a Conservative Government and the Liberal Democrats controlled Tower Hamlets council.

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) spoke about sham marriages and scams, and of course we all agree with her that such activities must be dealt with quickly and effectively. She said that the UKBA had been overwhelmed, which was an interesting comment given the 6,500 jobs that will be lost in the agency in the coming years.

The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) spoke of an effective removal regime, and gave a good local example. I think that all Members want to ensure that the removal regime is as effective and speedy as possible when that is appropriate. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) referred to the need to strengthen checks at the borders, and to the hard work of UKBA staff. I am sure that the whole House agrees with him about that.

Members took advantage of the opportunity to discuss all the issues involved, and this was a good debate. However, I fear that the Government’s rhetoric does not match the reality represented by the statistics. We recall the debacle over the summer involving the UKBA immigration checks, when Ministers clearly did not have a grip on what was happening on the front line, and we know that there are 6,500 UKBA job losses to come. We do not know whether the Government’s policies will be effectively implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda pointed out that 12% fewer illegal immigrants, overstayers and criminals had been removed this year than last year.

We must be alive to this issue. We must pay attention to the statistics, and must hold the Government to account in the months and years to come. We shall see whether they can deliver on their commitment to reducing net migration to tens of thousands.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Christmas and the holiday season obviously have operational impacts, and we are therefore simply adding those 14 days to the 28 days for which the Bill originally provided to assist in the effective transition and management at that time. It is not about readiness; it is simply to aid the transition process for those people who are already on control orders and who may subsequently move on to terrorism prevention and investigation measures.

On Report and Third Reading, I was told, “Well, you say that the police are prepared and that appropriate arrangements are in place to manage the transfer effectively from control orders to TPIMs”, and I heard clearly the comments that were made then. I will put in the Library a letter from Assistant-Commissioner Cressida Dick, which sets out the preparedness of the Metropolitan police and underlines that arrangements will be in place to manage the transfer effectively. I note that the Opposition have consistently made several points about that. Again, I underline that effective arrangements will be in place to manage the transition. In the light of my continued assurances on the matter, I hope that Opposition Members will be willing to withdraw amendment (a).

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for clearly setting out the bulk of the amendments. Having read the transcripts of the evidence sessions in Committee, it is clear that the Government were pushed and pressed, as is right, through effective scrutiny from all members of the Committee and Members in the other place, to table amendments to clarify the Bill’s intention. On that basis, the Opposition are satisfied with Lords amendments 1 to 10.

However, I want to comment on Lords amendment 11 and amendment (a) to it. As the Minister said, the Lords amendment increases the transitional period for which schedule 8 provides, during which a control order that is enforced immediately before the commencement of the Bill will remain in force, unless revoked or quashed before the end of that period, from 28 days to 42 days. The Opposition Front Benchers’ amendment would increase that transitional period to 365 days. It is worth pointing out that those who have put their names to the amendment include two former police and terrorism Ministers and a former Minister who dealt with terrorism in Northern Ireland in the previous Government. Those Members clearly have a lot of detailed information and experience in dealing with such matters, and they thought it appropriate to put their names to the amendment.

Why have we tabled amendment (a)? It is because we want to support the Government in keeping the country as safe as possible as they move to the new regime of TPIMs. I heard clearly the Minister’s comments about his commitment to national security being a top priority. Of course, the Opposition support that priority. However, we believe that a more flexible approach would be a better way forward on the transitional period that is in the Bill.

I certainly do not wish to reopen the debate on control orders, but we know that nine people are currently subject to them—a small number of people who are intent on doing grave harm to this country. It is not possible to prosecute them, but to keep the country safe, we need to impose intrusive restrictions on them. I think that there are 11 control orders in total, but nine have the power to relocate as one of the conditions. We know that the Home Secretary has used control orders with relocation provisions in cases CD and BM. In the case of CD, a challenge to the decision to relocate went to the High Court. It was dismissed and the relocation was upheld.

It is important to quote the Mayor of London, who obviously has a keen interest in those matters. He said on the case of CD:

“It’s clear from the court papers that he rejects and would like to destroy everything that makes this a great city. We don’t want this man in London.”

In moving to the new TPIMs regime, the relocation provisions will not be available to the Home Secretary in future. We want to ensure that no unnecessary risks are taken over the next 12 months. As hon. Members have already said, we will have major events in our city, including not only the Olympics and the Paralympics, but the diamond jubilee. So we need to ensure that London is kept as safe as possible in 2012.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady says that we need to ensure that there are no unnecessary risks, and she says, fairly, that she and other Labour Members share the Minister’s commitment to the security of the nation. But the Minister said that the period was necessary to ensure that effective arrangements were in place, and he believes that that period is 42 days. What evidence does the hon. Lady have that the period needs to be longer to ensure effective arrangements?

[Diana Johnson]

That is a very helpful intervention, because I want to move on to the evidence that was given to the Committee by Stuart Osborne, the deputy assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan police service and senior national co-ordinator for terrorism investigations. He also represents ACPO. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) asked Mr Osborne how long it would take for a new regime to bed in before it becomes law, to which he replied:

“I think I said it would take a year to procure and train sufficient additional assets before it would be ready to do that. We have to order some of the assets so that they are made in advance. To train a surveillance officer and then have them fully able to operate in a challenging environment probably takes at least 12 months before they are deployable. Once they are deployable, they have to work within the environment under a new set of regimes that will need to bed in.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 10, Q31.]

On the basis of that evidence, which mentions the period of a year, hon. Members are concerned that we could be putting ourselves in a risky situation by rushing headlong into the new TPIMs regime.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Diana Johnson]

I will, because I have just referred to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

[Stephen Phillips]

It is important that the evidence is not taken out of context. My hon. Friend the Minister subsequently received assurances—as he will no doubt be able to confirm—from the security services and the Metropolitan police that there would be no problem with the Government’s proposed timetable for the introduction, and I am therefore surprised that the hon. Lady has referred to that passage of evidence without drawing the House’s attention to those assurances.

[Diana Johnson]

It is important that evidence given to the Committee, which I read out verbatim from the transcript, is put before the House when we are debating the amendment on 365 days. The hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly put his point on the record.

Evidence was also given by Lord Carlile, and he talked about the cost of the new surveillance techniques that would have to be employed. He said that the costs would be between £11 million and £18 million per person per year, and he also mentioned that as far as he was aware the cost of a control order was £1.8 million per person. So a huge amount of money will need to be invested in ensuring that these new surveillance techniques are properly available.

Given the evidence put before the Committee and in the other place, we know that some senior police officers still have concerns about the readiness—[Interruption.] Well, in recent weeks there have been reports that senior police officers are not satisfied. I understand what the Minister said, and I shall ask him to address the point in a moment, but while we welcome the Government’s move from 28 days to 42 days—and I understand what the Minister says about that being appropriate during the holiday period—it is sensible to reconsider where we are at this stage. Given that some senior police officers feel that we are not prepared enough, that the Mayor of London has made his views clear and asked the Government to think again on this issue and that the Olympics, Paralympics and diamond jubilee celebrations are ahead of us, it is appropriate for the Minister to reflect on what the provision will mean. We have a two-week extension. Would it not be sensible to give the police and the security services more time and some flexibility to ensure that we have the resources, the people and the training in place? Is it not better to legislate now to keep control orders for that flexible period until we are absolutely certain and confident that surveillance is fully in place and all systems are operational?

Intelligence and Security Committee

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to all those who work in the security and intelligence agencies for the important work they do in keeping us all safe. I also extend that tribute to the very important work that the Intelligence and Security Committee does in scrutinising those agencies. It is clear from this evening’s debate that the past and current members of the Committee have been very high calibre and senior parliamentarians. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said that they were fully independent and had experience and judgment, and that view was echoed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears).

The report is excellent and we have had a very good debate on its contents. The current Chair of the Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), set out the key issues in a very accessible but detailed way at the outset. I should like to pay special tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who made such a contribution to the development of the Committee’s work as its Chair. He let us into a secret this evening about the one vote that took place when he was chairing the Committee about which mode of transport the Committee should use on a visit. I am sure that does not offend against the Official Secrets Act.

The report covers the period from October 2010 to May 2011, and we have seen further developments since, including the Green Paper on justice and security. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) made it clear that there had been a long fight to get the Committee established in the first place. It operates under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, so it is now 16 years old. The world has moved on considerably in those 16 years, but so has the Committee. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said that recognition of the need to make changes to the Committee was about formalising what it does already.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington talked about the radical modernisation of the Committee and mentioned public hearings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles also commented on the need to look at operational issues as part of the Committee’s remit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen drew on his experience to give some wise words about which of the proposed changes he supports. Recommendation JJ in the Committee’s report sets out in full the Committee’s concerns and the changes it would like to be implemented. The Home Secretary gave a positive response in her remarks to many of the proposed changes, including the recommendation about the Committee becoming a Committee of Parliament. We look forward to debates on all the recommendations and whether they will come to pass in the coming months.

I want to touch on the issue that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary raised about who should chair the Committee, which provoked quite a lot of debate. The key issue is not about the person chairing the Committee being independent—there is nothing in that—but is more about the perception that the general public might have about an Opposition MP chairing such a Committee. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife made some very interesting points about the Prime Minister’s role in choosing or having some say in the selection of members in future.

There are a few key issues that many Members have talked about this evening. The first such issue I should like to address is the spending review. It is clear from the settlement for this area that there is an 11.3% cut to the single intelligence account, and a number of concerned Members mentioned the effect of inflation. Because inflation is running at a much higher rate than was previously thought, that figure needs to be monitored. The Chair commented that the Committee recognised the need to be flexible in reacting to any significant changes in the threat when considering the budget allocation that has been made.

The Government’s response was that they would reprioritise and make sure the National Security Council’s top requirements were given priority, with a reduction in the spend on lower priorities. It is clear that there may be unknown factors lurking around the corner. That should be kept under review. We must make sure that there is sufficient funding to maintain the security of the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) made a powerful point about that.

It is interesting that the report identifies areas where savings could be made to meet the 11.3% cut, including more joint working and the possibility of a shared vetting procedure across all agencies. Other issues that should be examined include the use of consultants and internet and language specialists, and whether some of those could be shared across the services. The Chair of the Committee said there were already good examples of joint working.

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) highlighted important issues relating to assets, the £1 million worth of assets that had gone missing, and the need to ensure that that does not happen in the future. It is interesting to note that the Committee is investigating the value for money of projects it has been concerned about.

The Olympics have been mentioned by many hon. Members this evening. It is clear that the public are concerned about security during the Olympics. Over the past week we have seen much press coverage of the topic, including a parliamentary question about the use of surface-to-air missiles. In the press at the weekend there was mention of the deployment of snipers in helicopters. There was a report last week about the possibility of 500 FBI agents being brought over because the Americans were so worried about security, and the use of the Army to help protect the Olympics.

The report recognises how important this issue is. The Home Secretary said that we were on track, but that is against the background of the policing cuts, which we know are front-loaded and can affect the policing capability at the Olympics, and the knock-on effect on other security services. The hon. Member for New Forest East suggested that we put ourselves in the shoes of someone who wants to do harm. It may be that some other area is threatened, rather than the Olympics. This all has to be considered. I hope the Minister will be able to offer further reassurance on the matter.

On terrorism prevention and investigation measures, my right hon. Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles and for Wythenshawe and Sale East made a powerful case for the Minister to consider delaying the introduction of TPIMs until after the Olympics in order to offer a further layer of protection. I hope the Minister will reply to the queries about whether all the officers are trained and resourced, ready for the introduction of TPIMs if that happens in the next few weeks.

Cyber-security was mentioned by many hon. Members. We welcome the fact that it has been recognised as a tier 1 national security risk, and the £600 million of extra resources are welcome. I listened to what the Chair said about the number of bodies, law enforcement agencies and Government Departments that are involved in this area. Although the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) argued that it was an advantage that so many organisations were involved, there are questions about whether the response is as co-ordinated as it could be.

The control principle was talked about at length, and the Committee Chair gave a helpful explanation of why it is so important and the potential way forward, now set out in the Green Paper, for using the closed material procedures and the special advocate route. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife said about turning off the tap of information and whether that has already happened was very telling, and I think that that will be debated further.

Finally, I want to mention BBC Monitoring. I hope that the Government will consider the recommendations set out in recommendation EE of the report, which asks them to look again at funding in the period leading up to the transfer to the licence fee funding for that important area. We heard at length about BBC Monitoring and how important getting that open-source information is. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to all those points.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lynne Featherstone]

These are largely technical amendments, so I can be brief. New clause 12 confers power on the Treasury to make provision varying the way that tax provisions will be applied to any property, rights or liabilities transferred to the new disclosure and barring service from the Independent Safeguarding Authority and the Criminal Records Bureau. It is standard practice that such machinery of Government changes should be tax neutral, and the new clause ensures that that is the case in this instance. The other amendments in the group make other minor and technical provisions in relation to the establishment of the disclosure and barring service.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Like the Minister, I intend to be relatively brief. Let me say clearly that Labour Front Benchers are not against creating the disclosure and barring service. We were concerned, however, that the Government prevented full and proper scrutiny of the setting up of the service by announcing only halfway through the consideration of the Bill the amendments that would achieve that. We therefore now have several other Government amendments, which I recognise are mainly technical in nature, to tidy up those originally tabled.

I hope that the Minister might be able to help me with a few questions about the disclosure and barring service, particularly on the costs of the new computer system that will be created alongside it. It is likely to be a considerable spending commitment, and we know that the Government are very concerned about spending money at this time. Will the Minister clarify the full cost of the new computer system and explain the figure of £37 million for web-based maintenance costs mentioned in the impact assessment?

