| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke about exemptions and derogations. Of the 60-odd exemptions granted to trains and trams in public use, some 40 or so were granted in the period 1999 to 2002, which reflects the fact that many vehicles had already been designed or were being manufactured at the time when our work was being introduced. Those vehicles were built mainly in compliance with the regulations, but in particular cases time-limited exemptions were granted to enable the vehicles to enter service, replacing far less accessible vehicles, while certain non-compliance issues were resolved. The noble Lord made a point about exemptions. I understand the concern, but one needs to qualify it with a realistic look at the content of some of those exemptions and the impact on users. The user is the important element.
I think I have answered most of the points. If I have not, I shall be happy to take further questions. We gave this very careful thought and consideration. I understand the concerns, but we are not in a bad place. One has to remember that the endgame is to raise the threshold, the standards, the bar, which is exactly what we are trying to achieve. We have made a great deal of progress in that objective.
Lord Addington: The real problem is how to report back. Parliament has taken an interest in this over the years. It has been an ongoing saga. The Government may well be doing it properly, but the reporting process to Parliament about what is happening—this was actually my child—concerns me. Something has been happening. Parliament has been doing it, but if at least some parliamentary attention could be brought to it in some way, I would be a lot happier.
Lord Bassam of Brighton:Under Section 67B of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was inserted as a result of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, we are obliged to report to Parliament on the making of the RVAR exemption orders, so there is already a reporting obligation. Perhaps we could commit to reporting on the use of the exemption powers so far as they relate to rail vehicle accessibility on the interoperable rail system. There is a facility for us to do exactly that. I was going to make the point that the consultation processes that we go through alert stakeholders to these issues. There is also the obligation in terms of making the exemption order. I guess that we just have
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC369
Lord Addington: That was the bit that I was thinking about. I think it was at my instigation that we actually got it. I simply want to be sure that we will ensure that this will still be reported on and debated in Parliament, and that all the new processes will be brought into the existing structure. If they are, some of my worries are removed because we still have a way of checking and holding someone to account if this goes wrong. That is really what I am after. If the Minister undertakes to ensure that everything will be done to ensure that this safeguard is there, I will feel better about this. It must be there because, despite the previous convictions of the Government—indeed, of all Governments—they stand accused of having been rather too blasé in the past. We need some safeguard in the future.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to give my personal assurance that we will do all that we can to ensure that the reporting process is properly workable. I will write to participants in this debate on how we might achieve that. What I like about this as a parliamentarian is that there is a degree of rigour to it, but there is also a degree of flexibility. I am sure that we are all trying to ensure that standards are raised appropriately so that we can make our public transport system the most accessible in the world. That is what we all want to achieve.
Lord Berkeley: I listened very carefully to the Minister, and I am grateful for what he said, but I remain slightly worried. If there is a conflict between the two sets of regulations, which will run in parallel, it would be good to have his assurance that if someone developed a new train that could be operated in the UK, France and Germany—in other words, if it was interoperable, which is the whole purpose of the TSIs—it will not have a different set of regulations when it comes into the UK that will somehow be illegal in France. I became involved a long time ago with the development of a freight wagon, which had to have two separate sets of brakes, one of which operated in the UK, called a disc brake, and another one that operated on the Continent, which is a drum brake. You had to have two types of brakes in order to operate across one frontier. That is the whole point of a TSI; it should be Europe-wide. I hope that what my noble friend has said about the regulations will help to sort out the matter, but I am not entirely convinced that some train operators will not be upset and start taking legal action. I hope that that does not happen, because that would be very unfortunate.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It would be extremely unfortunate. I cannot believe that sensible train operators would want to do that. It would not enhance their reputation, and I do not believe that our train operators are in the business of doing that. They want a good reputation in this area. In any event, it is good for business because it widens the potential passenger base.
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC370
I commit to setting out in the same note that I will send to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, how we think this will work. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is a practical rail man, and that he will address the issue in practical terms and ensure that people can comprehend this. I hope that I have answered noble Lords’ questions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2008
4.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2008.
The noble Lord said: It will make sense to take the two orders together and for me to speak also to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Disclosure of Information by SOCA) Order 2008. I hope that Members of the Committee have had the opportunity to read the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies these two related orders. As I will explain, the policy behind these orders is straightforward and purely consequential due to amendments made by the recent Serious Crime Act 2007 to provisions relating to recovering the proceeds of crime. I hope, therefore, we can be brief, as I contend that the nature of these orders is not controversial. Perhaps the real aid I can provide to the Committee is in explaining the quite technical drafting in these orders which does nothing more than to achieve simple, consistent and continuing policy.
