Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

We have a problem here, and we must get the balance right. I shall not press the Minister for any detailed response to the comments that I have made, but I will perhaps write to him and suggest ways in which we might be able to forge a better way forward.

[Lord Rosser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Earl Attlee]

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

--- Later in debate ---

We cannot take political action against a private operator, as we can against a local authority. We cannot put up candidates or campaign against private operators in elections. We have great powers against local authorities which misbehave or do things that we do not like—albeit we may be slow to use them—but we have no such powers against private operators and therefore we should expect the very highest standards of them. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

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

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

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

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

[Earl Attlee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I assume the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will respond. However, in view of the momentous news that the noble Earl gave us, perhaps we on these Benches may offer our sincere congratulations on what clearly was a memorable occasion.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, there can be no more romantic venue at which to meet one’s wife. I am very grateful for what my noble friend has said. To the extent that I have continuing questions, they will be swept up into the meeting already referred to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Animals: Experimentation

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I also express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Wills for enabling us to discuss this important and, on some occasions, emotive issue. We are a nation of animal lovers, and if we believe, rightly or wrongly, that animals are suffering as a result of the deliberate actions of humans, including carrying out experiments on animals, we tend to react.

In the light of the revised EU directive governing animal research being adopted, the regulation of animal research in the United Kingdom is under review, as the directive must be transposed into UK law by November 2012, with the majority of the provisions of the revised directive implemented in UK legislation from 1 January 2013. As I understand it, the mandatory standards of care and accommodation will not have to be implemented until 1 January 2017.

It was of course an earlier European directive that led to the current regulations on animal research, which have statutory force under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The 1986 Act states that animal research or testing procedures can take place only in research facilities that have been granted a certificate of designation, where the procedures are part of an approved programme that has been given a project licence, and where they are carried out by experienced and trained people who have a personal licence to undertake such activity.

The revised European directive appears to have been received with rather more enthusiasm by those who believe that our controls are too complex and strict than by those who are concerned that harmonisation on the basis of the revised directive could lead to a watering down of some of our standards on animal research and testing—to the detriment, not least, of the animals involved.

In his speech, my noble friend Lord Wills sought a number of assurances from the Government. Included among those were: an assurance, in the light of the financial cuts, that the Government will not reduce the number of Home Office inspectors or the number of inspections; an assurance that the ethical review process will not be abolished; and an assurance that the revised EU directive will not be allowed to weaken our existing standards and lead to an increase in animal suffering, including the cumulative severity of suffering. He also asked whether the Government had given consideration to amending Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act to increase transparency, and for an assurance that the Government is giving support for work on developing alternatives—in particular, to non-human primates—in research.

My noble friend referred to the Bateson review, which I believe was published in the summer, and its finding that, while in most cases the use of non-human primates was justifiable, in just under 10 per cent of cases there appeared to be no significant scientific, medical or social benefit. Among other things, the Bateson review proposed: that all applications for funding to use non-human primates should be subject to rigorous review; that there should be a full examination of the justification for choosing primates as the test species, including whether human subjects could be used as an alternative; and that the potential for using alternative approaches should be pursued. The review also stressed the ethical imperative that maximum benefit should be derived from experiments using primates and that all data should be shared, even if the results are negative, to prevent unnecessary duplication of work.

My noble friend also asked whether the Government would support the proposal in a European Commission consultation for a ban on the marketing of all cosmetics that have been tested on animals, wherever they have been produced. He also referred to the Government's own commitment to,

“work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”,

and in effect asked what decisions had been taken, and were likely to be taken, towards fulfilling that pledge.

I am sure that the Minister in his reply will be seeking to respond to the many direct questions asked by my noble friend. This is not an easy issue and no one wants to pretend that it is. Many important advances to the benefit of mankind have been achieved as a result of experiments on animals, and no doubt further much-needed advances will be achieved in the future. There is, however, a natural revulsion against any inhumane treatment of animals and there is an objection to experiments being carried out if they appear to have little or no obvious benefit. There is also a feeling that advances in science and in knowledge should result in the need to use living animals less for research; that surely should continue to be an objective.