In the past, unfortunately, Government IT systems have had a poor record of costs running out of control and problems with delivery. There were problems with the CRB checks system when it was first introduced, and people had to wait a long time to get their checks through, but it is now working relatively well and they often get checks within a few days. What reassurance can the Minister offer that the new computer scheme will work effectively and provide the level of protection that we want for children and vulnerable adults during this period of transition from the current scheme?

Having said that, Labour Front Benchers are satisfied with the technical nature of the majority of these amendments.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank the hon. Lady for being brief. I am sure she will remember that in Committee we apologised for the lack of time in briefing her about the joining of the two services. I hope that we made up for that somewhat by offering a special briefing to run through the details. The joining of the Independent Safeguarding Authority and the Criminal Records Bureau has been welcomed on all sides as the right way to go, and I am glad that we have all come to that conclusion. As for the IT costs, this was a value-for-money decision. The IT spend estimate is £200 million over five years, which will be funded by fees. We would have had to replace the existing IT regardless of the establishment of the DBS. This has been arranged to time with when the contract would have come to an end.

As the hon. Lady says, CRB checks have improved beyond recognition. As the Minister who receives the correspondence on this issue, I can say that my correspondence tray used to be full of complaints about the time people’s CRB checks had taken. That flow is now reduced to a small trickle.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

Information included on an enhanced criminal records certificate

‘After paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 113B of the Police Act 1997 insert—

“(c) states whether the applicant is on a barred list maintained by the Independent Safeguarding Authority in relation to work with vulnerable adults or children (whichever is appropriate).”.’.—(Diana Johnson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 111, in clause 66, page 49, leave out from line 32 to line 5 on page 53 and insert—

‘(1) In sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act (inclusion subject to consideration of representations), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(c) give the person the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of a panel of at least two persons.”.

(2) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of that Schedule (behaviour) insert—

“(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.

(3) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule (risk of harm) insert—

“(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.

(4) After sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 8 of that Schedule (inclusion subject to consideration of representations) after (b) insert—

“(c) give the person the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of a panel of at least two persons.”.

(5) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9 of that Schedule (behaviour) insert—

“(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.

(6) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of that Schedule (risk of harm) insert—

“(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.’.

Amendment 117, in clause 78, page 64, line 33, at end insert—

‘(3) After section 113A(3) of the Police Act 1997 (criminal record certificates) insert—

(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that the registered person is informed when the criminal records certificate is issued.

(3B) The Secretary of State must make provision to send a copy of the criminal record certificate directly to the registered person when the individual consents.”.

(4) After section 113B(4) of that Act (enhanced criminal record certificates) insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that the registered person is informed when the enhanced criminal records certificate is issued.

(4B) The Secretary of State must make provision to send a copy of the enhanced criminal record certificate directly to the registered person when the individual consents.”’.

[Diana Johnson]

Under new clause 18, the barred status of an individual would be revealed in a CRB check. The House will know that at present, an enhanced CRB check may reveal all convictions and cautions, regardless of whether they are relevant, and allegations made to the police that were not turned into convictions. One gets barred status information only if the person will be working in a regulated activity, and the Bill has produced a narrower definition of “regulated activity” than previously existed. For example, all employed positions in a school are involved in regulated activity and barred status information would be provided for those jobs.

A standard or enhanced CRB check does not reveal barred status. An enhanced CRB check would not reveal that a person had been investigated by experts at the Independent Safeguarding Authority. It would not show that allegations had been verified and references sought, and that the person had been able to make representations. It would not reveal that the Independent Safeguarding Authority had come to an informed decision that the person posed a significant danger to children or vulnerable adults.

What is more, many people on the barred list are not even known to the police. That came out in Committee. The reason could be that the parents do not want to put their child through the ordeal of making a formal complaint to the police, but the school notifies the Independent Safeguarding Authority of concerns about an individual teacher or member of staff. Another scenario is that a supply teacher moves from school to school and, although it is quite clear that there is a problem, the schools just decide not to have the supply teacher back and do not notify the police of their concerns. Eventually, the local education authority may take the view that the ISA should find out why there are so many schools where that supply teacher is not welcome. The ISA might then receive complaints and look at the employment history of the individual and see a pattern of allegations, and the teacher moving on quickly. Again, that might all happen without any formal complaint being made to the police.

With vulnerable adults it is often difficult to substantiate allegations—for example, of theft from dementia patients. A care home might decide not to notify the police, but just to dismiss the employee and notify the ISA. Even though the police do not always get involved in or know about complaints and allegations, such people are clearly a danger to vulnerable people and children, and that information should be made available to their future employers.

It would be a great help to employers, particularly charities and small voluntary sector organisations, if they were informed of concerns that the Independent Safeguarding Authority had looked into, on the basis of which an individual had been barred. The Committee received a number of submissions from sports clubs and organisations that wanted to know that any information about barring would be made available to them when working with, teaching or training young people.

I would like to give the Minister an example and ask her whether such a person will be covered by the proposals in the Bill. X is a former teacher who is barred from working with children following substantiated reports of inappropriate behaviour from three schools. None of the allegations was passed on to the police, as I have explained is common. X presents himself as a retired teacher and volunteers at a primary school. At the primary school, he hears children reading and works one-on-one with the same 10 children every week. Under the current law, the school must check his barred status and would find out about his history. The school would know that information quickly. I understand that schools can obtain barred status within 24 hours.

My understanding is that under the new law, it would be an offence for the school to check his barred status and it would not be given that information. Even if the school followed best practice and conducted an enhanced CRB check, that would reveal nothing, as no allegations had ever been made to the police. There would be no soft information and no criminal convictions on the CRB check. However, this person would clearly be a threat to children in the view of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, and would be on the barred list. As I understand it, under the proposals he would not be prevented from working with children. It would be helpful if the Minister explained why she feels it appropriate that information from the many trained experts at the Independent Safeguarding Authority—specialists in this area who are able to analyse information and allegations—should not be made available to schools and other organisations that wish to rely on that expertise.

I am sure that the Minister will also want to respond to my point about the Bichard inquiry, which as hon. Members know came out after the dreadful Soham murders. The major thrust of the report and recommendations on how to avoid another case like the Soham murders was that information should be properly shared between all interested parties. The Independent Safeguarding Authority is the body that has the most information. All employers, charities, voluntary groups and sports organisations should be able to benefit from its expertise and insight.

Moreover, when a CRB form is processed electronically, barred status comes up immediately. If an employer needs to recruit someone urgently and needs the information speedily, as often happens in the adult care sector because people become ill or move on quickly, they may be tempted to put people into sensitive positions even though they are waiting for a CRB check. I wonder whether the Minister could refer to that issue. This matter is so important that I would like to test the opinion of the House on new clause 18.

Amendment 111, which would amend clause 66, relates to people who commit serious offences. Such people are currently put on the barred list automatically. Since 1933, people who have been convicted of serious offences against children have been banned from working with children. In the Bill, the Government propose that a person convicted of a serious offence should not automatically be barred from working with children. For example, under the new proposals a man working as a lorry driver who had been convicted of raping a child would not automatically be put on the barred list. The test that the Bill sets out is that he would be put on the list only if he was, had been or might in future be engaged in regulated activity relating to children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government also need to be clearer in their explanation of how the continuous updating of CRB checks will work? Many people are currently unsure.

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because how that system will work is unclear. I cannot get my head around the updated procedures. What consent will need to be given? What information about employees or volunteers will be made available to employers or voluntary sector groups? When will barring information be made available? If someone is barred while they are employed, will that information be made available readily to an employer? The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which illustrates the fact that information on how the system will work needs to be made widely available.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the current system has its faults? There are too many examples of the wrong person being identified, and of information that is not pertinent to them being attributed to them by a false CRB check. Would it not make more sense for the Government to try to streamline the system, so that we have a more efficient system designed for the purpose, rather than adding to the complexity, therefore increasing the chances that such errors will take place and devalue the checks?

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are also concerns about the use of fraudulent certificates. Once a number has been allocated, people can take certificates to unsuspecting employers and say, “This is my CRB certificate. It’s all fine and there’s nothing to worry about.” Most employers—especially small employers or voluntary and community groups—would accept that at face value. We need to make the system as streamlined as possible, but we also need to make it as foolproof as possible, and to reduce the use of fraudulent CRB checks as much as possible.

On the basis of the points that I have raised, I hope that the Minister can reassure the House on those questions, which in effect are about keeping our children and vulnerable people as safe as possible, and about keeping people who should not be working with children or vulnerable people away from them.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I shall speak briefly on the issues raised by this group of proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has already stated, the all-party parliamentary group on child protection held an inquiry and took evidence from a wide range of organisations. Some people spoke for a number of organisations and some spoke in their own right. I am grateful that the Minister read and responded to the group’s report, that she met members of the group, and that she has taken on board some of the points made.

I echo the concerns of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. We are all concerned about child protection and the abuse of children. However, abuse is at times difficult to prove, and it is certainly difficult to get convictions. Sometimes, it is difficult to get definitive evidence even when suspicions of individuals have run for a long time. Children are told to respect adults, and often the most vulnerable children are targeted by abusers, so information does not come out easily.

That is why barred list information is so important, alongside CRB information. It would be a tragedy if people who have criminal records were allowed to work with children, but we know from years of experience that people who have raised significant concerns in their relationships with children in the past go on to abuse them, and in some dreadful cases—thankfully, a minority of cases—kill them. We have a responsibility to do all that we can to prevent that, because getting this wrong could be catastrophic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

As I said, I will come on to that in due course, when I talk about barring information and about what is on the CRB certificates. Ultimately, the fact that someone is barred is not necessarily the key issue—[Interruption.] Well, if someone has been convicted of a sexual assault or other sexual offence, it will be on their certificate. The fact that they are barred from regulated activity will not. [Interruption.] I have now said twice that I am going to cover this matter, so I hope that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) will let me make some progress.

We do not want to arrive at a position in which an employer could deny a job in a non-regulated activity to an applicant on the basis that he or she was barred from regulated activity. In such circumstances, an employer would effectively be saying, “I’m not giving you this job, because you are barred from a completely different area of work.” That would plainly be wrong, and disproportionate to the aims of the disclosure regime. It could also lead to legal challenges.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Okay, but I do feel that I am getting to all the hon. Lady’s points.

[Diana Johnson]

I am sure that the Minister will get to all my points, but I want to give her an example that fits the scenario that she has just described, and that ought to worry us all. It involves a taxi driver. Taxi drivers require only a standard CRB check involving the standard disclosure. In this example, the taxi driver was ferrying children from school occasionally, once or twice a month, but numerous accusations that that person had abducted schoolgirls had been recorded with the ISA, and he was in fact barred. The taxi firm did not know that, however. As I understand it, the firm had behaved properly in simply carrying out the standard CRB check. Surely the Minister would accept that, if the firm had known that the person was barred from working with children, that would have affected the jobs that he was given by the employer.

[Lynne Featherstone]

A taxi driver who worked with children would be eligible for an enhanced CRB check, which would show up any such convictions. I am going on to the ISA stuff—[Interruption.]

[Lynne Featherstone]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North could produce endless scenarios, but all I was going to say in response to the example of the taxi driver is that the law has not changed. Taxi drivers have been getting enhanced standard CRB checks. Taxi and private hire workers who work regularly with children are eligible for enhanced checks. Other drivers are eligible for standard checks, as the hon. Lady said, and that will reveal spent and unspent convictions, cautions and warnings. We are considering how best to ensure that vulnerable groups are protected, and officials have recently had productive discussions with relevant stakeholders on this issue.

I will come on to the crux of the argument made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), which was that some referrals to the ISA from employers, schools and so on involve information that never finds its way to the police and that would therefore not be revealed, even in an enhanced CRB check. I was saying that an employer could say, “I’m not giving you this job, because you are barred from a completely different area of work.” We think that that would be wrong. I want to make it clear that an enhanced CRB certificate will still be available to employers and volunteer organisations that employ people in certain work that involves children or vulnerable adults but that falls outside the scope of regulated activity. We will publish detailed proposals in good time on the implementation of the overall reforms to the disclosure and barring arrangements.

The parts that worry Labour Members, and that we have paid attention to, are the positions that were in regulated activity and that are now in unregulated activity and therefore not subject to the controls available to regulated activity.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Well, all right, but after this I must make some progress, because I think we are just going round in circles.

[Diana Johnson]

I just want to clarify a point. The Minister said that there were groups, occupations or opportunities that would attract enhanced CRB checks and barring information even though they did not involve regulated activity. Is this new? Is she saying that this is a new group?

[Lynne Featherstone]

No; either I misspoke or the hon. Lady misheard. Enhanced CRB checks will be available if an employer chooses; it is not a requirement. If there is a post in a school that involves unregulated activity and the school wishes to have a criminal record check for the person undertaking that unregulated activity, it can do so. Obviously, all conviction information will be in that check, and if it is an enhanced check, it will also include soft, local information from the police.

The greater challenge will be in the other direction, because of the conditioning around child protection. People have become incredibly cautious, and that is to be welcomed, but the Government are trying to say that employers and people who run organisations have a locus in this; they have a responsibility. It is not just about getting a CRB check; we want employers to make a judgment to ensure that everyone in their establishment is safe to work with children, whether the work is regulated or unregulated. That is the criterion: when they take someone on as an employee or as a volunteer, it is just as important as the CRB check or whether the person has regulated or unregulated status that employers have their own ways of checking, through references and talking to people, and that they take very conscientiously their duties to safeguard children, for their own conscience and behaviour, in their employ.

I should make it clear that the checks are still available to employers. We will publish more details on that, and we will give more information on statutory and non-statutory aspects when we get to the next group of amendments. The disclosures include information on previous criminal convictions and cautions, spent and unspent, and relevant local police information. It is essential that the fact of a bar be disclosed on an enhanced CRB certificate for regulated activity, because barred people are prohibited by law from doing such work. It is a criminal offence for someone who is barred to apply for work in regulated activity; similarly, it is an offence for an employer knowingly to employ someone on the barred list. Indeed, under the Bill, there is a duty to check whether someone who applying to work in regulated activity is barred.

For other positions, where an employer has discretion whether to employ someone or to take them on as a volunteer, it is even more important that they should see the behaviour itself, in the form of convictions, cautions and local police information, rather than the actual information as to whether there is a bar—this is still about regulated activity, not the ISA referral, which I will come to in a moment. Together with the other information that the employers will have obtained during the recruitment process, they will then be able to make a decision on whether to employ the person.

One of the subjects that we discussed at length in Committee involved the information that arrives at the police. Through guidance, we will encourage employers and volunteer users to ensure that the police, as well as the barring authority, are informed in cases where there is a risk to vulnerable groups. That could then be reflected on the CRB certificate, if relevant, and will assist the police with their wider protection duties.

Although I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s argument about parents not wanting to involve children in getting rid of somebody who is under suspicion at a school and not wanting to refer the matter to the police because that creates difficult circumstances, to be frank, this Government want that referral to be made. That information must be given to the police. It is absolutely inappropriate not to do so if a school or organisation suspects that someone is unsuitable to work with children. We want to take the atmosphere around that situation away, so that what happens is not just that the case can be referred to the ISA—which, as the hon. Lady rightly said, uses its excellent skills to impose a discretionary bar—but, more important, that the information goes to the police, and not just because of the employment situation. If the information is on the enhanced Criminal Records Bureau certificate, the same person—who could be a volunteer or in employment—can also go out of that establishment and down to the local park. It is really important that the information gets through to the police. I want that point to go out loud and clear. Although the hon. Lady raises a valid point, we are hoping to change the position so that it is no longer the case that people use their discretion to refer only to the ISA, and that the ISA shares that information.

[Diana Johnson]

The Minister is absolutely right that the police should be informed where there are allegations that need to be properly investigated and, hopefully, brought to court so that people can be convicted, but I am concerned that in some cases that will not happen, for whatever reason. Where the ISA has information that someone should be barred from working with children, would it not be appropriate for that information also to be passed on to employers, voluntary sector groups and charities?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I do not think that we will reach agreement on that point, because we regard it as disproportionate to give barring information in a situation that is not appropriate for barring—that is, where there is not regulated activity. The concept of the barred status of individuals not appearing on certificates for positions falling outside regulated activity is not new; that has been the case. The key changes of our provisions are to the scope and extent of regulated activity, not the application of barring provisions, which remain the same. We have changed the scope.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of people who are barred being able to have access to children on an infrequent basis under the current scheme—for example, as volunteers in schools. That is the case at the moment. I think people who were barred could have access to children three times a month—that is, infrequently. Under the old regime—or the current regime, I should say—if there was infrequent contact, people did not have to be checked. They could be checked, but it was not mandatory. There will always be people who have some contact with children whom parents cannot check. There were under the previous Government’s scheme: as I say, if contact was infrequent, people were not necessarily checked. We cannot eliminate risk entirely, but we believe that we are minimising it.

The hon. Lady raised the case of a former teacher who was barred from three schools where the information was not passed to the police. That teacher went on to volunteer at primary school, working one-on-one with 10 kids. As I have said, the enhanced CRB check would not show the information, because the case was referred to the ISA, but we are saying that in future that information should be passed to the police. More importantly, volunteers in an unregulated situation will be supervised. It is crucial that employers and organisations understand what is appropriate in terms of supervision and, therefore, what is regulated or not regulated activity, which we will come to later. The law would then be involved, because it would be against the law to employ someone or have them in unregulated activity if the barred status had not been checked. However, we will come to that in due course.

[Diana Johnson]

I am trying to help the Minister, who may have said something that I am not sure her officials would agree with about someone who is currently barred having access to children in school. Perhaps she could consider it again. My understanding of the current law is that schools have to check the barred status of individuals in schools, so people barred from working with children would not be in schools at the moment.

[Lynne Featherstone]

If they were in regulated activity, they would be barred. It is a duty under the law that they should be checked.

The hon. Lady also raised the concerns of the Football Association and Girlguiding UK, but we see no reason why the provisions in the Bill should discourage volunteering. In particular, there is no reason why central human resource specialists cannot contrive to take decisions about whether to take on a new volunteer. In such cases, the prospective volunteer would send their CRB certificate to the central body rather than the local branch—in this case, to the football coach or the guide leader. The e-Bulk system continues.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked me to explain continuous updating, and it might help those who were not involved in every aspect of the Committee if I do so. Continuous updating will be an e-system. An employee will be given an exclusive number. When they go for a job, they can give that number—their PIN, as it were—to the prospective employer and, sitting in the interview, that employer can log on with it and check that person’s CRB status in relation to children, vulnerable adults or both. What will be shown on the screen is either whether there has been any change from when the last certificate was presented or that person’s last status. If there is no change, no more information is needed; if there is a change, the screen will tell the employer that there has been a change to the available information. Obviously they will then need a new certificate, so that the employer knows that there has been a change and that there is information that needs looking at. Given that CRB checks are completely clear 92% of the time, the system is obviously very fast.

Amendment 111 would make three substantive changes to the barring arrangements. First, it deals with the test for barring decisions set out in clause 66. In considering the amendment, it is important to examine the provisions in that clause. The vetting and barring scheme developed by the last Government was well intentioned, but the balance was not right. The scheme that was developed was over the top and disproportionate. We have made clear our intention to scale back the scheme to common-sense levels, and that is what we are doing.

Time is running out, but let me just say that we are prepared to consider some of the suggestions on the issuing of the certificate. I will be happy to come back to that.

[Diana Johnson]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) for her well informed speech. She has considerable experience in and knowledge of child protection, which she has usefully brought to our debates. I know that she, as chair of the all-party group, works tirelessly to promote the safety of vulnerable children and to ensure that they are kept as safe as possible. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), who has a great deal of expertise, as well. Her interventions were a useful contribution to the debate, raising some of the key issues.

I am concerned about the Government’s response to the genuine concerns expressed by employers and voluntary groups about the information they feel they should have to help them in decision making. I still do not understand why the Minister feels that we should not use the ISA’s great knowledge and expertise in child protection and keeping vulnerable people safe. The ISA looks at all sorts of information. Why should that information not be made available to prospective employers or voluntary groups and charities?

Let me make a special plea for voluntary groups, which often rely on individuals to give up their time to run, for example, the Sunday football league in the local park. Those groups often do not have great knowledge of the CRB system, but would greatly benefit from knowing that the experts at the ISA had looked carefully into a person and formed a judgment that they should be barred. I still do not understand why the Government are so against sharing that information. Most members of the general public would think that if someone is on a barred list, that information should be made available to employers and organisations though which that person is likely to come into contact with children and vulnerable people. I ask the Minister to think hard before turning her face against that provision.

I made it clear that I agree with the Minister about the importance of pursuing people through the courts whenever possible, and of ensuring that people feel confident about taking allegations to the police where they feel that behaviour in a school or care home has been unacceptable. We all support that, but it will not always happen. The Minister failed to address those cases where information is not shared with the police; a barring decision has been made by the ISA, but that information will appear nowhere on a standard or enhanced CRB certificate. That means that a Sunday football club might well have organising the football teams and supervising the children a coach that no one knows has been barred from working with children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington said, the vast majority of parents would be horrified to think that such a situation could arise when that information is readily available from the ISA and could have been provided to keep those children safe. That is an important point.

I also want to make a plea for small employers that do not have large human resources departments and do not have the capacity to spend time going through all the procedures that the big companies can. I imagine Tesco and Sainsbury’s have large HR departments that can process applications, take up references and do everything else that has to be done, but small employers, with perhaps just two or three people working for them, are different. That sort of employer will have to get to grips with a whole new system of CRB checks, online updating and all the rest of it. The Minister fails to understand the reality of modern businesses in this country or how complicated the new system will appear to many small businesses.

[Lynne Featherstone]

Will the hon. Lady explain how much more complicated it will be than the previous system?

[Diana Johnson]

I have set out the problem in the amendments. Making the certificate available only to the individual rather than to the individual and the prospective employer, as currently happens, is fraught with difficulties. Those who want to use the system for their own ends will find ways around the fact that the certificate does not go directly to the employer.

[Lynne Featherstone]

It might give the hon. Lady some heart if I say that we have listened very carefully to that argument and we are considering whether it would be possible to send notification of a certificate that has not been sent, perhaps going even further than she suggests in telling the prospective organisation or employer that it is clear of anything that needs checking. As I say, we are considering that at the moment.

[Diana Johnson]

Let me repeat a comment I made yesterday in a debate on wheel-clamping: one of the problems with this Government is that they rush into legislation without taking the time to consider the practical implications. We are now at the Report stage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, yet the Minister now says that the Government might well consider looking at the practicalities of the system that they are going to bring in—a system that will cost millions of pounds and cause a great deal of concern to businesses, the voluntary sector and sports groups. I think the Minister should reflect on that.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I think the hon. Lady should reflect on the fact that we have listened, that we are working with all the associations and that we are willing to make changes, whatever stage of the Bill we are at.

[Diana Johnson]

Goodness, it is like the Health and Social Care Bill all over again! At this point, perhaps I should move on and speak to the Opposition amendments.

I genuinely believe that the protection of children and vulnerable adults is a matter of concern to us all, in all parts of the House; we want to make sure that we get this right. That is why the Labour Front-Bench team tabled the amendments, based on the advice of experts in the field and in response to the organisations that are asking for information to be made available to them so that they can do the right thing and keep children and vulnerable adults safe.

I am worried by the Minister’s reluctance to acknowledge some of the important issues. The taxi driver example I provided is a real-life example that was pointed out to me yesterday. It applies to someone who, I accept, is not working in regulated activity. The standard criminal record check is the one normally used for taxi drivers, but this person was working with children on an irregular basis, despite the clear allegations that the person had wanted to abduct children in the past. The taxi company, which acted perfectly reasonably in the belief that this was a person with no convictions, allowed him to go out and ferry children around once or twice a month. What he had done was on his record, but the taxi company did not have access to the information. Many people would be worried to know that such information was not made available to an employer who was trying to do their best.

[Lynne Featherstone]

The situation that the hon. Lady raises arises under the existing rules.

[Diana Johnson]

The problem is that the barring information is not made available. The point of our new clause is to ensure that barring information relating to individuals judged to be a threat to children should be made available when someone applies for a CRB check. That is the point.

The Minister made a point about locus and about employers and voluntary groups making judgments using their own common sense. Of course we want people to do that; of course we want people to take responsibility for their actions, but I fail to understand why the Minister will not allow individuals, organisations or employers to have all the information, so that they can make proper decisions about who they employ and who they allow to volunteer in their organisations.

I shall divide the House on new clause 18, which deals with revealing barred status when a CRB check is applied for, and I shall also press amendment 111 to clause 66. As we have discussed, the vast majority of people in this country would be horrified to know that the Government no longer wish to put serious criminals on a barred list to protect children. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to think again about whether that is the way the Government want to go.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 112, in page 45, leave out lines 22 to 24.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 114, in page 45, line 22, leave out ‘day to day’ and insert ‘close and constant’.

Amendment 115, in page 46, line 27, leave out ‘day to day’ and insert ‘close and constant’.

Amendment 113, in page 46, leave out lines 29 to 40.

Amendment 116, in page 46, line 37, leave out ‘day to day’ and insert ‘close and constant’.

Government amendments 22 and 63.

[Diana Johnson]

We debated regulated activity and supervision in Committee. [Interruption.] These amendments address those issues. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I ask those Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly while we continue our consideration of the Bill. This is a timed debate.

[Diana Johnson]

As I was saying, these amendments deal with regulated activity relating to children and we discussed that, and the closely related issue of supervision, at length in Committee. I should make it clear that these are probing amendments and I will not press any of them to a Division. I would, however, be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the issues that the amendments address.

We have concerns about the current drafting of these provisions. If a person has contact with a child it will generally be in regulated activity, but that is not always the case. For instance, a volunteer in a school classroom where there is a teacher present would not be seen to be in regulated activity so would not be subject to any form of Criminal Records Bureau check or barred status check.

The Sport and Recreation Alliance, Fair Play for Children and other charities have highlighted the problems in using the notion of supervision for deciding whether a person is in a position to exploit their relationship with children. That person could, as I have just said, be a volunteer in a classroom listening to children read, or a volunteer helping the school caretaker, and they are therefore able to build relationships with the pupils as they carry out their voluntary role. The problem is not the activity they are performing, which could well be properly supervised; rather, it is the fact that they are building relationships with children which they might go on to exploit. The charities I mentioned point out that supervision is an inappropriate notion in this context as it ignores this secondary access that can be used to build up a relationship with a child or vulnerable adult. If someone is in such a position of trust, they might later take action that could be detrimental to the child or vulnerable adult.

[Meg Munn]

May I reiterate the concern that is felt? The failure to provide barred status information on people in these unregulated areas is precisely the loophole that the Government should be closing, because if somebody is a risk to children and is having regular contact with them, albeit supervised, the person who is taking them on as a volunteer should have the necessary information to decide whether that is appropriate.

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend puts the case very well, and I hope the Minister will reflect on the issue of barred status information not being made available—which we have just voted on—and on this whole area of supervision, and consider whether to redefine or remove entirely the concept of supervision.

Let me discuss the example of David Lawrence. For many years he was a football coach volunteering for a team in a junior league in the Avon area. In the late 1990s, working with Fair Play for Children, the Football League tightened its safeguarding procedures and uncovered a string of allegations made against Mr Lawrence dating back to the 1970s, but he had no convictions. He was removed from the football club and shortly afterwards was convicted of an offence against a young boy. Shockingly, just two months after release, in the early 2000s, he was once again volunteering at a local football club. It was a club in a league affiliated with the Football Association, but it was not conducting even basic checks on those who volunteered with it. Mr Lawrence was in a series of supervised volunteer positions, but if this Bill is passed in its current form there will be no legal requirement to conduct any checks on his background. The case shows that statutory regulation is needed to force activity providers to conduct background checks on individuals. Because so much of the relevant information is often soft information—we have just debated that at length—these background checks should go through the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

A redefinition of “supervision” is set out in amendments 114 to 116, which seek to deal with the Government’s definition of the term. We discussed that at great length in Committee, including a number of different options for the definition. Using a definition of “day to day” supervision to cover people such as a football coach or an assistant in a school classroom is not sufficient, as it allows individuals to be left unsupervised for long periods. For example, a football coach could take the same group of children to a different part of a playing field regularly—on a weekly basis—and that is of concern. The definition would also allow a volunteer at a drama group to teach mime to a group of children in a different room from the person supposed to be supervising them. Someone with that ability to take part in activities away from where their supervisor is should be subject to background checks.

A survey conducted by the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations suggested that three quarters of parents want background checks to be carried out unless they have personally chosen the person who has access to their child. The brief on which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children led stated:

“We are concerned that the proposed definition of regulated activity does not cover some groups of people who have frequent and close contact with children. This creates risks for children. Those who seek to harm children can be predatory and manipulative. If certain types of work are exempt from vetting and barring, in some sectors or settings, but not in others, dangerous adults are likely to target those organisations with weaker arrangements.”

It continues:

“Our key outstanding concern is about the exclusion of supervised work from regulated activity: The Bill exempts many positions from regulated activity simply by virtue of them being under ‘regular day to day supervision’. However supervised employees and volunteers are still able to develop relationships with children which could be exploited. For example, a volunteer teaching assistant in a classroom of 30 children, with only light-touch supervision by the classroom teacher, has plenty of opportunity to develop inappropriate relationships and groom children.

The definition of ‘regular day to day supervision’ is not sufficient because it could be understood to include individuals who have a ‘supervisor’ on site, but who are able to work with groups of children on their own for significant periods of time, with no one directly supervising their work.”

The first recommendation in the report by the all-party group on child protection was to tighten up the definition of “supervision”. In its response to that report, the Home Office said that it agreed that regulated activity should cover all those positions where individuals have close contact and can develop trusting relationships with children. Unfortunately, the Government have not tabled any amendments to allow us to deal with that.

We welcome Government amendments 22 and 63. We are glad that the Government have heeded the calls made by the Opposition and by leading charities in the area, including the NSPCC, to introduce statutory guidance on the issue of supervision.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the concerns that many people and lots of organisations have about supervision—this has been expressed to me and I suspect to many others in the House—is the level of complexity and the degree of risk involved. Does the hon. Lady feel that the Government should reconsider that issue and how they can best address it to everyone’s satisfaction?

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. All members of the Public Bill Committee had real concerns about this issue, and wanted further explanation and statutory guidance to be produced by the Government. We are therefore pleased that these amendments will assist that definition, but we are also concerned that we have not had an opportunity in the House to debate and discuss exactly what “regulated activity” and “supervision” are, how they fit together and whether or not we need to revisit the matter. I hope the Minister will be able to give an assurance that the protection set out in the Bill and these Government amendments will be sufficient to deal with the kind of examples that I have given, where people have been able to abuse their position in schools, charities or other voluntary sector groups.

The all-party group’s second recommendation was that the Government should introduce statutory guidance, so again this move is to be welcomed. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those points.

[Lynne Featherstone]

There is not much time available, so I shall be brief. There was considerable discussion in Committee about the nature of “supervision”. The Bill describes “supervised work” as being

“any such work which is, on a regular basis, subject to the day to day supervision of another person who is engaging in regulated activity relating to children”.

That is a tight definition. Supervision must be ongoing, so a once-a-week meeting between the supervisor and supervised would not meet the requirement. The supervision must be on a daily basis and it must be done by someone who is in regulated activity themselves and, therefore, has been checked against the barred list.

We believe that our proposals in this part of the Bill strike a better balance between the roles played by the state and the employers in situ in protecting the vulnerable. Those activities presenting the greatest risks, such as unsupervised work with children or vulnerable adults, remain subject to the central barring and vetting arrangements. We do not think those arrangements are necessary where regular supervision takes place on a daily basis. I should emphasise that that does not mean that checks should not, or cannot, be carried out in relation to work that falls outside regulated activity.

Lastly, I wish to say that I am glad that the hon. Lady is pleased with our movement on statutory guidance.

[Diana Johnson]

As I said, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division and I am pleased that the Government have seen the sense in having statutory guidance on supervision. It is unfortunate that the House has not had the opportunity to consider any draft guidance that the Government might wish to introduce, although I assume that we will see that later in the day.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I am conscious of the time. Does she feel that this measure is about reducing the number of those being checked? If it is, it is flawed. That is one of my concerns. Most employers will carry out a non-regulated activity that will not require the barred list information or an enhanced disclosure. In other words, things will thereby not be done in the way they should to get full disclosure. I know that we are not going to divide the House on this point, but I am very concerned about what it means.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Does the hon. Lady wish to withdraw the amendment?

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 21, 76, 39 to 54, 77, 55 to 61, and 78 and 62.

[Diana Johnson]

The Bill sets out in chapter 2 to outlaw wheel-clamping on private land and to introduce a ticketing regime. We had an extensive debate on this issue in Committee. The major concern that still arises from the way the Bill is drafted is that there is nothing to offer any regulation or protection for the motorist from the problems experienced so far with rogue wheel-clampers. We believe that the rogue wheel-clampers will now move on and become rogue ticketers, and we are not alone in this. We have the support of the RAC, the AA, and the British Parking Association—and I am very pleased to say that today a leader in The Times supports Labour’s amendment on this point.

Our new clause seeks to offer a level of sensible protection for those parking on private land equivalent to the protections offered to people who park on the highway and wish to appeal when they have received a parking fine. For many of our constituents, it is bewildering that the law in each situation is so different. If someone parks on the highway, there is a limit on the fines and an independent appeals process, but if they park in a small private car park, or even a large retail car park, they can face unlimited fines and there is no formal regulated appeals system.

The real reason we need to move this amendment and have this debate is that the coalition Government rushed into the decision to get rid of wheel-clamping, and they did not go through any meaningful consultation with key stakeholders to discuss what the effect of removing wheel-clamping as something that a private landowner could use to protect their land. When the previous Government considered how to deal with rogue wheel-clampers and set out provisions in the Crime and Security Act 2010, those provisions were widely consulted on. Issues that had to be addressed concerned signage, the level of fees that should be paid, the methods available for payment, the evidence required and a full appeals process. They were set out fully in the drafting of the 2010 Act in order to deal with rogue wheel clampers, because it was recognised that regulation was required.

The Government have decided to introduce a ban on wheel clamping on private land, but they have failed to address the real issue now facing motorists, which is what happens when they are faced with rogue ticketers. In this regard, as in so many others, the Government have reacted in a knee-jerk fashion without really thinking through the consequences of the legislation they are bringing before the House.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend have any view on unadopted private roads in areas where there is a local authority parking scheme all around and where quite successful operations are currently run, with minimal levels of clamping? From now on clamping will be banned, so far more expensive systems will have to be introduced, which will cost residents a great deal of money—including council and social housing tenants in the area—but achieve nothing different from what exists now.

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That issue was debated in Committee, but unfortunately the Government set their face against dealing with it and recognising that there was a problem.

We believe that under the ticketing regime set out in the Bill, the motorist could still end up facing extortionate fees from rogue parking companies, which could be enforced by aggressive security staff against the driver and, if necessary, against the keeper of the vehicle. We also believe that it may still be possible to use a barrier or even a chain to block an exit to a car park, forcing individuals to pay extortionate ticket fees. We believe that rogue parking companies could threaten motorists with the bailiffs and that their credit ratings could be affected. Our amendments have wide-ranging support from the parking industry and motoring organisations. The Government’s impact assessment recognises the risk of rogue wheel-clampers becoming rogue ticketers, but the Bill is silent on what should happen in those circumstances.

Patrick Troy, the chief executive of the British Parking Association, made it clear in his evidence to the Committee that rogue clampers will just move into another form of criminality—rogue ticketing. He recognised that parking is complicated and that it is often difficult for members of the public to understand the difference between the highway and private land. In the main, motorists remain ignorant of their rights, and rogue ticketers will take advantage of this.

Edmund King of the AA said that the current arrangements for street ticketing—that is, on the highway, for which there is a good independent appeals system through the traffic penalty tribunal—are independent and accepted by motorists and the industry alike as fair and proportionate. Parking companies pay a 65p levy per penalty charge notice to pay for the system, which is fair. We should have the same ticketing provisions on appeal for those who receive tickets on private land, especially as the Government are introducing keeper liability provisions in the Bill. Without a proper, independent appeal, it is unfair and unjust that a keeper could be held liable for a ticket that he or she knows nothing about.

In his evidence to the Committee, Edmund King talked about the following situation arising:

“A company, which seems to be incredibly profitable, is carrying out private ticketing. Its website says, ‘Welcome to the ultimate recession-proof business opportunity’ which has ‘limitless earnings potential’. All the company does is…suggest…that if you have a small piece of land and wanted to make some money, you could apply to my company, and I will send you some parking notices.

You will take your digital camera and take pictures of the cars of neighbours you do not like or of anyone who parks there, and send the pictures to”

that company, which will then

“apply to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for their details, send out tickets, and if 60% pay up, which they currently do,”

it will give £10 to the landowner for each ticket and pocket the rest. He continued:

“That company claims to have 1,200 agents who ticket in that way…even though that company claims to be a member of the British Parking Association, the 1,200 people are, as far as we know, just individuals. There is no control, and our worry is that the clampers who have been making money for nothing for the past 10 years are not going to give up”.––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 145, Q419.]

Instead, they will become rogue ticketers.

Mr King also gave examples of problems in challenging the issue of a ticket, because there is at present no opportunity to do so. He cited the example of Mr B’s car, which incurred a private penalty in a Glasgow hospital car park even though Mr B and his car were in the south of France. The company involved commenced debt recovery procedures. A second case involved an AA member who had been issued with a parking charge notice by X. He had parked in the car park of a major DIY store and spent more than £1,000 in the store. It had taken him some time to choose the goods, and he received a parking charge notice from X, which stated that he had overstayed the maximum permitted time of three hours by 19 minutes. He had to pay £80, which would be reduced to £50 if he paid by a certain date.

A third example involved a Bristol driver whose car was spotted during two different visits to a fast-food outlet. The camera or operator took this to be one single visit and issued a penalty notice for 41 days’ parking. Two AA executives were also sent parking charge notices by post for infringing unclear bay marking rules in a local supermarket. Both of them challenged the parking charge notices, but they were threatened with damage to their credit rating and a visit from the bailiffs if they did not pay up.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

May I give my hon. Friend another example? It involves the Peel centre, a retail park in the centre of Stockport where many of my constituents have received penalty fines for overstaying in the car park. One of my constituents challenged this in the courts and had the penalty overturned because the signage was so small that it was considered unreasonable to expect people to read the notices. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to have a proper appeals system in place, rather than expecting our constituents to have to go through the courts in such cases?

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

That is exactly right, and our new clause sets out clearly that anyone wishing to issue tickets should be a member of the British Parking Association or an accredited trade association, and should comply with the code of practice agreed with the DVLA on proper signage and a proper appeals system. We believe that that would solve the problem.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I was retained counsel by the Automobile Association in 2000, in the case of Vine v. London borough of Waltham Forest, so I come to this matter with a degree of experience. Subsection (1) of new clause 15 attempts to create a criminal offence in certain circumstances. Does the hon. Lady agree, however, that those circumstances are already covered by the measures in the Theft Act 1968 relating to obtaining property by deception, or by consumer protection legislation?

[Diana Johnson]

It is quite clear that consumer protection legislation has not worked in the motorist’s favour in the past. Creating a criminal offence, as the amendment would do, would send a clear signal about how serious the matter is and how people who are going to issue tickets should be properly regulated. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

I want to move on to the RAC, which gave evidence that the provisions in the Bill would not create a landscape for parking in which the motorist could be guaranteed a fair deal from the parking industry. I know that the Government have made much of the fact that they are on the side of the motorist, but when motoring organisations and members of the industry itself are saying that the system being proposed in the legislation is unfair, the Government need to think again.

As drafted, the right to challenge a ticket is very limited. It would apply only to cases in which liability could be enforced against a keeper. That means that if a person did not pay up to the parking company, the company could go after the keeper of the vehicle, whose information is held by the DVLA. The protection offered is that only a member of an accredited trade association—currently the British Parking Association—will be allowed access to DVLA information. However, the Government state in the impact assessment that they expect 74% of penalty tickets to be paid up front at the time the ticket is issued, rising to 82% when keeper liability is added in. The expectation is that people will just pay up and will not have the opportunity to lodge any kind of appeal. There is no independent appeal procedure. We understand that, under the Government amendments, members of the British Parking Association must have an internal disputes procedure, but we say that is not good enough: it is not fair and not independent. It is widely perceived that it must be independent.

I mentioned the example of the company that Edmund King suggested made a lot of money out of ticketing. Will the Minister respond on the issue of road parking companies that are not members of the British Parking Association but are able to get information about a vehicle—for example, the address of a commercial vehicle on the side of a van parked in a private car park—or to gain access to lists of customers’ details in a private car park? In those circumstances, the ticketing organisation could pursue the keeper without having gone through the DVLA. As I understand it, that could be done perfectly legally, but it could be threatening if money is demanded quickly in order to avoid the bailiffs coming round.

Will the Minister talk more about contract law and consumer protection? She made much in Committee of the fact that consumer protection law was already in place, but we made the case that that did not provide adequate protection for motorists. Will she therefore comment on the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and explain whether she feels it needs to be strengthened or whether further information needs to be given to the public about its provisions?

Let me make some specific points about the amendments in the group. New clause 15 would ensure that anyone issuing a penalty ticket must be registered with an accredited trade association, that all ticketers were currently members of the British Parking Association who must abide by the trade association’s code of practice, which is agreed, in turn, with the DVLA. The new clause also means that tickets placed on the vehicle or those issued later through the use of ANPR—automatic number plate recognition—would be subject to an independent appeals procedure. This would ensure that the maximum fines on private land are the same as for those on public roads and that the same terms and conditions, the same right of appeal and the same prompt payment discount would apply. This has widespread support. The RAC and the AA have recently conducted a populist poll of 12,000 people, of whom 98% thought that there should be some form of licensing for ticketers. That shows that there is clear and overwhelming public support for this new clause, so I hope the Minister will think again and support it.

Will the Minister clarify some points about the other amendments in the group? We welcome Government amendment 21, which came out of the evidence given to the Committee by Patrick Troy of the British Parking Association and Edmund King of the AA. The Opposition took the view that the drafting of the clause dealing with a fixed barrier was ambiguous. I am glad that the Government have recognised the issue raised by the Opposition and have sought to amend the provisions. I know, however, that the BPA still has some doubts about the new wording, as it fails specifically to mention wheel-clamping.

Government amendment 76 passes liability from the car hire company to the person who has hired the car where appropriate. Will the Minister comment on the fact that she is making it easier to transfer keeper liability in those circumstances? Has she given any thought to the circumstances where, for example, a motorist takes their car to a garage and the garage parks it on someone else’s private land? In that case, can the liability be passed back to the garage? As currently drafted, keeper liability means that the individual car owner would be liable as the keeper, even though the actions were carried out by the garage.

Amendments 39 to 54 are technical, but will the Minister explain why she wants to move from the term “relevant contract” to “relevant obligation” in the wording of the affected clauses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

I am sure such issues will arise across the land. The way to deal with them will be through either ticketing or barriers. However, it is also possible—although this is not required—for a local authority to take over responsibility for that land and issue tickets. Such matters can be addressed in that way, therefore. I cannot give a specific response on every circumstance that might arise across the land, but in Scotland the answer was barriers or ticketing; it was not particularly complicated.

We will carefully watch how things pan out, but our proposal is our best effort to get the balance right and to make sure that we proceed without the burdens of regulating everything in the land and instead let the parking industry look after itself so there is no cost to the taxpayer if ticketing is taken forward. An appeals process will also be put in place, and I shall address the detail of that shortly.

I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, and I think we are all trying to achieve the same outcome, but we just believe that we can get there in different ways. The best way in which I can respond to new clause 15 is by reference to the Government amendments in this group, which address ticketing issues.

The Government amendments propose a number of changes to schedule 4, which makes provision for vehicle keepers to be held liable for unpaid parking charges in certain circumstances. The amendments, many of which are of a drafting or technical nature, seek to clarify the effect of the provisions in order to reduce the potential for them to be misunderstood either deliberately or inadvertently by motorists, vehicle keepers and those responsible for parking restrictions and enforcement on private land.

In Committee, the hon. Lady argued for the introduction of a statutory scheme for the regulation of parking on private land which was the same as the one we are discussing now. The Opposition were particularly concerned for there to be statutory provision in respect of signage at car parks and appeals rights. That theme is again picked up in new clause 15.

[Diana Johnson]

I want the Minister to set out very clearly that the Government amendments do not provide for an independent appeals process, but are instead limited to keeper liability in very specific circumstances. They therefore do not provide proper and adequate independent appeals for anyone who receives a ticket.

[Lynne Featherstone]

For any land that is properly signed and under lawful authority, people will be protected by either consumer law or the appeals process that will be set up by the British Parking Association. If the hon. Lady lets me pursue my argument, I think that some of her questions will be answered.

I made it clear that parking enforcement was properly a matter for existing contract and consumer protection law, backed up by self-regulation by the parking industry. That remains the Government’s position—that is clear. However, we have looked again at the provisions in schedule 4 to see whether they include adequate safeguards for motorists and vehicle keepers, and the amendments strengthen those in two ways.

First, on appeal rights and keeper liability, I fully agree with the hon. Lady that there should be appropriate safeguards for motorists, including access to an appeals body for drivers or vehicle keepers to challenge parking charges where they believe they have been wrongly or unfairly imposed. Amendment 59 makes it clear that the notice to the driver or the keeper of a vehicle must set out the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints. We have asked the parking sector, led by the British Parking Association, to establish an independent appeals body, funded by the parking industry and free to consumers, to cover tickets issued by members of the BPA or another accredited trade association. We have also made it clear that we will not bring the keeper liability provisions in schedule 4 into force unless and until the sector establishes, financially supports and agrees to abide by the decisions of an independent challenge body. Unlike the hon. Lady, we do not see a need to constitute this appeals body in legislation. We believe that effective self-regulation by the parking industry is the right way forward, wherever possible, rather than relying on a governmental regulatory approach.

[Diana Johnson]

I am interested in what the Minister is saying. However, self-regulation for wheel-clamping clearly did not work and we are ending up in a similar position in this area. By providing self-regulation, we will find that the good ticketing and parking companies will be members of the BPA but the organisations that are just going to intimidate and impose excessive charges through ticketing notices on vehicles will not be covered by the appeals process.

[Lynne Featherstone]

Intimidation is against the law. I would say to any motorist intimidated by a rogue ticketer that they should report it immediately to the police.

Secondly, on signage, amendment 61 sets out a reserve power to prescribe requirements on the display, content and location of signs at car parks and other relevant land. I say a “reserve power” because parking providers will be able to access DVLA keeper data, and therefore benefit from the keeper liability provisions, only if they abide by the British Parking Association’s code of practice on signage. We do not consider that regulation on signage will be necessary and we would want to introduce statutory rules on signage only if there was clear evidence that the BPA code was not living up to the job. I would be more than happy to read out to the hon. Lady the BPA code on signage, but it is quite long. Suffice it to say, it is big, clear and exactly what one would want in terms of proper parking signage. If that was not the case, we would keep an eye on the situation, but we do not want to introduce statutory rules about signage automatically because we believe that the BPA code will work.

The third significant change introduced by these amendments is to extend the application of the keeper liability regime to circumstances where an obligation to pay a parking charge arises as a result of parking on land without permission, which is to say in the context of a trespass or other tort. This change will help to address the concerns expressed by tenant associations and others about their ability to tackle unauthorised parking in communal parking areas once the ban on wheel-clamping comes into force. We have also made it clear in relation to vehicle hire companies that liability for any parking charges during the period of hire will rest with the hirer of the vehicle once the vehicle hire company provides a copy of the relevant documentation to the creditor. Again that reflects the position for on-road parking contraventions.

Finally, the amendments will allow for the use of CCTV or automatic number plate recognition technology, as well as the physical ticketing of vehicles, in order to manage parking on relevant land. Taken together, these amendments to schedule 4 will ensure that parking providers and other landowners will have an effective means of enforcing unpaid parking charges which are, at the same time, fair to the motorist and vehicle keepers.

On the concerns expressed about rogue ticketers, the Government are fully committed to monitoring the effect of the ban on vehicle immobilisation and removal and the associated keeper liability provisions in schedule 4.

--- Later in debate ---

Let me deal briefly with Government amendment 21 to clause 54, which responds to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North in Committee. The hon. Lady referred to the concerns expressed by the British Parking Association about the effect of subsection (3) of the clause. The provision is intended to permit the continued use of barriers as a legitimate means of parking control and enforcement once the ban on wheel-clamping comes into force. As I said many times in Committee, it is not our intention that the presence of a barrier should, in itself, confer lawful authority for the wheel-clamping of a vehicle. It is clear, however, that subsection (3) as drafted has been read as providing such authority. The Government amendment puts the matter beyond doubt. A landowner will not be committing the clause 54 offence in circumstances where a fixed barrier, present at the time when a vehicle was parked on the land in question, restricts the movement of the vehicle, but that does not mean that the landowner will be able to resort to wheel-clamping or towing away in those circumstances. I trust that the amendment makes the position crystal clear.

[Diana Johnson]

Let us be clear. Are we saying that if someone receives a ticket in a private car park and there is a barrier that restricts the car from being driven away, that is completely legitimate? Is the Minister saying that a vehicle can still be immobilised by a barrier being put down at the front of the car park, with a ticket being issued, so that the car cannot move away? Is that correct?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The presence of the barrier means that the owner has either expressly or implicitly consented to pay the parking charges, which must be clearly labelled under either consumer protection law or the new laws under the keeper liability or BPA rules. If he or she has paid the charge, the barrier will be lifted and they can leave the car park. They must pay the charge for the barrier to be lifted, like a normal car park. That is what happens in a normal car park—when I go shopping, that is what happens. One complies.

[Diana Johnson]

The point I am trying to make to the Minister is that some rogue landowners will put down barriers to immobilise vehicles but will put a ticket for, say, £500 on the car, saying, “Pay the £500 and we will take the barrier up.” That is the issue. I am concerned not about legitimate parking organisations that are members of the BPA, but about those rogue companies that are out to make a fast buck.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am conscious, after the previous debate in which we discussed DNA, civil liberties and serious crime, that this may appear to be a mundane matter. However, as we have heard this evening and on other occasions, it is a source of great concern to our constituents up and down the country. I am pleased that it will be addressed in the Bill.

I very much support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said a few moments ago, the introduction of a ban on wheel-clamping. As the Minister pointed out, a ban has been successful for 19 years in Scotland, and it is high time that such a provision was introduced in England and Wales. However, I very much wish to echo the concerns outlined by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) that we may be shifting the problem elsewhere.

The protections that motorists enjoy as consumers differ enormously, depending on whether they park on local authority-controlled land or on privately controlled land. Under the local authority system, which is covered extensively by legislation, as we have heard, there is an appeals process that is laid down in legislation, and there is a reasonable level of fining. If someone transgresses, or apparently transgresses, the rules in a council car park, they are issued with a penalty notice of about £50, which is reduced to half that amount if it is paid within 28 days. Some two thirds of people who appeal to local authority car-park operators are successful, because they can demonstrate that they did indeed buy a ticket, which perhaps fell off the dashboard, or they can give another legitimate reason for their appeal.

That contrasts significantly with the situation of people who park on privately available public car parks and those operated by rogue car park operators. I have had one of those in my constituency. I know from raising the issue in a Westminster Hall debate that many other hon. Members have had similar problems. People, often elderly and vulnerable, receive a threatening letter in the post demanding payment, sometimes of £70 or even more. Within a couple of weeks that demand is hyped up to perhaps double the amount. There are then threats to send in the bailiffs and threats to destroy credit ratings. Even people whom we would not describe as vulnerable get very concerned, understandably, that their credit rating might be affected, and they end up paying the so-called fine—it is not, of course, a criminal penalty—because they simply want the problem to go away.

Earlier in the Session I introduced a private Member’s Bill on the very issue of consumer protection in relation to private car parks. Of course my Bill is rapidly going the way of the vast majority of private Members’ Bills. In it I proposed that local authorities should have the ability to license the operation of private car parks, in the same way as they license publicans or taxis. That would allow a responsive approach through the democratic system at a local level. However, I accept that my Bill is unlikely to find its way on to the statute book.

I hear what the Minister says with regard to self-regulation through the British Parking Association. I have met the chief executive of that organisation on a number of occasions. My assessment of its operation has been that the pilots that it has run so far have not been overly successful. It tends to be the responsible companies that are involved in such schemes, and the irresponsible ones that, understandably, are not.

I recognise that we have enough regulation on the statute book, and that the self-regulation route is the best way to go. However, if we are to go down the self-regulation route, I note that the legislation has provision for reserve powers to have the matter reviewed. I seek an assurance from the Minister that when the British Parking Association and perhaps other accredited organisations introduce an independent system of appeals, that is reviewed in a timely manner. If, as I suspect—I hope I am wrong— self-regulation does not work, those reserve powers will have to be used.

[Diana Johnson]

We have had an interesting debate re-examining the issue. Having listened to the Minister explaining the provisions that she is seeking to introduce by means of amendments to the Bill, and having heard her explanation of clause 54(3), I am even more concerned that companies that wish to get round the law, operate in an intimidating way and issue excessive parking tickets will see this as an opportunity to go ahead. Under clause 54(3) putting down a barrier in effect immobilises a vehicle, so I am particularly concerned about the Minister’s response on that.

The impact assessment sets out that when issued with a ticket, 74% of people will pay up, so it is well worth rogue ticketing companies putting tickets on vehicles and getting those 74% of people to pay up. They do not have to worry about dealing with the 26% who might appeal from the keeper liability angle.

I am keen to test the opinion of the House on new clause 15. In terms of rogue wheel-clampers, I think that motorists are going to be out of the frying pan and into the fire and that the rogue companies will run riot. The problem will not be solved and I think that we will be back here another day.

[Guy Opperman]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that the Theft Act 1968, consumer protection legislation or, more particularly, the Fraud Act 2006 apply in exactly the same way as new clause 15?

[Diana Johnson]

Unfortunately, none of those Acts has ever been used to deal with wheel-clamping problems. I assume that the hon. Gentleman thinks that they could be used where people have obtained excessive amounts of money by wheel-clamping and immobilising a vehicle. However, our new clause has the support of the AA, the RAC and the British Parking Association. Furthermore, given the views expressed by 98% of the 12,000 people polled on this issue, I think that we are on the side of motorists and the British public, and I certainly wish to push the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has made an important point about the measures available to professionals on the front line who are dealing with antisocial behaviour. We are keen to ensure that they have discretion to deal with problems in their localities, and can act speedily to bring relief to communities that are suffering from such behaviour. That is the focus of the Government, that is what we have been consulting on, and we will present our response to the consultation in due course.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Met have said that ASBOs have been a valuable tool in combating violence and antisocial behaviour on the part of gangs. Following the August riots, will the Government ditch their plans to weaken the ASBO regime through proposals to remove the criminal sanctions and introduce far lighter penalties for those who flout the law? Do communities not deserve to be protected by the full force of the criminal law?

[James Brokenshire]

I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady that I think she has completely misunderstood the situation. We are ensuring that antisocial behaviour measures are effective and will provide relief for communities. As for the need to combat gangs, we are ensuring that injunctions are available to support the police and communities and enable firm and clear action to be taken against gangs, and we will have rolled them out to all communities by the end of this year. Those are practical measures to bring relief to communities, which is what the Government are determined to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I do not accept that there will be degradation of service in Greater Manchester, and I do not believe that the chief constable would either. He has talked about the fact that the headquarters’ staff in his force got too big and about the savings that can be achieved. As we have said, there are many innovative ways for the police to make contact with their communities that do not necessarily involve an attachment to old buildings. Forces around the country are sharing community centres and shop premises, increasing the contact time that they have with the public as a result. The number of visits to police stations can be very low.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary says that she is saving 1,200 police officer posts by cutting red tape, but we know that 12,000 police officers are being axed across the country. Of the six measures to cut bureaucracy, one has not been taken up by the national statistician and four are pilots. Is not the real truth that the scale and pace of the cuts is slashing front-line policing, not red tape, as we know in Warwickshire? What will be the administrative saving in this financial year as we see the deepest front-loaded front-line cuts?

[Nick Herbert]

I have said that the package of measures that we announced recently would save another 2.5 million hours of officer time, equivalent to 1,200 police officer posts, and we will go further with, for instance, more efficiencies in the criminal justice system. We will take no lectures from the Opposition about bureaucracy. It was they who tied up the police in this red tape with their targets, directions, policing pledge and constant interference, and it has fallen on this Government to reduce that bureaucracy and ensure that police officers can be crime fighters, not form writers.

Tribunals (Maximum Compensation Awards) Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that I could have included it in the Bill, but it is implicit that having a lower maximum figure in the case of unfair dismissal and an absolute maximum figure—there is no maximum figure at present—in the case of discrimination cases will reduce the bargaining power in a situation such as that my hon. Friend outlined. He described it as blackmail. We know that companies can sometimes be threatened with being taken to a tribunal and subject to all sorts of allegations it will find difficult to answer, so they pay up to an aggrieved ex-employee.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to look at the employment tribunal annual reports for 2007-08 to 2009-10. They set out the median compensation awarded in race, sex and disability discrimination cases. In 2009-10, the median for race discrimination was £5,392 and for sex discrimination it was £6,275, which are well short of the millions referred to in MailOnline.

[Mr Chope]

Obviously I cannot quarrel with the statistics that the hon. Lady quotes, but the issue is causing the coalition Government concern. That is why on 11 May the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announced that the Government would look in detail at the case for reforming compensation for discrimination:

“Compensation levels for cases of discrimination are unlimited and employers worry that high awards may encourage people to take weak, speculative or vexatious cases in the hope of a large payout. This can lead to employers settling such cases before they reach a Tribunal.”

The Government therefore seem to think that there is a problem.

I see my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration on the Front Bench—we could have done with his wisdom on asylum cases in the previous debate. I hope he will be able to bring some of that wisdom to bear on this subject in particular, as I had the opportunity to talk to an official from his Department who said that the Government were carrying out a review of the subject. The point that I made to my hon. Friend’s official was that that is all very well, but how will it deal with the rulings in the European Court of Justice. In the ECJ case Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2) (1993) IRLR 445, the court decided that the cap that had previously been put on discrimination compensation did not provide an adequate remedy under European Community law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I stand to oppose the Bill. There was little hard evidence in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for the Bill. The evidence available from employment tribunals on the levels of compensatory awards shows that they are nothing like the figures that he gave. Of course, there have been some high-profile cases in the papers, but the compensation awarded in the vast majority of tribunal cases is less than £10,000.

The Bill intends to limit compensation in wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal and discrimination tribunal cases. Most people recognise that it is important to have employment regulation that is fair and treats employees properly. The Opposition do not believe that setting the arbitrary figure in the Bill of £50,000 as the maximum that can be awarded in compensation, without having a wider debate about the employment, legal and equalities issues, is the proper way to set employment policy. Issues such as compensation, fines and penalties for health and safety, rights on leave and dismissal, and many others should be dealt with in a far more integrated way.

As a constituency MP, I saw the Hull trawlermen suffer hugely from not having proper employment rights; they had no redundancy rights and had to fight for pensions. I am therefore very aware of the need for good, clear employment protection legislation. When I worked in law centres before I entered the House, I often acted for people who found themselves in great difficulties with employers who had not treated them fairly and properly.

Of course, before 1997, to get unfair dismissal protection one had to be in employment for two years and there was no statutory right to annual paid leave unless it was in one’s contract. From 1997, the Labour Government opted into the social chapter, brought in the right to paid annual leave, reduced the period for unfair dismissal protection to one year, brought in the statutory right to paternity leave and improved maternity leave. It would be a retrograde step to start to unpick the straightforward and basic employment protection rights we now have in this country.

I will return to the compensation levels that I referred to in my intervention. When we make laws in this country, we must do so based on evidence and consider carefully what that evidence shows. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Christchurch, £4,903 was the median award in 2009-10 for unfair dismissal claims in tribunals. That is nowhere near the millions that he talked about.

[Mr Chope]

My Bill does not talk about medians, but would limit the excessive awards. She will be aware of a disability discrimination award of £729,347. My Bill would prevent that from happening again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

Obviously, I cannot comment on the circumstances of that case. The tribunal or court that dealt with it would have considered all the issues that arose. Some dreadful discrimination cases are brought before the tribunals and courts, and tribunals do their best to make just and equitable awards that fit the circumstances that are brought before them. I dispute the idea that everybody who goes before a tribunal is awarded a huge amount of money. When people are awarded very high compensation payments, there may well be very good reasons.

May I also say to the hon. Member for Christchurch that I believe he has got the law wrong in a number of ways, particularly on wrongful dismissal? He wants to limit payments that can be made for that, but often people’s contracts of employment contain clear rights to notice. If he wants to limit those rights, he may find that he is in breach of contract. That may apply to some high earners.

I want the Minister to have an opportunity to contribute, so I will cut my comments short, but I wish to point out that at the moment there is a limit of about £68,000 on unfair dismissal compensation payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) made that point. When awarding compensation for unfair dismissal, the tribunal has to make clear judgments about the immediate loss of earnings that the person has experienced, their future loss of earnings, the expenses that they have incurred, the loss of statutory rights and the loss of pension rights. At the moment, tribunals consider the range of losses to an individual and make a judgment based on that, but there is a cap of about £68,000 on the compensation.

I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the particular issues of sex, race and disability discrimination claims. We know from the Marshall case that European law states that it is not possible to have an upper limit for those claims, because damages should be awarded for the losses sustained.

[Mr Nuttall]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Diana Johnson]

I am very keen to hear from the Minister, but I will give way.

[Mr Nuttall]

Is it not the case that since the decision to which the hon. Lady refers, EU directive 2006/54/EC has recast the legal position so that there is a prohibition on the fixing of a prior upper limit to restrict compensation, and a provision that the “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” remedy should be given? I believe that a cap of £50,000 would be dissuasive.

[Diana Johnson]

That is obviously where the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party disagree. We do not think it is right to have such a cap. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view about the European dimension to imposing a cap on sex, race and disability discrimination compensation. On the basis of what I have said this afternoon, the Opposition oppose the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Here is another hon. Member who is still in denial. We believe that the financial settlement is fair and manageable, and that it need not have an impact on the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets. We are giving the police and local authorities the powers they need to respond to the problem, and, unlike the Labour party, which failed to deal with it in so many ways, we are committed to taking action to provide relief for our communities.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Given that the proposed criminal protection injunctions will weaken the sanctions available to the courts to punish and deter those engaging in antisocial behaviour, is it not clear that, at least in this instance, the “soft on crime” Liberal Democrat voice is being heard loud and clear in the Home Office?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady is wrong on that point, and I remind her of what the victims commissioner, Louise Casey—the antisocial behaviour tsar under the previous Government—said when we launched our consultation on the new antisocial behaviour powers:

“I am heartened by the announcement of the new proposals today that put tough enforcement action against perpetrators at the centre.”

The hon. Lady might not see or recognise it, but that is the case.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause addresses the point about the local setting of licensing fees that was debated in the Public Bill Committee. I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) to the Opposition Front Bench. She will recall the discussions that we had on this point in Committee. I welcome other Members who sat on the Committee, and other hon. Members who are present.

In my response to the consultation on the Bill, I said that we intended

“to enable licensing authorities to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery”.

Since then, as I confirmed in Committee, I have been working with colleagues across Government to ensure that we achieve that aim in a way that is fair to all sides. I know that fee payers will be concerned about a change that is likely to see fee income rise overall. However, the fact is that licensing fees have not been increased, even for inflation, since the Licensing Act 2003 came into force in 2005.

The new clause does not represent a change of principle. The current fees are supposed to cover the legitimate costs of licensing authorities in discharging their functions under the 2003 Act. However, there has been widespread agreement for some time that they do not achieve that. The previous Government recognised the problem, and promised an independent review of their proposed fees as early as 2004. The independent panel published its report, known as the Elton report, in December 2006. The recommendations included an increase in fees, but no action was taken. Therefore, the question for this Government is not whether the situation needs to be addressed, but how best to address it.

We could set the fees centrally again, which would have the advantage of providing consistency for fee payers. However, I have chosen to move to set fees locally because I consider that it may be difficult to achieve a close approximation to full cost recovery with nationally set fees. Different areas do not have the same costs, and it is unavoidable that a blanket fee level would leave some councils with a deficit or provide an excessive income to others. No system is ideal, but as a matter of principle, council tax payers in areas with higher costs should not subsidise the administration of the licensing regime, and fee payers in lower-cost areas should not fund wider council activities.

Fee payers should be reassured that locally set fees will not mean that licensing authorities can set whatever fees they like. First, they will only set the level of the fee. They will not be permitted to design new fees or their own fee structure; nor will they be able to use licensing fees as an income stream. The only basis on which they will be able to set fees is to recover their costs in discharging their functions under the 2003 Act. I will issue guidance to local authorities on the setting of fees, including statutory guidance under section 182 of the 2003 Act. To ensure that costs are kept to appropriate levels, that will include guidance on the principles of good regulation, including risk-based and targeted inspection.

To provide further reassurance to fee payers, there will be a nationally set cap on fee levels. Under the new clause, that is provided for by the ability of the Secretary of State to apply constraints to the licensing authority’s ability to set fees. I intend that the level of the cap will be set in regulations after consultation. The consultation will contain a detailed impact assessment of the proposal.

In short, this measure is an important step towards ensuring that the Licensing Act 2003 works as it was intended to work, with fees fully funding licensing authorities’ administration of the Act.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

As the Minister pointed out, we debated this issue in the Public Bill Committee on the basis of an Opposition amendment. I am pleased, because he has obviously listened carefully to the arguments that we made. The Opposition were clearly championing the localism agenda, which I know is close to the heart of the coalition Government, so I am pleased that they have decided, at this late stage, to bring forward an amendment of their own on the issue.

We have heard from local government that since 2005, when the regulations of the Licensing Act 2003 were implemented, the licensing system has cost council tax payers more than £100 million more than was anticipated because of the centrally set fee structure. As the Minister said, that structure does not allowing licensing authorities to set cost-neutral local charges.

As the Minister pointed out, the Government had indicated that they were considering giving licensing authorities the power to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery. I am sure that there has been considerable interdepartmental wrangling on this issue, and that that is why the new clause has been brought forward rather late in the day on Report. A number of trade organisations, the Local Government Association and others were concerned to see the original clause in the Bill, so no doubt they will be pleased to see this new clause. However, I wish to raise a number issues with the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

This has been a useful debate, and I welcome the contributions from the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind comments and thank him for his support and participation in Committee—and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson).

Obviously, new clause 1 relates to the general setting of licensing fees and the administration of the Licensing Act 2003 locally, rather than to the late-night levy. I recognise the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon has just raised, and perhaps we will debate the late-night levy in further detail when we debate another group of amendments in this part of our consideration of the Bill.

The late-night levy is a discretionary arrangement, so local authorities can decide whether one is appropriate in their area. The Government have indicated that there could be exemptions for establishments that make arrangements under schemes such as Best Bar None. Further detail will come forward in regulations and guidance, as I indicated in Committee, which I hope my hon. Friend accepts.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned in an intervention the business improvement district in Broad street, Birmingham, which I have had the pleasure to visit. I saw how that partnership-type approach of drawing together the relevant licensed premises and other businesses to provide funds to look after and manage the area. A sad and tragic occurrence led to the establishment of that business improvement district, but it is a good example of how partnership working involving the police, the local authority, licensed premises and other businesses can work.

The Government do not seek to prescribe one specific model of partnership or how partnerships operate, or to say how a local authority should approach its management of licensing-related issues. Those things can be done in various ways, including through a business improvement district, a late-night levy, an early morning restriction order or voluntary arrangements such as community alcohol projects. I went to see the St Neots project when that started, and it is now being rolled forward. We support many such consensual voluntary arrangements whereby various parts of business work with local councils to come up with innovative, practical solutions to address problems on the ground.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and others highlighted a number of specific points in relation to new clause 1. As she said, the previous Government tasked the independent fees review panel with consideration of the deficit between the costs and income of licensing authorities. In 2006, it estimated that a 7% increase in fee income was necessary for full cost recovery. Obviously, important points were made in the course of that review and, as I indicated, it was first and foremost in our considerations in introducing the new clause. The Government did not suddenly alight on the new clause at the last moment. Indeed, the original consultation document, which we published last summer, clearly refers to fees. In addition, full cost recovery was very much part and parcel of the consultation, to which we are therefore responding.

We will issue statutory guidance under section 182 of the 2003 Act on the application of good regulation, including risk assessment and targeted inspection, to which licensing authorities must have regard. That will be important as a further framework to the structure of the new arrangements.

Hon. Members mentioned burdens on business. We are obviously cognisant of statements in the recent Budget and the intention to introduce a moratorium to exempt micro and start-up businesses from new domestic regulation. There will be exemptions from the moratorium, and we will obviously need to consider the new licensing legislation, including locally set fees, within that framework. However, I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North that there is a clear need to address the gap highlighted in the Elton report. It does not seem right for local authorities effectively to subsidise the processing and activities of the 2003 Act when dealing with licensing arrangements, and I shall say more about that.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the Minister therefore confirm that the one-in, one-out principle will not apply in relation to the Bill, which certainly places a range of regulatory burdens on business?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady actually made that point in Committee. The Government take one-in, one-out seriously. Regulatory burden was considered closely and carefully during the approvals that led up to the Bill, as part of our broader consideration of the wider arrangements concerning burdens on business. We want to strip away things that are not needed, bureaucratic and unnecessary, but we will come to that in due course when we consider the next group of amendments, which relate to alcohol disorder zones, which clearly have not worked, because no one has taken them up. We obviously consider the new clause to be an important step towards getting the right balance.

The hon. Lady mentioned periodically reviewing the maximum fee level. That is certainly something that we will do. As I said in my opening comments, we also intend to consult properly on the details of the proposals, so that we can take on board the different opinions. There will, therefore, be an opportunity for a number of these matters to be considered further. The hon. Lady asked about the time scale for that. We anticipate that the necessary regulations will be laid in October 2012 to allow that detailed consultation to take place. That is the time scale we are working to in the laying of the relevant regulations. She also asked about guidance. There will be guidance on how locally set fees will operate and on how to set the fees. It is important that there is transparency on how this is undertaken—in many ways, that reflects the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon—and clarity on how the fees will be set locally.

A question was asked about what the assessment for setting fees locally will include and what full cost recovery will encapsulate. The new clause makes it clear that the costs that a licensing authority may recover in its fees include those of other responsible authorities and other relevant parts of the licensing authority. That means that marginal costs that relate to duties arising from the Licensing Act can be included. However, policing costs would not be included. In other words, we are looking at the administration of the Act by the relevant local authority. That is how the new clause has been framed. Obviously, however, further consideration of the details can take place as part of the consultation as we move towards introducing the regulations that will sit behind this provision. That also applies to the necessary guidance that will help to inform the framing of the arrangements. Obviously, fees must not represent a blank cheque for local authorities, and fee payers need to be reassured of that. As I have said, a maximum level for each fee will be set in regulations. We will consult formally on the level before we introduce it, and will take evidence from a variety of authorities and fee payers to ascertain the satisfactory maximum sum for each fee.

I hope that I have addressed hon. Members’ comments made during the debate. I also hope that all hon. Members will recognise that this is a sensible proposal, that we have listened to representations made from different quarters and that this provision will deal with the shortfall for local authorities. We are introducing the measure in a considered way, recognising the pressures on local authorities and businesses, and we believe that it is appropriate. We consulted on the new clause last August, and I hope that hon. Members will be minded to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Alcohol disorder zones: repeal

‘Sections 15 to 20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (alcohol disorder zones) are repealed.’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

It would be fair to say that it probably was not the biggest selling point of the policy to have that tag attached to a local area. It was probably, therefore, one of the disincentives. However, the problem had more to do with the levels of bureaucracy, including the impact of making some of the extremely challenging calculations necessary. I do not think that any local authority has felt brave enough to come forward. The Government are committed, therefore, to reducing the burden. The tools and powers available to local authorities must be simple to adopt and proportionate to the problem. Early morning restriction orders, for example, will, by stopping the sale of alcohol, be a simple way for local authorities to tackle specific problems at specific times and on specific days. That is something that we recognise and have taken forward in the Bill. We have sought to apply a more flexible approach through early morning restriction orders.

The late-night levy will be an optional power for local authorities to raise a contribution to the large policing costs incurred in the late-night economy, as well as supporting costs of local authorities in managing the late-night economy. The levy has been specifically designed to be simple for licensing authorities to adopt. We considered the repeal of alcohol disorder zones in our public consultation last year. The responses overwhelmingly supported repeal. Local authorities and the police spoke of the evidential burden, while businesses identified the policy as ineffective. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that alcohol disorder zones should no longer be on the statute book. I therefore ask that the new clause be incorporated in the Bill so that we can finally put this failed policy to rest.

[Diana Johnson]

Clearly, the new clause is a housekeeping matter for the Government in tidying up licensing legislation. I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on the need for simplicity and a proportionate response to alcohol problems late at night. However, I do not think that the blanket approach being adopted under the late-night levy is proportionate. I would caution the Minister. Let us consider a large area of the country such as the East Riding of Yorkshire. If the local authority was minded to apply a late-night levy to the whole of the East Riding, small country pubs with no problems would have to pay the levy as well as places in more built-up areas, such as Bridlington, that do have problems late at night. The Government’s approach through the late-night levy might almost be described as the son of the alcohol disorder zones.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that the club that people end up in will sometimes not be where they start consuming alcohol? In fact, they might not even have a drink there, but that can be where the problem occurs.

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, when it comes to licensing, one disappointing aspect of the Bill is the failure to deal with pre-loading and the low cost of alcohol in supermarkets. This Bill would have been an opportunity for the Government to legislate to deal with those issues, and there is concern that they seem to have missed it.

I am concerned that businesses that already contribute to voluntary arrangements—they include Pubwatch and Best Bar None, to which hon. Members have referred—may feel penalised if they are then asked to make contributions to the late-night levy as well. There is also concern that because the provision will affect only licensed premises that sell alcohol, it will not deal with, say, problems with late-night takeaways. If the Minister is minded to do so, it would be worth considering whether the late-night licence should include all parts of the late-night economy. That would seem to be the fairest way of dealing with the issue.

[Dr Huppert]

I am delighted to support new clause 2. It would remove sections 15 to 20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which were totally ineffective and did not work. I suggest that those provisions were also slightly tokenistic. Indeed, the previous Government fell into the trap of doing a lot of things that were token demonstrations. It is an easy trap to fall into, and I do not think that doing things for tokenistic reasons was unique to the last Government. I hope that this Government will learn the lesson of not doing things because they look good, but will continue to make great efforts to ensure that whoever forms the next Government will not have the same things to say about us.

One of the lessons learned about why those provisions were ineffective is set out in clause 125(4), which deals with the late-night levy requirement. That lesson, which has just been discussed, is how we draw the boundaries of an area. We cannot take the model of the past, which involved drawing boundaries very roughly. Therefore, the Minister decided that an area must be an entire council area, as has been said, although that causes problems in Cornwall, which is a large council area. Perhaps we should learn a slightly different lesson, which is that although we should not have complete flexibility of boundaries, we could have some flexibility. Perhaps the rule should be that we can combine entire ward areas, which would avoid the problems of the provisions that we are getting rid of, but make their replacement work a little better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

It has been interesting to listen to the practical experiences of the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). Given his practical business experience, what does the hon. Member for North Swindon think about the possibility of having a late-night levy and an early morning restriction order operating at the same time?

[Justin Tomlinson]

There would be obvious challenges. For example, if a local authority decided to charge any venue open after midnight a late-night levy but made it close at 12.15, that would not give it an opportunity to generate enough additional income to pay for the late-night levy. My proposal would be to bring the local authority, the police and the late-night venues together to discuss the matter. No venue will openly say that it wants to pay a late-night levy, because it adds an extra cost to its bottom line, but if that money were seen to be spent on improving the safety and enjoyment of the vast majority of people, allowing them to get home safely and quickly after a night out, they would be more likely to go out again and spend money.

I am trying to strike a balance between being proactively supportive of people going out and enjoying themselves and considering those who have to deal with the minority who cause problems. To ensure that this works, I would make it compulsory for those responsible for running venues—the managers, the keyholders, the licence holders—to sit round the table with the local authority, the licensing people and the police. This practice can encompass schemes such as Best Bar None and Pubwatch, and approaches that bar troublemakers from all the venues in an area if they cause trouble in just one. In that way, the vast majority who go out to enjoy themselves on Friday and Saturday nights will have their experience enhanced, and the industry will benefit because its perception and reputation will be greatly improved.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I think I made it clear in Committee that in those circumstances we would allow people to change their licence conditions to avoid the levy. Temporary event notices for specific issues would be considered under the TENs regime.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the Minister confirm that if a pub or venue operates just once in a year for which the late-night licence after midnight or 1 am applies, it will be subject to a late-night levy? Will the Government consider allowing, say, five or 10 opportunities for a pub to open during the year before the late-night levy kicks in?

[James Brokenshire]

Again, I think I said in Committee that we would want to look at such issues in the detail of the regulations. There are some specific points, as I said in Committee, that it would be appropriate to examine further. As part of that, we would want to give flexibility to encapsulate the schemes we have debated this afternoon—the Best Bar None and other voluntary schemes—so that some credit could be applied. I stress that the provisions are intended to be flexible, but if it became clear that the levy was not effective, at that stage—once implementation has taken place and an appropriate period had elapsed—it would be appropriate, as with any measure, to review it. We believe, however, that the provisions already have the required flexibility and are workable, and that they will not have the same bureaucratic problems as alcohol disorder zones. We believe that they are an important means of aiding the management and control of the late-night economy, many areas of which have been badly affected by the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, without necessarily taking account of the consequences that have occurred.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

On the venue-specific point, if there are problems, a review of licensed premises can be conducted. That is also why we included provisions to strengthen the enforcement of the laws against under-age sales.

Can problems with pre-loading, post-loading and so forth be pinned down to one specific area or not? We think that setting the levy on a time basis is fair and equitable, involving the provision of funding for local authorities to look at taxi marshals and manage the late-night economy in its broadest sense. By narrowing it down, the provision might start to lose some of the intent behind it, which is to help the police and local authorities to manage the late-night economy—if that is what they choose to do. I remind hon. Members that this is a discretionary power for local authorities to determine.

[Diana Johnson]

The Minister has made it clear again that this is a discretionary power that local authorities can exercise, but he has also made it clear that there were no alcohol disorder zones, so I wonder how many local authorities he expects to apply the late-night levy. That knowledge will help us to gauge its success in the future.

[James Brokenshire]

Strangely enough, this Government do not believe in central targets. The hon. Lady tempts me down that path, but I have to say that I have no specific target. I refer her to the regulatory impact assessment, which she will have read assiduously, as it sets out the level of fees forecast. The regulatory impact assessment sought to examine possible options and estimate what might be recovered by the late-night levy. Rather than count up the number of local authorities, however, I point her to that assessment. We hope it will be successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes some powerful points, which bring us neatly back to the subject of alcohol disorder zones. I do not think that they met the tests that my hon. Friend has just identified. For that reason, we think it right to end a policy that sadly became an alcohol disarray zone, given the challenges that stood in the way of its being brought to fruition. We believe that there is merit in providing local authorities and the police with funds enabling them to manage the late-night economy; we believe that the right way in which to do that is through the late-night levy; and we believe that it is time to end the ADZ episode, which has clearly been a failure.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.



New Clause 3

General duties of licensing authorities

‘(1) The Licensing Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 4 (General duties of licensing authorities) insert—

(a) protecting and improving public health.”.’.—(Diana Johnson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Licensing Act 2003 sets out the four licensing objectives that must currently be taken into account when a local authority carries out its licensing functions: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. The new clause would introduce a fifth objective: to protect and improve public health. We tabled it to deal with three key issues. First, there is the fact that public health is far more prominent and talked about than ever before. Secondly, there is the role of primary care trusts and, in future, local authorities, which is relevant to clause 104. Thirdly, there is the current position in Scotland.

Let me explain first why we think the issue of public health is so important. As an Opposition spokesman, the Secretary of State for Health made clear his strong commitment to it. So committed was he that he planned to rename the Department of Health “the Department of Public Health” if the Conservatives came to power. Obviously that has not happened, but the Secretary of State is very busy with his Health and Social Care Bill, and we know that he is trying to rename the NHS “the HS”—to get rid of the “national”.

The widespread view is that there is a proper role for Government in the promotion of good public health. We know from the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill that one of the few budgets that will be ring-fenced in future is the public health money that will pass from the PCTs to local authorities in 2013. However, the Government have experienced big problems in their approach to public health. This month we have seen the fall-out from their stance on self-regulation by the drinks industry through the responsibility deal. A number of health groups have walked away from the discussions and the agreement, including the British Heart Foundation.

Don Shenker, the chief executive of Alcohol Concern, made clear his view that the Government’s approach to public health will not work. He said that the responsibility deal was

“the worst possible deal for everyone who wants to see alcohol harm reduced”,

and that it had no sanctions to impose if the industry failed to fulfil its pledges. He described those pledges as “half-hearted”,

and that the

“government has clearly shown that when it comes to public health its first priority is to side with big business and protect private profit.”

Let us consider what has already been said about this issue, and the action that the Government have taken so far. Yesterday the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) presented a ten-minute rule Bill to restrict the marketing of alcohol to children and young people. She made a telling point in expressing concern about the fact that the Government were putting the fox in charge of the chickens. They have, for instance, set their face against the idea of making personal, social and health education compulsory. That would have provided an excellent opportunity for young people to be taught about the effects of alcohol and the long-term health consequences of drinking too much.

In January, the Minister set out the coalition Government’s plans in relation to minimum pricing. He said that they wanted alcohol to be sold at the level of duty plus VAT. Many people, including representatives of many health organisations, have pointed out that that will have little effect on the price of alcohol in supermarkets, many of which will continue to sell alcohol that is cheaper than bottled water. It also contradicts the view of Liam Donaldson, the former chief medical officer, that there should be a minimum price of 50p per unit.

[Dr Huppert]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady can help me, given that I am a new Member, by reminding me what the minimum price was under the last Government.

[Diana Johnson]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, because he pays close attention to these issues, there has been a continuing debate for some time about the need to reach a conclusion that everyone considers appropriate. The problem with the announcement from the coalition Government is that it is causing most people to think that it will have no effect at all.

I know that the hon. Gentleman sets great store by academic research and evidence. According to research carried out by Sheffield university, pricing measures will only be significantly effective from around the 40p per unit mark. It is feared that the coalition Government’s preferred level will be not 40p but much lower, and that they have missed the opportunity to make significant strides in dealing with the problem of alcohol abuse.

As I pointed out during a previous debate, the Bill contains no provisions dealing with minimum pricing, and I think most people would consider that a great shame. We were looking forward to legislation shortly after the announcement in January. The Government are clearly in some disarray when it comes to public health and alcohol, but the new clause offers them a real opportunity to reassert their commitment to improving public health and dealing with some of the public health problems associated with alcohol. We believe that we are helping them to achieve what I am sure all Members agree is the very proper aim of ensuring that alcohol-related problems are dealt with properly by the House. Therefore, if the Government were to add in health and this further objective in respect of licensing, it would show that they are serious about the problem of public health, and it would also deal with the problems they have faced since taking office last May.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

That was an interesting contribution from the hon. Lady. She said that she felt public health had been ignored for a long time, but she made a slight mistake by highlighting that. That is why I am delighted that my colleagues in the Department of Health are taking this matter seriously in their approach to Public Health England, which is giving proper attention to public health. It is a shame that the hon. Lady made those comments because we have had a reasonable debate and she unfortunately decided to make more partisan attacks during that contribution. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves of how we reached this point on the accident and emergency issues and of all the pressures that are brought to bear on our health service and on the police. The vibrant café culture had been promised and written up as part of the reforms introduced by the Licensing Act 2003, but it failed to materialise. That is why we are taking steps in this Bill to address licensing issues.

I agree with the hon. Lady that public health issues are involved here and that there is merit in making health a material consideration in the 2003 Act. The Government stated that in their response to the “Rebalancing the Licensing Act” consultation, which contained a specific consultation point on the matter, and we committed to considering the best way to take this issue forward. However, my view is that the issue requires further consideration, alongside wider Government work, to address the harm alcohol causes to health.

It is important to highlight the fact that the Bill has sought to bring certain changes into effect, such as enabling primary care trusts, as health bodies, to make representations. Health bodies have a clear interest in the existing 2003 Act objectives of “public safety” and “crime reduction”, as illustrated in: alcohol-related accident and emergency attendances; ambulance journeys following road traffic accidents and other accidents; glassing and other injuries; alcohol poisoning cases and so on. That directly relates to how those health bodies are able to make representations under the Bill. Drunken accidents and injuries comprise a high proportion of accident and emergency attendances—the estimate is up to 70% on Saturday nights. When added to ambulance costs, they cost the NHS about £1.1 billion a year, so this is a legitimate focus for licensing.

[Diana Johnson]

Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that we get the best possible policy on alcohol and public health—we all have an interest in doing that—but can the Minister explain to me what he expects the PCT to provide on an individual licence application? A lot of bureaucracy will be involved if the individual licence application has to involve accident and emergency statistics. Are they what he expects the PCT to provide?

[James Brokenshire]

In some areas, NHS organisations already share anonymised A and E data with the police. Such intelligence can highlight where violent incidents occur and any hot-spot premises, thus supporting police representations at licensing hearings and wider law enforcement. Making local health bodies responsible authorities will encourage the effective collection and sharing of anonymised A and E data and other robust and targeted evidence for licensing authorities to consider.

The hon. Lady specifically asked how the role of local authorities will be managed in the context of Public Health England. She will be well aware that licensing authorities become responsible authorities under the Bill and are therefore able, in essence, to make their own representations. Obviously, different functions are carried out by different parts of the local authority, as happens in planning. The licensing committee is able to consider applications and relevant legislative issues, so there is a broad read-across in how a local authority is able not only to make representations but to determine things. A local licensing panel will have an almost quasi-judicial role in that situation, as does a planning authority.

I want to return to some of the hon. Lady’s other points.

--- Later in debate ---

On pricing, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), we have announced that we intend to ban below-cost sales, setting at the level of duty plus VAT. That is an important first step in setting out a framework that we can evaluate and work from, so I see it as an important first step in dealing with the impact of alcohol prices on public health and on crime and disorder. These are complex issues, which is why it is important to do things in a measured way.

[Diana Johnson]

The Minister announced in January his intention to legislate on minimum pricing. Can he update us on when those measures will come before the House?

[James Brokenshire]

We are considering this matter very carefully so that it is introduced in a less bureaucratic and a straightforward way. We will put further proposals before the House in due course because this is something we are committed to. Having made the announcement, we will be following through on this. It is important to ban below-cost sales and introduce the duty-plus-VAT measure that we announced at the start of the year. The Government are committed to following through on that.

The Government have already made provision in the Bill to make primary care trusts and local health bodies responsible authorities. That will ensure that local health bodies can influence licensing determinations by making representations based on local health evidence such as accident and emergency statistics. Those representations will need to be linked to existing licensing objectives to be relevant. Health bodies have a clear interest in the existing Licensing Act objectives, as I have mentioned, so we think it is an important step to recognise their role in that way.

For the reasons I have given, I ask the Opposition not to press the new clause and to allow the Government to examine this issue further and learn from the evidence and experience that is emerging from elsewhere. We can then consider what is the best way of legislating to make public health a material consideration within the licensing process, thereby recognising the points that have been made this afternoon and, equally, that this is a complex area. Doing things effectively and in the right way is the best course of action.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his warm words about looking at public health and alcohol and I hope that we will see some more action on this. On minimum pricing, I am concerned that the announcement was back in January but I think there is genuine willingness to move forward on this. I have set out my concerns that the minimum pricing level that the coalition has announced is not high enough, but if we are going to do this, let us get on and do it. I do not quite understand why there is delay, because the coalition has made its announcement and stated its position. I listened to the Minister’s comments about the time frame, but “in due course” can mean quite a few things in the House of Commons, so I will certainly be looking to see what progress is made, because it is time to get on with this.

It is disappointing that the Bill does not address the issues of pre-loading and the concerns that people are expressing up and down the land about the low cost of alcohol in supermarkets. I am keen to work positively with the coalition on this important issue and I strongly hope that there will be real progress in the coming months. I hope also that the health organisations that have walked away from the responsibility deal negotiations can be brought back in and reassured that there is genuine commitment on the part of the coalition to deal with health and alcohol issues. On the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move amendment 22,  page 87, line 26, leave out ‘authorisations’ and insert

‘premises licences and club premises certificates’.

[James Brokenshire]

These are minor amendments to the late-night levy clauses in part 2 that clarify the effect of the provisions. To avoid possible misinterpretation, the Bill should use consistent terminology. Amendments 22 and 30 intend to achieve that end. Amendments 26 and 27 amend clause 133 merely by making it clear that if licensing authorities amend the categories of premises in their area that benefit from an exemption or reduction in their levy liability for a subsequent year there may already be none as well as one or more premises in those categories for the existing year.

Amendments 28 and 29 remove a drafting error in clause 133 and clarify the basis on which licensing authorities must ensure that any exemption or reduction categories that apply in their areas in a subsequent year accord with the categories prescribed in regulations. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 ensure that local authorities do not suffer a burden in introducing the late-night levy. They do not change the intention underlying the levy, nor do they change the burden on business.

The Bill as it stands allows licensing authorities to deduct the costs that they incur in the “collection, administration or enforcement” of the levy from the levy revenue. However, it has become clear that that phraseology, including the reference to administration, does not include the specific costs of introducing the levy. A licensing authority will need to carry out a number of administrative procedures before collecting the levy. First, it will hold a consultation on the way in which it wishes to operate the levy. That is an important process, and it ensures that the community’s opinions are heard. Following a decision to adopt the levy, the licensing authority will announce its intentions. Some businesses will decide that they do not open long enough in the levy period to make it worth while to pay it. To avoid the levy, those businesses will be able to make a free change to their licence. However, that means that licensing authorities must process the licence variations without recovering costs. Amendments 22, 23, 24 and 25 will ensure that licensing authorities can deduct the costs of those introductory processes from the levy revenue.

I do not want the levy to become a burden on licensing authorities. It has always been my intention that it should be self-funding while raising a significant amount of money for the police and other organs of local government. The amendments ensure that that is the case. Let me reiterate that the amendments will have no further impact on business. We have published indicative levy charges, which will remain the same. To make some simple clarifications and to ensure licensing authorities bear no burden as a result of the late-night levy, I urge the House to accept the amendments.

[Diana Johnson]

May I ask the Minister to clarify a few points? There will be a number of changes to the licensing provisions in the months and years to come, and I should be grateful if he set out his intentions on whether additional support or resources will be provided for local authorities when those new schemes are adopted. For instance, will additional financial resources be made available to assist local authorities with the late-night levy and early morning restriction orders in ensuring that information is provided to businesses? Clear guidance should be issued about what that will mean for businesses.

We have held a number of short debates about the late-night levy and the possibility that operating just one night a year can make a business liable for the levy. Businesses are often busy just trying to operate on a daily basis without having to get to grips with the minutiae of new legislation. Will the Minister set out what the Home Office intends to do to ensure that businesses are fully acquainted with the requirements of the new legislation and exactly what it will mean for them? Costs can be deducted from the late-night levy if someone has participated in the consultation on whether to have a late-night levy. Will that all be set out in a clear and transparent way so that businesses understand exactly why they will have to pay a certain amount? Setting things out in a clear format that is easy to understand will be the key to ensuring that the new licensing provisions operate well. If the other amendments in the group are intended just to tidy up the legislation and make it read more smoothly, my only question is on how the operation of getting information out to businesses would be provided.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Her point on guidance is relevant. As I have indicated, as part of the implementation of the late-night levy it is intended that guidance would be drawn up on the process and that it would deal with some of the detail in regulations on the issues I have already highlighted. [Interruption.] I have only started and already the hon. Lady wants me to give way.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the guidance provided on that basis be statutory guidance, or guidance that can be ignored?

[James Brokenshire]

I am not sure that guidance can be ignored. It is intended to be of assistance in the implementation of the proposals on the late-night levy. The key element that the hon. Lady has highlighted relates to costs and resourcing. We are bringing forward some of these changes to ensure that licensing authorities can take account of the set-up costs relating to the late-night levy, which might otherwise be an issue. We think that it is important to introduce the amendment to ensure that, as with the different examples I have already given, there are no unintended consequences and that, if we are seeking to ensure that costs are properly attributed, that is built into the structure of the late-night levy.

The hon. Lady made a general point on transparency and how costs are to be drawn up. That is a fair point which I take on board, and we will work through that in detail on implementation so that businesses are clear about the calculation and which costs will be brought into effect for the deduction. It is worth saying, however, that it is a deduction and the levy itself is a fixed figure; we are talking simply about what is being deducted and the 70:30 split, with which she will be familiar. In some ways that relates to our previous debate on the general licensing fees and the costs that can be attributed for the maintenance of the Licensing Act. Some of her comments may be addressed in that direction as well.

Clearly, we want to ensure that the late-night levy is a success. We want local authorities to come forward with it. We believe that allowing the set-up costs is an important part of ensuring that the levy operates well and does not have unintended consequences. That will ensure—this reflects some of the comments in the preceding debate—that the levy will be used by local authorities, will be useful and will contribute to managing the late-night economy and dealing with some of the challenges we have heard about this afternoon. That is why we believe that the Bill and its provisions on the late-night levy mark an important step forward in assisting local communities and local authorities to manage the problems of alcohol and the late-night economy. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be minded to support the amendment.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Clause 130

Net amount of levy payments

Amendments made: 23, page 89, line 20, leave out from ‘of’ to ‘may’ in line 22 and insert ‘relevant expenses which’.

Amendment 24, page 89, line 23, leave out third ‘the’ and insert ‘any’.

Amendment 25, page 89, line 28, at end insert—

‘(2A) In subsection (2)(a), “relevant expenses” means expenses incurred by a licensing authority in the administration of the late night levy requirement including, in particular, such expenses incurred in, in connection with or in consequence of—

(a) any decision mentioned in section 134(1);

(b) collection of payments of the late night levy;

(c) enforcement of the late night levy requirement.

(2B) Expenses incurred by a licensing authority which fall within subsection (2A)(a) include, in particular, expenses which it incurs in connection with any application made by virtue of section 134(2)(c).’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 133

Amendment of late night levy requirement

Amendments made: 26, page 90, line 38, leave out ‘different’ and insert ‘any’.

Amendment 27, page 90, line 39, after ‘apply’, insert

‘in addition to any that currently apply, or to cease to apply,’.

Amendment 28, page 91, line 7, leave out 'by virtue of section 132(1)(b) or (iii)'

and insert

‘as the result of a relevant decision’.

Amendment 29, page 91, line 11, at end insert—

‘( ) In subsection (4)(b), “relevant decision” means a decision under—

(a) section 132(1)(b)(ii) or (iii), or

(b) subsection (1)(c) of this section.’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 135

Permitted exemption and reduction categories

Amendment made: 30, page 92, line 41, leave out from ‘all’ to ‘that’ in line 42 and insert

‘holders of relevant late night authorisations in’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 140

Demonstrations in vicinity of Parliament: repeal of SOCPA 2005 provisions