The recent Serious Crime Act 2007 has abolished the Assets Recovery Agency. Among other functions, the agency had been the sole body in England, Wales and Northern Ireland which could investigate and pursue the civil recovery of the proceeds of crime. Civil recovery provides for the recovery of property which has been obtained directly or indirectly through crime. These are civil proceedings before the High Court and therefore do not require a criminal conviction. Essentially, the recovery action is against the property rather than the person.
To support the agency in this work, Part 10 of the Proceeds of Crime Act provided for the disclosure of information to and by the director of the agency. Significantly, for the purposes of the matter before us, the persons who could disclose to the director of the agency and the purposes for which he could disclose information were added to by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2003. That order was subject to a debate in this House in 2003 before it came into force on 24 February 2003.
Following the abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency, its functions of investigating and pursuing civil recovery has in England and Wales effectively passed to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office.
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC371
The provisions for the disclosure of information in Part 10 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were amended by the 2007 Act to refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Equivalent amendments were also made to relevant provisions in the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 for the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 for SOCA. Importantly, the additions to the provisions for the disclosure of information made by the Proceeds of Crime 2002 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2003 were not transferred to the successor agencies by the Serious Crime Act. These are to be made by the orders before the Committee today.
The orders merely ensure that organisations which inherited the Assets Recovery Agency’s work and functions can access the same information sources that were available to the agency and can disclose the same information onwards. They also ensure that these organisations can use the information obtained to conduct investigations and proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to enable the recovery of criminally obtained assets. There is no change in policy. The orders do not cover the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office, which also inherited functions from the Assets Recovery Agency. It is covered by other legislation, has been made aware of the issue and will take any remedial action, legislative or otherwise, as necessary. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2008. 21st report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord West of Spithead.)
4.30 pm
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his introduction, although I am slightly confused. My understanding is that the orders would add to the functions of protecting public health and the Financial Services Authority. That is what the orders say, but the Minister did not give that addition. I assume that that addition under the orders is correct. If I am correct, room was left for that within the original proceeds of crime legislation and we have no objection to additions being made to it.
My first question relates to the functions being designated under the orders with regard to the protecting of public health and the functions of the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act. With regard to the public health aspect, which is new to this legislation, will the Minister give examples of where public health might be compromised by the nature of the work or what is being carried out? I would like a snapshot of how public health could be
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC372
Under Section 47 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, disclosure on matters relating to individual tax matters is confined to the commissioner of the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise. Would the same caveats apply to those authorities as apply to the Financial Services Authority? If so, who would be in the position of the commissioner? At present, in legislation, the “permitted person” is the person appointed to conduct an investigation.
Turning to the schedule, why is it that the Secretary of State should be involved in an issue relating, for example, to the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences relating to a social security matter or to checking the accuracy of any benefit payment? These would seem to be relatively trivial matters for the involvement of the Secretary of State, so what would dictate the level at which that holder of the office would become involved in disclosure? Are we to understand that we should read for “Secretary of State” anyone authorised by him or her to undertake investigations on their behalf? If so, should that not be the wording in the order?
On the designation of those who are authorised to act on behalf of the Employment Agencies Act, the Companies Act, the Financial Services and Markets Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, I note that these are termed as “authorised persons”. Can the Minister give us an indication of the likely seniority of that person in the organisation? I ask that because from a list of those currently designated under the Proceeds of Crime Act, it is clear that only commissioners are permitted to make disclosures to the director. It is of some concern that it does not seem to be the same situation in those that I have mentioned. Can the Minister reassure us about this because disclosure under this Act is a serious matter? I would be very uncomfortable if it were not done by the most senior officer in one of the listed organisations. If the Minister can answer those questions, I am happy with the order.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: By and large, we support these orders as we supported the efforts to deal with the proceeds of crime when the Act went through originally. We have recently discovered—it was widely stated in the press—that the Serious Organised Crime Agency has been suffering from a serious lack of efficiency. Can the Minister make a brief comment on that? At a time when we are delegating more powers to it, its capability and efficiency are relevant.