Changes in a European directive should not lead to any lowering of our standards covering the use of animals in research. Where our standards and procedures are higher than those called for in the directive, we should, as we are entitled to do, retain those higher standards. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurances on that point and on the other issues raised by my noble friend, on a subject matter which we all accept is not straightforward but which, if not addressed by government—any Government—in a humane and careful manner is likely to increase hostile feelings. If that happens on any significant scale, as my noble friend said, we could risk losing the consent of the public for the scientific and medical research being conducted using animals, with potentially valuable research being lost. No one would want us to end up in that position.

Railways: Brighton to London Line

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 6th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

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

[Lord Rosser]

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

Railways: Thameslink Rolling Stock Contract

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

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

[Lord Rosser]

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

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

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

[Earl Attlee]

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

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenway]

I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, has just said. Having debated these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for many years, we all know where his concerns lie, particularly in regard to expenses put on the ship owner through the payment of light dues.

The convention is quite clear, as has been said, in that it will require ships over 300 gross tonnes to carry wreck removal insurance and the onus of wreck removal is firmly placed on the registered owners of those ships. The instances where a ship might fall through the net, so to speak, will be very much reduced in future. As has been said, I think the possible cost to the General Lighthouse Fund will certainly be lower.

As far as I can make out, the amendments limit the options open to the Secretary of State, compared with what he has today. The Secretary of State and his representative—SOSREP—are well known to the general lighthouse authorities. They have worked together over many years and those authorities have been marking and removing smaller wrecks for 150-odd years, so they have some experience in this matter. It would be wrong to try to bypass that experience by getting the Government to appoint independent salvers to do a job; for example, they would not necessarily have the experience of marking the wreck in the first place. There is an argument for maintaining continuity in dealing with the marking of wrecks and their possible removal by one source that is used to dealing with them.

The memorandum of understanding was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. That is certainly something where I think many of these concerns can be thrashed out. I echo what the noble Earl said in asking the Minister whether he can give us an update on how that is proceeding. As I said before, there is already close co-operation between the Government’s representative and the general lighthouse authorities. The harbour authorities are perhaps slightly different. Some of the smaller ones would not have the necessary vessels to cope with removing a wreck, but there is absolutely no question of the general lighthouse authorities using this Bill to extend their fleet with newer and larger ships. I think that that is a red herring.

I emphasise that the cost to the General Lighthouse Fund, over quite a number of years of removing wrecks, is very small. I have a figure of 0.004 per cent, and that went up to 3.2 per cent only as a result of the one-off exercise of the removal of the German First World War U-boat from the Dover Strait, when the Government required Trinity House to do that and it had to appoint separate salvage contractors.

I will mention one final point. The point of the Secretary of State being able under the Bill to direct harbour authorities or general lighthouse authorities to remove a default wreck is so that they can recover their costs. Without that direction, which in effect makes them agents of the state, they cannot recover them. That is an important point.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will make only one or two comments about the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I do so in the context of repeating that we welcome the Bill.

My noble friend raised again the issue of the possible high level of costs that might have to be borne in the event that, contrary to requirements, a ship is not insured, the insurance does not cover the full costs or there is a lengthy delay in the insurance money being paid after the costs have been incurred. I sense from what my noble friend said that this could be an issue particularly for some harbour authorities because of their financial reserves. I am aware that in the Second Reading debate, the Minister said that the Government were of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill would ensure that the risks of a shortfall in expenditure would be significantly less for bodies such as harbour authorities than they are now. The Minister referred later in the debate to a memorandum of understanding between the respective parties that would be agreed prior to the entry into force of the International Maritime Organisation's International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks.

There have been discussions already between my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. I am sure that those discussions have been both appreciated and useful. I simply ask the Minister and the noble Baroness whether there is scope for further discussions with my noble friend Lord Berkeley on the issue that he has raised, and in particular whether any wording could be incorporated in the memorandum of understanding that might at least mitigate or lessen the concerns that have been expressed on this issue by my noble friend.

Rugby Union: Twickenham Railway Station

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

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

[Lord Rosser]

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

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

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Earl Attlee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I have much sympathy with that. I do not think an agreement of this kind could be disclosed to Parliament without the agreement of both parties. I will draw the attention of the promoters to what the noble Lord has said and see whether they can secure the agreement of the sporting bodies that this should be made public before the Bill goes to a Select Committee in another place.

[Lord Rosser]

Can the noble Lord tell the House how long ago this memorandum of understanding was signed?

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

It was reached in the early part of this year. The original agreement had been left before the election. As often happens when negotiations are dragged out over a long period, new objections were made, and it was not until the beginning of this year that finally there was an agreement. Part of the agreement was that the clauses be removed and replaced by that memorandum of understanding. Nobody is in any doubt that if the sporting clubs do not negotiate agreements with the local authorities in good faith, the promoters will bring back the clauses in some form. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, they should be in no doubt that a Committee would take a fairly clear view on the merits of those clauses.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is entitled to his complaints. This has been a very long drawn out matter. One can argue about whether the promoters ought to have given in to the clubs. They clearly thought that the whole Bill might eventually fall on this basis, not just what were then Clauses 26 and 27. They will read in Hansard the criticisms that have been made, and I hope that the lesson will be learnt and this will not happen in this form again. I feel particularly sorry for the Select Committee which spent a good deal of time on this Bill only to find that its decisions had been subverted by this memorandum of understanding. I think I have gone on long enough, unless there are any points that I have missed out.

Visas: Points-based System

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on securing this debate on an issue which has provoked and continues to provoke much interest and concern, as all the contributions to this debate have highlighted.

The Motion we are considering asks the Government what assessment they have made of the points-based visa system introduced in November 2008 as it affects non-EU artists, performers, academics and others intending to work in the UK. I am sure we all wait to see whether the Minister has anything new to say on that score on behalf of the Government. There have already been assessments made, one of which, by Alasdair Murray, a senior adviser at Quiller Consultants, was helpfully provided in the briefing pack made available prior to this debate, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said. I mention that since some of my comments reflect that assessment which, I hasten to add, was not exactly uncritical of the previous Government and the 2008 points-based system.

Three years ago, the previous Government created a new points-based migration system for selecting non-EU economic migrants, under which potential immigrants can gain a work or student visa only if they meet a points test which considers a number of laid-down factors such as income, education level and language skills. The intended purpose of the points-based system was to provide an objective and transparent measure of a migrant's potential contribution to meeting the needs of this country’s economy. A points-based system was not an untried approach since Australia, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, Singapore, Hong Kong, Denmark and now the United Kingdom have all introduced one in the past 20 or so years.

The assessment by Mr Murray was that the new system had been, in some ways, a success with non-EU economic migrants having high labour market participation rates and making a net positive contribution to public spending. However, he also said that the new tier system was superficially simple, with both the previous and the present Government being,

“unable to resist continually tinkering with the system”.

In the case of the present Government, the tinkering he refers to is the commitment to a cap on non-EU economic migrants—an example of top-down state intervention in the economy and society, which the Government have claimed to be against.

A points-based system has to have rules. That, in the eyes of some, leads to inflexibility not least in respect of non-standard qualifications or expertise in the academic field and the world of the arts—areas specifically referred to in the Motion we are discussing. The present Government’s interim cap and intended permanent cap will certainly reduce the flexibility of the system since, subject to what the Minister may say, the cap is a fixed figure rather than, for example, a target range with a minimum and a maximum. Businesses and universities, as my noble friend Lord Parekh explained, are concerned that this approach to non-EU economic migration, which is an important source of expertise and highly talented staff, is giving an adverse impression of the openness of this country’s economy, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws mentioned. They are concerned that companies will decide not to invest in projects in the UK because of concerns over the availability of specially skilled staff.

With their cap on non-EU economic migrants and their objective of reducing overall migration levels to “tens of thousands”, the Government clearly want to be seen as actively discouraging migration and reducing the overall number of migrants. On the other hand, they want to maintain high-skilled migration as part of the open British economy. There appears at present to be a conflict between the two objectives, with even Ministers on record as expressing concern about the economic dangers of an inflexible cap.

Reducing overall migration levels to tens of thousands means halving net migration from its 2009 level. The Government will be dependent on a cut in non-EU economic migration to achieve this goal, even though non-EU economic migration represents just a third of all migration to the UK. Achieving the Government’s objective of reducing overall migration levels to tens of thousands is going to be dependent not on the cap on non-EU migration but on the net emigration of British citizens, which has fallen in the past few years, and the movement in and out of EU citizens, as well as the impact of the Government’s exemption from the cap of intra-company transfers, which could lead to a rise in numbers that would affect the Government’s objective of reducing overall migration levels.

The main issue with the Government’s cap is that it appears arbitrary rather than based on hard evidence that it is the figure that is in the best interests of the country economically and socially. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the evidence is that led the Government to believe that the cap they are implementing is the right figure. Will he also say what will happen if the cap is reached before the month or year concerned has ended? If it means that people who would have qualified for entry will not do so as a result, does that not create potential uncertainty and problems for employers wanting to take on non-EU staff?

The curb on tier 1 has led to complaints from science and research-based firms and institutions that Britain’s international pre-eminence in many fields and long-term competitiveness will be damaged. Do the Government share that view? If not, what is it that they consider such firms and institutions have misunderstood? An investigation by the Migration Advisory Committee showed that 90 per cent of entrants via the tier 1 general route were in employment, and 90 per cent of these were in highly skilled work.

The Government have indicated that they want to tighten the rules for the student visa system, though it appears from press reports that the Minister responsible is still “fuzzy” about how to do it. It is questionable that even a drastic cut in student numbers would lead to anything other than a short-term decline in net migration figures, since evidence suggests that the vast majority leave the country at the end of their courses; thus, over a period of five years, those leaving will closely match those coming in. However, a reduction in student numbers coming in under the student visa system is likely to reduce the student fee income at a time when higher education establishments are already facing the effects of cuts in public spending. What are the Government's intentions in this area? Do they agree with the concerns that have been expressed by higher education establishments on this score?

Concern has also been expressed by writers and other artists—as has been said, a petition was presented to the previous Government shortly before the election—about the operation of the points-based system. Discussions have continued to take place with UK Border Agency officials under the new Administration. Writers and other artists enter the United Kingdom under tier 4 for students or tier 5 for temporary workers. The argument being made by non-EU writers and other artists is that they are normally only visiting the UK for a few days or weeks, have no right to government benefits during their visit and have no impact on net migration into the UK. Yet the time taken to process an application discourages such cultural visitors from coming to this country, and examples have been quoted today of internationally acclaimed artists being denied a visa under the points-based system or simply failing to receive one in time. The UKBA has a certificate of sponsorship scheme but it is apparently regarded as bureaucratic and expensive particularly for smaller organisations.

No doubt the Minister will be commenting on that issue, and on any government plans for addressing the concerns of writers and other artists, when he responds. Perhaps he could tell the House what the figures are on the numbers of writers and other artists entering the UK before and after the introduction of the points-based system. This situation, if the Government accept that what we are told is happening is not an inaccurate picture, will do nothing to enhance the cultural life of this country, nor will it do anything for our international reputation in the creative and cultural industries that form an important sector for us, both in terms of jobs and financially. However, the fixed cap that the Government have introduced on non-EU migrants will only exacerbate the position for non-EU writers and other artists. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that aspect too.

I assume that the Government will be reflecting on the concerns expressed in this debate. They are clearly wedded to reducing net migration to “tens of thousands”. Their efforts to achieve that goal, however, with the introduction of this rigid, inflexible and damaging cap for which there is no hard evidence to justify the figure chosen, risk causing considerable harm to the British economy, not least in the areas that have been highlighted today.

Immigration: Asylum Seekers

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

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

[Lord Rosser]

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

[Earl Attlee]

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

Roads: Charging

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

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

[Lord Rosser]

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