Were the recent, widely reported raids on safety deposit boxes, which yielded amazing and wide-ranging contents, conducted under this legislation? I presume that they were and that the fact that these orders have
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC373
On the overall issue of the performance of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Minister can expect that we will be asking serious questions about it over coming months. However, I am happy to say just that about these orders this afternoon.
Lord West of Spithead: I thank noble Lords for their typically piercing questions on some of the detail of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Disclosure of Information by SOCA) Order 2008 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2008. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked about the public health issue. The order does not add to the functions of SOCA and the directors but to the purposes for which information can be disclosed. Those purposes are the exercise of any functions of protecting public health and the function of the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. These functions were included in the 2003 order and are not new. An example in relation to public health would be that it might be used to protect health in relation to disclosing information that might come to SOCA or the directors about the illicit supply of medicinal products or that type of question.
On permitted persons, the functions of the directors and the Secretary of State can be delegated, so that a person within the department or organisation can act as, say, the Secretary of State. The question was about the level to which that will occur. I am not sure, so I shall come back in writing if there is a limit on the level. I am not sure whether that answers all the questions the noble Baroness raised. If not, I shall write to her.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about SOCA’s lack of efficiency. I think that is probably a little unfair on Sir Stephen Lander, who is running it. The last report identified areas where there could be improvements. SOCA is delivering well in some areas, but there are some gaps. They will be picked up and run with. It is important that we make it run properly because it is crucial that it achieves what it was set out to achieve. It is unfair to say that it lacks efficiency; it is just that there were shortfalls in certain areas, as one could see from its report.
On investigations that have been taking place for three or four months, no information is currently being disclosed or obtained under the powers given by the orders. Clearly, there is no power to do so. I can reassure the noble Baroness on that: as no information is being disclosed or obtained, it clearly cannot be questioned by the courts. We are safe on that point.
I am not sure that I have answered a couple of the precise questions, but I will do so in writing. Apart from those, I commend this instrument to the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC374
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Disclosure of Information by SOCA) Order 2008
4.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Disclosure of Information by SOCA) Order 2008. 21st report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord West of Spithead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2008
4.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2008.
The noble Lord said: In February 2008, we began the rollout of the points-based system. At that time, we also announced our proposals for all the immigration and nationality fees we intended to charge during 2008-09. These regulations specify the fees for the next part of the points-based system to be implemented.
The Government are determined to continue to drive through the real improvements to the immigration system that we have said that we will deliver. We will protect our border and our national interests, tackle immigration crime and implement fast and fair decisions. These fees will help contribute to us delivering the biggest shake-up to our border protection and immigration system for over 45 years.
We have made substantial progress and are seeing the results. Stronger border controls are delivering falls in annual asylum claims, which are now the lowest for 14 years. Anyone applying for a visa now has his fingerprints checked against UK databases. So far, we have enrolled 1.7 million sets of fingerprints—that is, people—detecting 1,600 cases of identity swaps. In 2007, we removed an immigration offender from this country every eight minutes. Britain is the richer for migration, culturally, socially and economically. However, if migration is to continue to bring benefits to this country, it must be carefully controlled, and we are delivering that through the continued roll-out of the points-based system.
It is right and fair to the users of the immigration system and to the general public in the UK that those who benefit most from the immigration system contribute proportionately more to the true end-to-end costs of that system. In setting current fee levels, we established the important principle of setting the fees for our
17 Jun 2008 : Column GC375
We have kept migrant fees for the next part of the points-based system to be implemented at broadly the same level as existing comparable current applications. Where we are introducing new fees for new services, we have proposed fees that reflect the benefits and entitlements of the application to the migrant or employer.
The fees for new products that are covered in the regulations being discussed today are as follows. An application under tier 1 of the points-based system for a visa as an investor or an entrepreneur will be £600. An application under tier 1 of the points-based system for leave to remain as an investor or an entrepreneur will be £750. An application under tier 1 of the points-based system for a visa in the post-study category will be £205. An application under tier 1 of the points-based system for leave to remain in the post-study category will be £400. An application under tier 2 of the points-based system for a visa will be £205. An application under tier 2 of the points-based system for leave to remain will be £400. An application for a tier 2 certificate of sponsorship will be £170. An application for a multiple tier sponsorship licence where the sponsor is not a small sponsor will be £1,000. An application for registration as a British citizen under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997 will be £400.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |